The Other Jupiters

[ruben]

I think that by now we can frankly say we know a lot about the standard Jupiter/Helios and perhaps Sonnars too.

Yet one of our great advatages in our system Soviet cameras is in the very existance of the other focal length lenses. What do we know about them ?

As far as I am concerned, I am a great ignorant here. I would like to know if in the 35-85-135 lenses we find the same variation of optical quality. I would like to know how the best samples perform against their competitors. I would like to know about their competitors too, like those not so expensive Nikkors with Contax mount, fitting our Kievs. But if you know things concerning Leica mount Soviet lenses, kindly post.

I would like to know also about specific optical or technical common problems, beyond stiffness. Do we find here problems of alignment towards film plane ?

And, of course, we all would be inspired by great optical quality images made with them.

Hopefully along time this can become a great reference thread.

Cheers,
Ruben

[mike goldberg]

Hi Ruben & Shabbat shalom,

I have no idea what a J-12, 35/2.8 looks like in Kiev/Contax mount The LTM version that I got from a Ukranian based Seller, is in pristine condition. Then I took it out of its bakelite case, removed the oversized rear screw-cap, and saw the rear element that protrudes 21mm into a Fed-2 body. For sure, I was blown away; oy!... what did I buy here?

Then, I read up on it. The Russian optics engineers wanted to design a 35 W/A that was NOT retrofocus.

For sure, you don't use the J-12 on a Bessa R... Here, the metering activity happens near the grey curtain, that you see without a lens mounted. Tho' I've had the J-12 for months, I tried it out only for the first time just this week, with my Fed-2c. Have a look here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=50578

So, what's happening with you?
Tchau, Mike

[zhang xk]

Hi Ruben,

The sharpest Jupiters in my collection is a Jupiter-11A 135/4. This lens focus down to 1 meter. The usual Jupiter-11 135/4 are also very sharp. Jupiter 21M 200/4 is very sharp with resolution 54 lp/mm center, 36 lp/mm at edges, while Nikkor -Q auto resolves 54 lp/mm at cener, and 33 lp/mm at edges.(quote from a Chinese book). Also from the same book: Jupiter-11 52 lp/mm center, 35 lp/mm edges, and Leica Elmarit 135/2.8, 46 lp/mm center, 35 lp/mm edges.

Cheers,

Zhang

[mike goldberg]

Hi Zhang,
I had no idea there were so many Jupiters!
Thanks, Mike

[M. Valdemar]

1962 coated Jupiter 12 on a 1949 Kiev II:

[brachal]

Ruben,

In Kiev mount, I have:

Jupiter 12: 35mm, f/2.8. Copy of pre-war Zeiss Biogon. I think it's an excellent lens, although it has a reputation for producing unusual flare. Mine has done that a few times. As Mike noted, the rear lens element is enormous. It will not mount on the post-war Contax IIa, IIIa, or the Bessa R2C for this reason.

Jupiter 9: 85mm, f/2. Copy of pre-war Zeiss Sonnar. I love this lens. It's big for a rangefinder lens, but I think it's outstanding. The design of the lens is complicated, and this can lead to bad examples if they've been serviced by somebody who is not sufficiently proficient.

Jupiter 11: 135mm, f/4. Copy of pre-war Zeiss Sonnar. Another favorite. Great images. Very under-rated in my opinion. Hard to focus on a Bessa, but the long Kiev rangefinder is perfect for this lens.

The Orion 15, 28mm, f/6, was made in Kiev mount, but I've never seen one.

I recently purchased Princelle's book on Soviet cameras, and was amazed at how many lenses were made for the Kiev that I've never seen. I'll post more when I get home.

I have LTM examples of the Jupiters above, except for the J12. My comments above are appropriate for that mount as well. If you'd like to see some images, at least 90% of the images in my gallery were made with a FSU lens of some sort. In addition to the 50mm Jupiter3, 8, and Industar 61, and FED 50, there are several from the J12, J9, and J11 there.

[zhang xk]

Originally Posted by zhang xk

Hi Ruben,

The sharpest Jupiters in my collection is a Jupiter-11A 135/4. This lens focus down to 1 meter. The usual Jupiter-11 135/4 are also very sharp. Jupiter 21M 200/4 is very sharp with resolution 54 lp/mm center, 36 lp/mm at edges, while Nikkor -Q auto resolves 54 lp/mm at cener, and 33 lp/mm at edges.(quote from a Chinese book). Also from the same book: Jupiter-11 52 lp/mm center, 35 lp/mm edges, and Leica Elmarit 135/2.8, 46 lp/mm center, 35 lp/mm edges.

