Jupiter-21M

[kyrcy]

How is the quality of the Jupiter-21M and how does it compare to the Jupiter-37A? As a 200mm f/4 are there much better choices made in Japan?

[Pancolart]

It just depends on your priorities: you need 135mm or 200mm, both lenses are great and comparable in quality.

[uddhava]

It is a nice sharp lens with a good bokeh. Pretty darn heavy, but I find the extra weight makes it easier to hold steady.
I haven't really used it enough to compare it to my Jupiter 37AM, but that sound like it would be a good test!
I think there are a lot of good Japanese 200mm lenses though so if you can find a recommended one that is cheaper
you might want to go for that.
It can be heavy to carry around.

Edit: If you are thinking of buying the Jupiter 37A, that is a very nice lens in my opinion.

[tb_a]

The Jupiter-21M has a good reputation and delivers certainly good quality for the price. However, if you are able find a Minolta Rokkor MD 200/4 for the same price and if it would fit on your camera as well, I would rather go for the Minolta lens. This is really an outstanding performer (latest and lightest version).

[memetph]

the j21 is a very sharp lens . The 37 is sharp enough but it is about bokeh : smoooooth.

[kyrcy]

I do have a Jupiter-37A and I am asking if a Jupiter-21M is better or worse. I also worry that Jupiter-21M at almost 1kg is a heavy lens and without a mount base it will be difficult to balance when used on a tripod head.

[Attila]

Jupiter-21M simple to heavy any good brand from Japan is same good than Jupiter on half or third weight...
I love Meyer 200mm as well, Pentacon is not bad also. Jupiter 21M is may last choice.

[Oldhand]

I agree with Attila - you can find some excellent Japanese lenses as well for very little money.
Look at the Canon FD 4/200 as an example.
Outstanding results and very cheap
Some samples here
OH

http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fdn-200mm-f4-oh-my-t72441,highlight,%2Bcanon+%2B200.html

[chudy128314]

I was quite surprised with the sharpness of Jupiter 21M. It's possible to get 3d pop effect.

No post-processing, wide open, Sony NEX-6.

[RSalles]

Like this lens, heavy, but who's counting?

_MG_8885PRO2013- by Renato Salles, no Flickr


_MG_8870PRO2013 by Renato Salles, no Flickr

Both pics above taken with a monopod,

Cheers,

Renato

[Pancolart]

I love Jupiter 21M, weight is not an issue: http://forum.mflenses.com/jupiter-21m-wide-open-on-nex-fast-connection-only-t57427.html
It is all about fat glass. Pentacon 2.8/135mm front inner block on the left, Jupiter 4/200mm on the right:

[iangreenhalgh1]

All classical 135 and 200mm Sonnar types have that fat doublet in the middle, It was necessary because they didn't have modern low dispersion glass types. In later Sonnars like the T* 2.8/135 they were able to do away with the big chunk of glass and replace it with a much smaller element made of low dispersion glass.

CZJ Sonnar 4/135 with the big lump of glass:



CZ Sonnar T* 2.8/135, the big lump is split into two smaller elements:

[Pancolart]

I treasure non-modern fat glass, that stops light (and time) while traveling through .

[iangreenhalgh1]

That makes no sense.