View Full Version : what are your favourite Jupiter and Industar lens
jan normandale
10-11-2005, 21:17
I'm writing this because I'm interested in these lenses and I'm unable to find much about them except the usual 'specification' stuff. I'd like to know what the RFF users think they like best from these manufacturers. There are 90mm lenses and 135 mm lenses but I'm most interested in the lenses that are 'rangefinder' style, 50mm to 15 mm. Eloquence is encouraged and photographic proof is welcome. Bragging is okay too...
thanks, Jan
Gordon Coale
10-11-2005, 21:26
Here is a little quick an dirty comparison between a J8 and a slightly hazy Summitar, FWIW: Leitz or KMZ? (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11756) . I do like the J8!
jan normandale
10-11-2005, 22:07
interesting Gordon. I wasn't expecting a comparison of FSU lenses and German lenses. Still the quality is noteworthy. Even if the Summitar was cleaner the J8 gives a credible show of it's capabilities.
Jan
BTW ; I had a hunch you would see this thread..
If you ever decide on a 50, don't forget the Jupiter 8. I fell in love with it after trying the Industars (I-26, I-61 L/D). The J-8 is definitely the best of the bunch. The Industars are IMO to harsh.
The collapsible 50 (I-50 ?) is a sweet little lens, too, and collapses completely into my R-D1!
The J-9 85mm is as good as the J-8, only in a longer focal length.
The J-12 35mm is nice but my experience is that it flares badly.
I am currently using a J3 in my Kiev which I want to compare with the Sonnar in my IIIA, as soon as the latter gets back from its CLA, perhaps later this week (both the lens and the body are being worked over so I cannot try the Sonnar in the Kiev body). I might also try the J8 which I bought with the camera against both. I was interested to hear the comments on the J 12 with respect to flare, as one is hopefully winging its way down to Oz right now.
darkkavenger
10-12-2005, 00:50
Definitely the Jupiter-8 :)
Has anyone had a chance to compare the collapsible Industar-22 or collapsible Industar-50 (a.k.a. collapsible FED-50) and the collapsible screwmount Leitz Elmar? Is there a huge quality difference between the two?
While the I-22 is coated, it seems that coated screwmount Elmars are almost impossible to find. This would give the I-22 a slight advantage in that regard (coating helps increase contrast and reduce flare, right?), though probably the Leica glass balances it out. Opinions?
Brian Sweeney
10-12-2005, 02:38
First test roll with the "rebuilt" J3 is at BJ's, we'll see.
Until then it is the Helios-103.
J-12 flares sometimes, but not to the point of unusability.
My favorite Jupiter currently is J-9: an excellent portrait lens, smooth tones and creamy bokeh. The sample I've got was in the first 3000 batch manufactured (1955), and is just a pleasure to handle.
That said, I still use my black 1986 J-12 more often, but mainly because I prefer shorter focals in daily use. It can render good and sharp image (see my gallery), but was born with misaligned working distance. After some minor treatment it improved a lot at wider apertures. I passed on a 1951 silver J-12, but after seeing how the other 1950s lenses perform regret a lot.
J-8M I have leaves me cold, although has bokeh smoother than H-103 (my primary 50mm). The Helios however performs better in every other aspect.
My 1957 J-11 is an overall good performer, albeit not as often used as the rest of the bunch.
Among the Industars I mainly used I-23 110/4.5 on my Moskva and I-51 210/4.5 on FKD 13x18. Both can get the job done and perform great when stopped down, but are so-so at wider apertures.
Uncle Bill
10-12-2005, 03:16
I use a Kiev III and the two lenses I use for it are the Jupiter 8 and 12. I have yet to have any flaring with the 12. I have examples of both in my gallery. I test drove a Helios at my brother's place at Thanksgiving dinner as he has a Kiev II.
Bill
I have a couple of collapsible Industars, both the I-22 and the FED. They are my favorites. I use them on a FED 2 and Zorki 3 making them easy to carry when shooting on the street.
The Industars yield more contrast than the 5cm/3.5 Elmar and is a wee bit sharper. On an overcast or rainy day, I like the urban grittyness that this lens captures.