Cheers,

Zhang

The Jupiter 11 appears to be as sharp as a Leica 135/2.8, but my Jupiter-11A is even sharper according to my experience. This lens is much less often seen than J-11. Both lenses are sharper than the later Jupiter-37A 135/3.5 according to my examples. So I sold the J-37A. The advange of the J-11 is their small size, very round aperture, very smooth focusing, and very low price.

[varjag]

Originally Posted by mike goldberg

Then, I read up on it. The Russian optics engineers wanted to design a 35 W/A that was NOT retrofocus.

That Russian optics engineer was Ludwig Bertele of Carl Zeiss Jena It's not that he aimed for non-retrofocus design in particular: it's just that Anagineux produced world's first retrofocus wide-angle lens some 2 decades after.

J12 is a copy of original Biogon design, while the rest of Jupiters are Sonnars.

Among Jupiters, I tried J3, J8, J8M, J9, J11 and J12 in Kiev/Contax mount and J3, J8, J11, J12 in LTM mount.

So in my limited experience I'd rank them as follows:

- J3 1.5/50, marvelous lens with great rendition and good performance. I expected much much worse from ancient f/1.5 design when buying it, but it turned out to be excellent lens. It is on my M4 most of the time.

- J11 4/135, both lenses I have (one KMZ one Valdai) are great performers even wide open, with perhaps slight edge to to old Kiev-mount KMZ. This lens is much more useful in Kiev mount where it focuses from 1.5m, versus 2.5 in LTM.

- J9, 2/85. Nice fast portrait lens. The contrast is on low side wide open, but improves quickly when even slightly stopped down. Excellent lens for portraits of females A bit heavy and unwieldy to carry mounted on camera all day though.

- J12, 2.8/35. My two samples are fairly soft at 2.8, OK at f/4 and become good by about 5.6. The Kiev one was miscollimated at factory. Still the most affordable wide angle in either mount, and better than some alternatives of its era.

- J8/J8M, 2/50. I know this lens is loved here by many, but three out of 4 samples I had were awful wide open, becoming barely OK after f/4. One is sharp and hight contrast wide open.

Then, there were a few less common Jupiter designs. For instance, J6 2.8/180 in M42 mount, a copy of Olympic Sonnar. There was also sole Jupiter that wasn't direct copy of anything Zeiss: Jupiter-17 2/50, with Ernostar design, similar to what ZM C-Sonnar has. It was made in LTM and in Narciss SLR mount if my memory serves me.

[Dogman]

I have several Kievs. Other than a number of J-8M samples in various conditions, 3-4 Helios 103 lenses and a single 50/2 Sonnar with a sticky aperture ring, I have two J-12 35/2.8 lenses--one silver and one black. I don't recall the dates on the lenses. They are relatively new to me and I haven't used either of them much. The silver one focuses smoothly but it has a lot of wear and the single roll of HP5+ I've shot with it was pretty unsharp. That might have been my fault--it remains to be seen. The black one is newer, virtually new in cosmetics. It's rather tight in focus but getting looser and smoother with use. It appears to be a better lens than the silver model.

I have read from several sources that the J-11 135/4 is an excellent lens. It's not a focal length I use on rangefinders, otherwise I would consider it.

[ErnestoJL]

I have two J 11, one in Contax/Kiev mount, the other LTM, both perform equally well, it is sharp and with good contrast as the pre war CZ Sonnar , with the only difference that the Sonnar is "white" and the Jupiters are coated.

My J 12 is a nice example (in Contax mount) it performs very well in regard to other lenses I had (35 mm for SLRs).

The J 8M is a wonderfull lens. Mine performs as I expected from a german Sonnar.

Besides, and not into Jupiters, the Industar 22 is another Zeiss design, because it´s a copy of the uncoated pre war Tessar 3.5, but coated and mounted in an Elmar styled barrel. And this ones is really sharp!

Cheers

Ernesto

[OldNick]

I frequently use a Jupiter 12 on my Leica IIIf RD, and it produces fine result. Many of the airplane photos in my gallery were made with this combination.

Jim N.

