J-9 in LTM vs the Nikkor 8.5cm f2

[Brian Sweeney]

I recently picked up a 1958 J-9 in LTM, the seller letting me know the focus was off. From Kim Coxon, I know that the J-9 has two shims: the primary shim to adjust standoff of the optics module in the focus mount, and a secondary shim to set the stand-off between the front and rear groups. The secondary shim allows the focal length of the lens to be changed. I've done this on a couple of J-3's, but it usually is not required.

J-9 at Infinity, @F4.
http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=146&pictureid=1320

Nikkor 8.5cm f2 at Infinity, @F4.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=146&pictureid=1321

At F4 and infinity, the performance is equal to the Nikkor that cost 6x as much money.

At Infinity, and at some distance down to 3m or so, the focus on this lens is good. Close-up, it focuses behind the RF.

Close-up, at F2, focus is several inches behind the RF:
http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=146&pictureid=1322

The optics are too close to the film plane to focus correctly. On a J-3, I would adjust the main shim to optimize for close-up and wide-open. Infinity is usually good, at worst stop down a little to get the Sonnar shift in your favor.

The Nikkor 8.5cm F2, wide-open and close-up. Focus is spot-on. No adjustments were required on this lens, thrown on my Canon P.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=146&pictureid=1323

I'm going to adjust the lens, and will report back to this thread with results. It will be a while. Another reason to buy an M9.... adjusting this $60 J-9.

[raid]

Brian,
Will you actually get an M9 soon?
Your lens testing would be much faster and cheaper [sort of].

[BillBingham2]

You could run your tests on an M8 for focus accuracy too!

Just trying to help keep some cash in your pocket........

B2 (;->

[Brian Sweeney]

I have not decided on the Digital. Would make it quicker for tests. The thought of an M9 with a J-3 on it is appealing.

The M9 apparently makes it easier for using non-coded lenses. If it is true that Hot Mirror filters are no longer required, that is an advantage. Mine are in 52mm and 62mm, for the Kodak DCS200 camera.

But honestly, I just love shooting film. And the Canon P has a 1x finder.

[Matus]

Brian - the J-9 is indeed an interesting lens. Would you mind to share the details how one adjusts the shims? I have J-3 on its way and my consider J-9 in the future too (when I come to think of it I should get some camera too ;) ).

[payasam]

Brian, at close focus my recently bought J-9 is doing what yours does. I have not tested it at infinity. The eBay seller, kubanoid, said nothing about focus. Just a bland "all functions available."

[Brian Sweeney]

My J-3 instructions:

http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=97

and at Kim Coxon's site:

http://pentax-manuals.com/repairs.htm

[Brian Sweeney]

This J-9 could not be brought into good focus for near and far. I could reduce the error for focus across the range, but the change required for the rear optics and the main shim were too great. Edit: My 1958 and 1959 J-9's did not have a rear shim.

I transplanted the rear module and front element into a 1959 J-9, originally in Kiev/Contax mount. The front glass on the 1958 lens is perfect, as is the rear module. I left the front triplet in place in the 1959 J-9. The error across the focus range appears to be much less with this hacked lens. I will be testing it and report back. The fixture is just off.

I had a second J-9 sent to me that suffered the same problem, but the error war not as big as the 1958 lens. I moved the optics module out almost 1 full turn and put in the appropriate shim to keep it there. It's sweet spot is 3m, looks good at 1.15m. At 5m, it will need to be stopped down to F4.

[lkgroup]

My Jupiter 9 is excellent in mid range to infinity focusing, really outstanding. Where is is tricky is F/2 and close up. There is it off a little. I try and use a more moderate f/stop when focusing close.

A really nice lens that I wish was perfect all focusing and F/stops

Leo

[raid]

My J-9 is in Contax mount, and I have not [yet] noticed any focus problems with it. I use such lenses mostly for portraits, so I bet that I have never used my J-9 at the infinity setting.

[Roberto]

This J-9 could not be brought into good focus for near and far. I could reduce the error for focus across the range, but the change required for the rear optics and the main shim were too great.

I transplanted the rear module and front element into a 1959 J-9, originally in Kiev/Contax mount. The front glass on the 1958 lens is perfect, as is the rear module. I left the front triplet in place in the 1959 J-9. The error across the focus range appears to be much less with this hacked lens. I will be testing it and report back. Either spacing for the triplet was wrong in the 1958 fixture, or the fixture is just off.