My Jupiters, which in both cases needed to be checked to see that they are properly collimated, really do make my FED 2 feel more like I'm wearing an SLR. They are longer and require a decent lens hood to prevent flare.
This is especially true of the Jupiter 9. It is my least used lens due to its bulk and weight. The J8 and J9 are definitely better suited for head shots. Color rendition has that pleasant old-world, post card look, as well.
I only have one -- a Jupiter 8. I use it on my Zorki 3M and Bessa R and think it produces images with good bokeh:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=19261&cat=500&page=1
Gene
The [collapsible] Industars yield more contrast than the 5cm/3.5 Elmar and is a wee bit sharper. On an overcast or rainy day, I like the urban grittyness that this lens captures.Interesting... did you compare it to a coated 5cm/3.5 Elmar, or an uncoated one?
Gene, that really shows the smoothness of the Jupiter 8.
Still, I like this self-portrait that you made with the Jupiter 12.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=19188&cat=500&page=1
Interesting... did you compare it to a coated 5cm/3.5 Elmar, or an uncoated one?
Coated, but in need of a professional cleaning. Lietze used whale oil to lubricate that lens, a 1951 version and 50 years later it is time for it to be serviced.
Has anyone had a chance to compare the collapsible Industar-22 or collapsible Industar-50 (a.k.a. collapsible FED-50) and the collapsible screwmount Leitz Elmar? Is there a huge quality difference between the two?
My 50/3.5 Elmar flares quite a bit, but it's in need of cleaning, and is uncoated. My coated and clean I-22 performs a fair bit better, but is also capable of flaring.
My J-12 35mm is from the mid-60s. When I developed and printed my first roll from it, I was really stunned. I had expected a much more inferior lens, and its images were as sharp as my Nikon SLR lenses. These days I use two Nikkor RF 35mm lenses, the 1.8 and 2.5, so the Jupiter doesn't get much usage. But I always felt the J-12 had somewhat smoother tones. The flare is a problem and something you need to be aware of. In backlit situations, it easily results in a pentagon (yes, if memory serves correct, there are only five aperature blades) in the sky. Using your hand as a makeshift sunshade can help.
My J-8 is from 1957. It too takes wonderfully sharp photos with smooth out-of-focus areas. But I've also had bad flare/ghosting problems with it, also showing ghosts of the aperature blades in backlit scenes. I shoot a large number of backlit scenes, so that's a big problem. Sunshade helps.
I have an Orion 28mm f/6 in Kiev/Contax mount. I really like this lens because it's so small and light. Images are very sharp. I don't use it very often any more because I have a Nikkor 28mm 3.5, but I don't recall any optical difference between the two lenses. I used the Orion mainly for color-slide work while on vacations and its images were fantastic. I don't recall flare being a big issue. It's main problem is you can't use filters very effectively because the aperatures are set by reaching into the front of the lens.
Can't beat the Jupiter 8. There isn't a lot of difference between the collapsible I-22 and I-50 although the I-50 may be a little better at wide apertures
I have a J8 and a J12, each in both LTM and Contax mount. I also have a collapsible FED 50mm f3.5 (I-50?). And a 50mm Helios lens in Contax mount. I have not done any comparison shooting yet. All I know for sure is that the J8 in LTM is capable ov very nice results. Misty Lake in my gallery was shot with a J8 as was the bench over-grown with plants. My avatar, a photo of my father was taken with a J8 LTM.
I have a J8 and a J12, each in both LTM and Contax mount. I also have a collapsible FED 50mm f3.5 (I-50?). And a 50mm Helios lens in Contax mount. I have not done any comparison shooting yet. All I know for sure is that the J8 in LTM is capable ov very nice results. Misty Lake in my gallery was shot with a J8 as was the bench over-grown with plants. My avatar, a photo of my father was taken with a J8 LTM.
Frank:
I think your FED collapsible is probably the Industar 10, comparable to the I-22. I don't know if there is any real difference. The "10" designator just means it's a FED lens. The I-10 lens on my late FED 1 is super.