[ruben]

Originally Posted by zhang xk

Hi Ruben,

The sharpest Jupiters in my collection is a Jupiter-11A 135/4. This lens focus down to 1 meter. The usual Jupiter-11 135/4 are also very sharp. Jupiter 21M 200/4 is very sharp with resolution 54 lp/mm center, 36 lp/mm at edges, while Nikkor -Q auto resolves 54 lp/mm at cener, and 33 lp/mm at edges.(quote from a Chinese book). Also from the same book: Jupiter-11 52 lp/mm center, 35 lp/mm edges, and Leica Elmarit 135/2.8, 46 lp/mm center, 35 lp/mm edges.

Cheers,

Zhang

hi Zhang,

Jupiter 11A ?

Jupiter 21M ??

Whaaaaaat ?

Cheers,
Ruben

[ruben]

Originally Posted by Dogman

I have several Kievs. Other than a number of J-8M samples in various conditions, 3-4 Helios 103 lenses and a single 50/2 Sonnar with a sticky aperture ring, I have two J-12 35/2.8 lenses--one silver and one black. I don't recall the dates on the lenses. They are relatively new to me and I haven't used either of them much. The silver one focuses smoothly but it has a lot of wear and the single roll of HP5+ I've shot with it was pretty unsharp. That might have been my fault--it remains to be seen. The black one is newer, virtually new in cosmetics. It's rather tight in focus but getting looser and smoother with use. It appears to be a better lens than the silver model.

I have read from several sources that the J-11 135/4 is an excellent lens. It's not a focal length I use on rangefinders, otherwise I would consider it.

Hi Dogman,
Issues of old grease stiffening Soviet lenses and other non-Soviet ones, like the one mounted on the Japanese Lynx 1000, are quite usual. Regarding how to disassemble and remove the old grease in Kiev fitting Soviet lenses, you will find exhaustive explanations with plenty of images at the "Kiev Survival Site".

As for the 135 focal length and common rangefinders I am with you. But concerning Kontaxes, here you may be missing one aspect of their strongest side, provided your camera focusing/range-finding is correctly adjusted.

Cheers,
Ruben

PS:
"Kontax" = pre WWII Contaxes and post WWII Kievs

[Roger Hicks]

SOME LENS SECTIONS (See attachment)

1 Ortagos (? Orthagon)
2 Industar
3 Type T
4 Helios-44
5 Jupiter-8
6 Jupiter-17
7 Jupiter-3
8 Jupiter-12
9 Mir-1
10 Jupiter-9
11 Helios-40
12 Jupiter-11
13 Tair-3
14 MTO-500
15 MTO-1000

From 'Foto Lyubiteli', Minsk, 1964. No apologies for copyright as the Soviet Union wasn't a signatory. And indeed, many Soviet lenses were pre-war Zeiss designs.

The classic Sonnar is a Cook Triplet type (Type T, no. 3, in the sections) with one or more usually two of the singlets replaced by cemented groups, or, later, air-spaced groups. The reason for the original design was to keep air-glass surfaces to a minimum, thereby increasing contrast at the expense of resolution. Leica used more groups for better resolution but contrast suffered. When coating arrived, it was less important to keep the number of glass-air surfaces to a minimum and Sonnars lost their advantage over the Xenon/Summarit (the latter fro 1949 to 1960).

Thus the Jupiter-8 (f/2) used singlet-triplet-doublet while the singlet-triplet-triplet design was used for the f/1.5. A rotten lens, in the two examples I've tried. The Jupiter-17 is essentially a Jupiter-8 with an air-spaced pair replacing the cemented triplet.

The Jupiter-12 is a Biogon, not a Sonnar, and again, in my experience, a deeply indifferent lens. The only really good Zorkii/Kiev lens was the 135, though the 85/2 has its charms.

The above is from memory and it's been a long day, but I think it's correct.

EDIT: Sorry, sections omitted. I said it had been a long day...

Cheers,

Roger

[ath]

Here is a table of the Jupiters (in German, but not too hard to understand)

[Jocko]

Originally Posted by ruben

hi Zhang,

Jupiter 11A ?

Jupiter 21M ??

Whaaaaaat ?

Cheers,
Ruben

Ruben, I hope Comrade Zhang will forgive the intrusion, but these are respectively 135mm and 200mm lenses for M42 screw. They are still available new, along with other interesting lenses - http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/lenses.htm

Cheers, Ian

[Santafecino]

There are a lot of compliments here for the 135mm Jupiter 11. I have one in LTM and like it a lot.