I had a second J-9 sent to me that suffered the same problem, but the error war not as big as the 1958 lens. I moved the optics module out almost 1 full turn and put in the appropriate shim to keep it there. It's sweet spot is 3m, looks good at 1.15m. At 5m, it will need to be stopped down to F4.

I have a J9 leica mount that is optically quite good but it doesn't focus correctly at short distance and wide open, any chance you can give me some advice on how to correct it?

Thanks,
rob.

[Brian Sweeney]

On the second lens, I backed the optics module out 7/8ths of a turn in the mount. That improved agreement between the actual focus seen through the lens and the RF of the camera. I used a shim from the 1958 lens on it. In the past, I have used layers of tin-foil or copper tape to build up the shim. At 5M, that lens is now off. The owner wants it for head-shots, and it should serve that purpose. At infinity, best to stop down to F4.

Kiev/Contax mount lenses will have the same problem if used on a Nikon S-Mount RF: the RF cam of the lens is calibrated differently than the Nikon RF.

[Brian Sweeney]

I went back to the drawing board. On my lens, I removed the rear optics module: no shim. I Removed the glass and filed ~0.5mm off the fixture and re-inserted. This REDuCED the focal length. I shimmed the lens for close-up at 1.15m, and distance was much better agreement.

On the late Black J-9: there WAS a secondary shim. I removed it, and adjusted the rear module and main shim until I got a good focus at 1.15m and at 5.2m. I put some marks for aligning the rear module, and used nail polish to hold in place. I have no supply of rear shims. I used copper tape to build up the main shim for correct distance.

This is as good as I can get it. Without adjusting the rear stand-off, the agreement was not over much of a range. Figure the sweet-spot should be 4ft~8ft with this lens. At F2, the DOF covered error at 5M. I would stop down to F2.8 for infinity.

I'll shoot with my J-9, which is now a major hack. Front element is a KMZ 1958, rest of it is 1959. Using the through the lens viewer, it looks sharp. It looks MUCH better than my first attempt at using the lens. The fixture and glass are beautiful. The fixture might be left over German parts, which were used on J-9's in the 1950s. The fixture on the 1959 lens had different material and finish.

The rear module of the 58 KMZ had cement on the retaining ring. I may soak it. Do not file down the rear module without removing the glass, unless you are desparate and the alternative is to use the lens as a paperweight.

[jmkelly]

My J-9 is in Contax mount, and I have not [yet] noticed any focus problems with it. I use such lenses mostly for portraits, so I bet that I have never used my J-9 at the infinity setting.Raid: are you using one of Amadeo's adapters? I had a Contax-mount J-9 that focused perfectly at all distances using this adapter on M bodies.

Brian - does the J-9 have two focus helicals? Is the travel of the rear element linear across its range? I can imagine how much more difficult it is to adjust the J-9 compared to the J-3.

[Brian Sweeney]

The J-9 has a double helical, and translates the motion for the 8.5cm focal length to the RF cam. The translation produces the same travel on the RF Cam that a J-3 or J-9 lens would produce, ie for a 52.4mm focal length lens. The Leica standard is set up for a nominal 51.6mm travel. The travel on the RF cam of the Russian lens is ~0.1mm more than a Leica is set up for. Reducing the focal length of the J-9 slightly means the required travel for the focus across range is less, and that lines up with the J-9 monted on a Leica.

That's my story, and I am sticking to it...

[raid]

Raid: are you using one of Amadeo's adapters? I had a Contax-mount J-9 that focused perfectly at all distances using this adapter on M bodies.

Brian - does the J-9 have two focus helicals? Is the travel of the rear element linear across its range? I can imagine how much more difficult it is to adjust the J-9 compared to the J-3.

John: I was referring to using the J-9 on Contax cameras and not LTM cameras. I am resisting getting one of the Amedeo adapters since it may result in not using Contax cameras anymore.

[jmkelly]

Hi Raid:

From my own experience I can tell you - I bought the Amadeo adapter first, then the Contax lenses, then the Contax cameras.