Silva Lining
10-12-2005, 10:11
The Jupiter 8 is my favourite, alhtough the Jupiter 3 a fast becoming a favorite too!
jan normandale
10-12-2005, 19:49
this is unscientific; here are results so far for the users of Jupiter and Industar lenses. Most users like them and there is a tilt of about 2 to 1 towards Jupiter lenses. The big fave is the J-8
J 8 - 10 users
J 12 - 5 users
I 22 - 4 users
I 50 - 3 users
I have seen some very nice shots posted in the member galleries using these lenses. I'm about to do some homework. I think I'm interested.
xayraa33
10-13-2005, 16:44
and another J-8 and J- 12 to the tally.
Favorite 50mm ~ Jupiter 8, no doubt. I have a '56 & '63 model. I seem to use the '56 more. It's sharp enough for me (though that's not always a must for me to like a shot) and produces some nice colors.
Next 50mm is the Industar 22, my "pocket lens" when I don't want to carry a bag and just drop one of the Zorki 1s in my pocket and go. I too kinda like the "urban grittyness," as Solinar aptly describes, that it often produces.
I have an Industar 26M, but because of my above preferences, I just don't ever reach for it, so I really have little experience with that one.
And another for us collapsibles. It's labelled FED but I gather it's an Industar-10!
Daniel those are great shots with the J-8 and 12!
Jupiter 3 is my favorite.
Like a sultan in his harem, the well-equipped cameraphile every day finds a different beauty the most appealing. I-22? I-61? J-3? J-8? Too bad only one can be mounted at a time.
Here are my first results (picked up today) with an Industar 22 collapsible, mounted on a Fed-2:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fortinbras/sets/1150338/
xayraa33
10-16-2005, 13:55
[QUOTE=iggers]Like a sultan in his harem, the well-equipped cameraphile every day finds a different beauty the most appealing. I-22? I-61? J-3? J-8? Too bad only one can be mounted at a time.
Yes I know the feeling ( the different lens part that is). I love that Caddy photo.
And another for us collapsibles. It's labelled FED but I gather it's an Industar-10!
Lens marked FED (probably were manufactured by FED in Kharkiv, Ukraine...) later it's become marked I-10. It's basicaly the same Tessar. Later it was changed to I-22 and next modification was I-50. Industars were manufactured by different plants, just to name a few - FED (Kharkiv), KMZ and LZOS (both near Moscow). Top level of Industars is I-61 L/D IMHO. Although many would think of this lens as "too technical" - it's too sharp, contrast etc.
J-8 as being Sonnar is more "artistic" lens. J-9 is a nice choice for portraits.
So, there is no good or bad lens... sometimes monocle is a right choice :)
P.S. Condition of lens and quality of particular sample could make a big difference on test results. So, if one wants really test some lens, he/she has to get a few samples :)
Eduard.
My Zorki I, recently acquired and just back from having the pressure plate fixed, has I think an Industar 22 (I think Cyrrillic is similar to Greek!). I am just running my first roll of film through it now. I have also just got a J-12 in LTM - I was persuaded to by it from the tech in a moment of weakness as he did not charge me for fixing the Zorki pressure plate, which I hope to try out on the same roll. I will be later interested to compare with the J-12 on the Kiev.
The J12 and J8 are top of my list.
But really I've found all the Soviet LTM lenses to be better than I expected. I like the Ind-61 “Panda” as it doesn’t seem quite as contrasty as the later L/D version (another good lens but with very high contrast), the collapsible Ind-22 & Ind-50 have also produced nice images
Here is a shot from a FED2 & Ind 26m I bought as a $6 parts camera/lens. When it arrived I didn't have the heart to strip it down so I spent a few winters nights getting it working and cleaned up. This model of lens is never raved about by users and I didn't expect too much from it as it had two noticeable bubbles in the front element near the centre. This shot is from the test roll using 400 ISO print film and I couldn't believe it!, the 6x4 print was scanned on my old flatbed scanner. If you take out the postage cost and my time this camera/lens is cheaper than many of the disposable cameras :eek: The crop is taken just from the left of top centre. The print holds much more detail them my old scanner can reproduce.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.