Last night, following Brian's instructions, I completed the ultimate Sonnar project for that black-finished Contax II completed earlier this year - took a 1937 Sonnar with bad glass, painted the shell black, replaced the lenses with the elements from a 1977 Valdai J-3, and used the Amadeo adapter on the R-D-1 to adjust the shimming on the lens. It's on the Contax II now - burning the first roll.

And my Contax IIa is off getting some TLC from Eddy. The Amadeo adapter is a useful tool - but no substitute for the pleasure of using the Contax cameras. Though I do prefer shooting the Nikkor P.C on it to shooting the same lens on the Contax bodies.

[raid]

John,

I hope that your Sonnar project lens turns out what you hoped for. I am more basic in this regard.

The Amedeo adapter may still be mine one day.

I was finally in the mood to get Amedeo adapt a Zeiss Planar 50mm/1.4 from Rollei QBM to M when he informed me that demand was too low and that he stopped making such adaptation. What a bummer!

[Brian Sweeney]

You do some funny (but interesting) stuff...

I would just use the Nikkor myself.

"The Nikkor 8.5cm F2, wide-open and close-up. Focus is spot-on. No adjustments were required on this lens, thrown on my Canon P."

Happens to me all the time. Buy a Nikkor lens, works perfectly out of the box. S-Mount, Contax, and Leica mount. Not to mention F-Mount! I probably have 100 Nikkor lenses. Once or twice, interior haze, worst was a sticky aperture click stop mechanism. Nothing needs to be done to make them work perfectly! They just do, after 50 years. Where is the fun in that? Thank goodness for FSU lenses.

Just to add, I wanted to find an explanation and solution for a systematic problem when using J-9's on Leica. It is the same issue that I see with the J-3: it is built to the Contax standard.

[payasam]

Brian, I'm planning to send the bad J-9 to my repair person in Calcutta (now Kolkata) together with a print-out of the instructions I found on the pentax-manuals site. This is the best I can do. But will it be good enough? The instructions in question do not speak of changing the focal length of the lens.

[Brian Sweeney]

Do you have a Black J-9, or an earlier Chrome lens?

The Black J-9 has a shim for the rear module. Reducing it by about 0.5mm~0.75mm will reduce the focal length of the lens. After that is done, then set the main shim for proper focus. You must set the focus to be correct for close-up and distance. I set the rear module's stand-off, adjusted for 1.15m then stepped back to 5m. Actual focus and the RF must agree at both settings. So a few iterations were required: set rear stand-off/ set main shim. Check focus at both distances. re-adjust until the lens and actual focus were within F2 DOF for both.

I'll be testing the lens, and will post the results.

[payasam]

It's black. This business is clearly a good deal more complicated than I had thought. I could send on what you say in this thread, but I'd have to "translate". The man's English is not so good: for example, there is no way he'll know what is an iteration.

[f16sunshine]

Mukul and others. The focus difference seems very predictable in the close range. Why not simply adjust for it?

[payasam]

That's sensible, Adnan. If no more is possible, I'd be happy with good focus in the 1.15M to 2.5M range.

[K14]

My Jupiter 9 is excellent in mid range to infinity focusing, really outstanding. Where is is tricky is F/2 and close up. There is it off a little. I try and use a more moderate f/stop when focusing close.

A really nice lens that I wish was perfect all focusing and F/stops

Leo

Hey Leo, Totally agree with your findings and then some. My Jupiter 9 does fine at F/2 and close up on my Leica iiia, using it on my Zorki every shot was way out of focus. I'd say you have to be very careful. I happen to get lucky with my Leica.

Gary

[f16sunshine]

OT
you will ne very happy with the canon 85 I sent you Mukul. It is much heavier however. The close focus is perfect. I don't understand why that canon /85 goes for so little money. It is a sweet Portrait lens open and becomes quite sharp stopped down a bit. Sometimes I wonder if we all put to much premium on sonnars :?

[Brian Sweeney]

I also have a Canon 85/2. Came with a Leotax and 5cm F1.5 Simlar. I had to put a LOT of work into the lenses, and Youxin put even more work into the camera. All had been in a storage shed for 30 years, looked mint. Nothing worked.

But the Canon is a fine performer. Not as sharp or contrasty as the Nikkor. I am going to do a test of this J-9, the Nikkor, Canon, and early Summicron 90/2. I will post results in the Optics section.

On the J-9: I was curious to find out what is a systematic problem when using them on Leica standard problems. It is the same issue that I see with the J-3: it is built to the Contax standard. The longer focal length of the J-9 literally magnifies the problem. Changing the focal length allows the Leica calibrated RF to agree with the image. I made a Canon 50/1.5/J-3 Hybrid doing something like this. Had a Canon without a rear module. I used one a parts J-3. Set the standoff until I could get focus and RF to agree near and far.

[mabelsound]

I also have a Canon 85/2. Came with a Leotax and 5cm F1.5 Simlar. I had to put a LOT of work into the lenses, and Youxin put even more work into the camera. All had been in a storage shed for 30 years, looked mint. Nothing worked.

But the Canon is a fine performer. Not as sharp or contrasty as the Nikkor. I am going to do a test of this J-9, the Nikkor, Canon, and early Summicron 90/2. I will post results in the Optics section.

I'd be interested to see the results of that test. Brian (or anyone), how different is the Canon 85/2 from the 85/1.9? I believe there are chrome versions of both? Are they essentially the same design? And are they Sonnar clones like the Jupiter-9?

I'd like a fast 85 or 90. Had the J-9, but the focus drove me nuts. It was a nice sample, though--super clean. Had the Canon 100/2 for a month or two, but it was way too big to use comfortably. Now have the Elmar 90/4, uncoated, and it's nifty, but would love a 1.9 or 2, especially an affordable one like the Canons.

[Brian Sweeney]

The Canon 85/2 and 85/1.9 are Planar formula lenses. I've never used the F1.9 lens, it is reputed to be a bit better that the F2 lens. My Canon 85/2 is a fine portrait lens wide-open. It is much bigger and heavier than my Chrome mount Nikkor 8.5cm f2: that is saying a lot! The J-9 is in aluminum mount, is much lighter, and front element does not rotate as you focus. Let's hope this hack works.

[LeicaFoReVer]

J-9 has clearly more details in the whites on the two photos you posted. Is it because of scan or it is real??

[Brian Sweeney]

The J-9 is lower contrast than the Nikkor. I suspect the details in the high-lights are real. Same roll of film, same scan, same exposure, shot a few minutes apart on a cloudless day. The lossless JPEG compression took slightly more space to store the image than did the Nikkor. That is a reasonable metric that some finer detail was preserved by the lower contrast lens. Once highlights are blown, detail is lost, and the compression algorithm requires less space to store the image.

I have a late model J-9 in Contax/Kiev mount that I did the same type of test with to compare with my Contax version of the Nikkor 8.5cm f2. The Later 1975 J-9 was not as sharp as the Nikkor, or this 1958 KMZ J-9. I also have a Nikkor 8.5cm F2 in S-Mount, total of three. All three Nikkors are indistinguishable in performance.

[payasam]

I am confused, Brian. I have sent the J-9 to be opened up and reassembled correctly, and possibly adjusted following your notes. I think, though, that perhaps I should have waited for the FED-2 I have bought so that I could test that lens on that camera. If the combination worked, then nothing would need to be done.

Reason tells me that if the J-9 focussed badly on an M2 it would focus badly also on a FED-2, as an ancestor of the second was a copy of an ancestor of the first, and the two would be made to the same standard. But reason also tells me that only bloody fools would make a lens which could be screwed into a particular camera body but would not focus correctly on that body, and that people who design and make such equipment are generally not bloody fools.

One option I have is to set the R/F of the FED-2 such that the J-9 -- as it now is -- gives good focus in the 1.15M to 2.5M range. That camera would then be unusable with other lenses, and the combination would be unusable at other distances.

Incidentally, Andy, I got a handsome Serenar 85/2 today which I intend to use with my M2. Haven't taken test pictures yet, but some taken with the lens on an M8 were okay, so I don't think I need to worry.

[Santafecino]

Brian--The next question: How do you get a Jupiter-11 (135mm f:4) to focus correctly on a Leica? Have you tried it?
Thanks,
--Lindsay

[Brian Sweeney]

There are many lenses in 39mm thread mount not made to the Leica standard. The Braun Paxette? Lens screws on, back-focus is different. Contax lenses mount on Nikon cameras, but do not focus correctly.

The FSU thread mount is built to the Contax standard, and the Leica to its own. The Nikon S-Mount is built to the Leica standard focal length. Same problem, different mount.

SO: the J-9 can be used either with the Russian camera, OR with the Leica standard. On the latter you have to hack it.

I've never used a J-11 in Leica mount, but the one for my Contax is PURRR-FECT.

J-11, 13.5cm F4 wide-open on my Contax II, CLA'd by Eddy Smolov.

http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=34&pictureid=406

Late (1975) new-old-stock J-9 wide-open at F2 on the same Contax II, same roll of film.

http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=34&pictureid=403

http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=34&pictureid=404

I had to shim the J-9, added 0.5mm to the shim. I did not have to adjust the rear shim.

So: Kiev mount Jupiters on the Contax: you might need to adjust the main shim, but probably not the focal length.

[Santafecino]

Brian--
Beautiful images. I love the medium-contrast feel of the J-9.
Thanks,
--Lindsay

[payasam]

Does this -- "the J-9 can be used either with the Russian camera, OR with the Leica standard" -- mean that the Russian camera, though a copy of Leica, deviates from the Leica standard?

[Brian Sweeney]

The J-3 and J-8 are built to the 52.4mm Contax standard, Kiev mount and 39mm Thread Mount. The Russian cameras, Kiev, Fed, and Zorki, are built to this same standard. I've adjusted my Zorki 3M's to work with my adjusted J-3's and Zeiss Sonnars. Done by putting a loupe at the film gate.

So you can adjust a J-9 to work with either a Leica or a FSU camera. Just like you can adjust a lens to work with either a Nikon or a Contax.

[Brian Sweeney]

I got the first test roll back with the adjusted 1958 J-9 in LTM.

The close-focus was much better, but I went back and redid it tonight. I will retest this weekend. I further reduced the focal length by grinding down the rear fixture, and then reduced the main shim about 0.15mm. Basically, more of the same as before.

Here are the results with the first iteration. All shots are wide-open at F2.

At 2m, the focus is spot on. It slowly drifts off from that point. ~1.5m to ~4m were covered by DOF.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=1384

5m, focus on the branch laying across on the logs. Slight front-focus. Solved by reducing the Shim.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=1385


1.15m. Slight Back-Focus. Solved by reducing the stand-off of the rear module. Polished down the optical fixture as the early J-9's do not use a secondary shim as do the later Black J-9's.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=1383

Another at closest focus. "Close, but not close-enough".
http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=1382

I'll be restesting lenses again this week.

[Santafecino]

Brian--
I am watching your work on the Jupiter-9 with interest. It seems to be coming together nicely. I can't wait for the comparison with the early Summicron 90.
--Lindsay

[Brian Sweeney]

Second test roll is in, but using a magnifier on the Film Plane of the Canon 7, it looks like the focus is good from 1.5m to 30m. I'll stop down to F4 for ditance work, Sonnar focus shift is in my favor. The closest focus of 1.15m is off, about twice what is covered by the F2 DOF. The rear module cannot be moved in enough on the Chrome J-9 to accommodate 1.15m. The Black J-9 uses a shim for the stand-off, and removing it allows more movement. SO: I'm thinking the Black J-9 in LTM has a better chance of being adjusted for more range..

[Brian Sweeney]

This is as far as I can take this lens- no more room to move the rear module in.

To my eye: looks good at 1.5m at F2. 1.15m at F4, or apply a little "fudge factor" and overshoot the focus when you are close in.

1.15m, F2. Focus is a bit behind where I set the RF.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=1434

At F4: good enough

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=1435

at 1.5m, f2. Focus is on the main stalk, where I set it.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=1436

1.5m at F4.
http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=1437

2m at F2

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=1438

2m at F4.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=1439

Bottom Line: Nikkor 8.5cm f2 wins. Accurate and sharp close-up and wide-open. It cost 6x as much as this J-9.

The J-9 can be set for "ranges". But to get it accurate over full-range, hard to do and does not seem to be possible on the early ones without major hacking. Like filing down the internal cams. Not going to do that...

[Brian Sweeney]

J-9, Closest Focus, F4, a little "fudge factor".

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=1441

Visiting hours at the Jail for Malcontent Mushrooms.