I have this question: To use this lens on LTM or Leica M bodies, do folks need to have it re-collimated? (Is that even possible?) I'm intentionally raising the question whether this and other FSU lenses in LTM really were built to a different rangefinder-coupling standard, such that the rangefinder cam follows the 1m to infinity travel of a different lens from Leica standard. I would think any problems would be particularly acute with a 135mm lens.

Comments?
Thanks,
--Lindsay

[ruben]

Originally Posted by Jocko

Ruben, I hope Comrade Zhang will forgive the intrusion, but these are respectively 135mm and 200mm lenses for M42 screw. They are still available new, along with other interesting lenses - http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/lenses.htm

Cheers, Ian

Thanks Ian but the M42 mount is Evil.

Cheers,
Ruben

[brachal]

OK, home with Princelle, according to whom the following lenses were produced for the Kiev:

Jupiter8, 50mm f/2, Sonnar copy
Jupiter 8m, 50mm f/2, recalculated formula, click stops
Jupiter 8nb, 50mm f/2, external bayonet for the Kiev 5
Helios 103, 53mm f/1.8
Helios 94, 53mm f/1.8
Menopta, 53mm f/1.8
Jupiter3, 50mm f/1.5, Sonnar copy
Jupiter 12, 35mm f/2.8
Jupiter 12m, 35mm f/2.8, for Kiev5
Jupiter 9 85mm f/2
Jupiter 11 135mm f/4
Orion 15 28mm f/6, uncoupled

Many of these came in different finishes -- chrome(or some variation of silver) or black depending on when they were produced. Production of Kiev lenses was initially with KMZ, but transfered to the Arsenal in the 50s. Other plants also produced some of these lenses.

[brachal]

Produced by KMZ for the Zorki:

Industar-22, 50mm f/3.5, Tessar copy. Many variations including rigid and collapsible. Rigid variants (produced with black face or aluminum face) are rare, fewer than 4000 produced

Industar-50, 50mm f/3.5, Tessar copy. rigid and collapsible variants
Jupiter-8, 50mm f/2, Sonnar copy. many variants and focusing tabs, rings, etc. silver and later black finish
Jupiter-8-1, 50mm f/2, Sonnar copy. Very late (1990's) J8.
Jupiter-3, 50mm f/1.5, Sonnar copy.
Jupiter-17, 50mm f/2. less expensive replacement for the J8. Not mass produced
Russar MR-2 20mm f/5.6 in silver and black
Orion-15 28mm f/6
Jupiter-12 35mm f/2.8, Biogon copy. Silver and Black finishes. Several variants
Jupiter-9 85mm f/2, Sonnar copy. Late production in Black
Jupiter-11 135mm f/4, Sonnar copy.

[brachal]

Produced by FED, for the Fed. Not all of these lenses have official designations.

Industar-10, aka FED-50. 50mm f/3.5. several variations, all collapsible.
50mm f/2 -- pre-war 6 element collapsible
Fed Macro -- 50mm f/3.5 rigid macro lens
28mm f/4.5 Fed -- pre-war, collapsible.
Fed 100 -- 100mm f/6.3, very rare prototypes were f/5.9
Industar-26 50mm f/2.8, derived from the Industar-50 mounted in Jupiter-8 barrel. Tab and later ring focusing
Industar-61 52mm f/2.8. New optical formula and lanthanum glass. Black and Silver (Panda or Zebra) finish.
Industar-61 L/D 53mm f/2.8 Identical to I-61, but marked for lanthanum and black finish.

[zhang xk]

Originally Posted by Jocko

Ruben, I hope Comrade Zhang will forgive the intrusion, but these are respectively 135mm and 200mm lenses for M42 screw. They are still available new, along with other interesting lenses - http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/lenses.htm

Cheers, Ian

Hi Ian,

I thought Ruben wanted to know all other Jupiters that fit all types of cameras. Some interesting M42 lenses could be used on rangefinder cameras with an adaptor ring, 8mm, 16mm fisheye, 20mm wideangle,etc.But viewfinder is hard to find.

Cheers,

Zhang

[zhang xk]

Originally Posted by ruben

Thanks Ian but the M42 mount is Evil.

Cheers,
Ruben

M42 is the best mount IMHO. They fit almost all cameras with an adaptor ring. I think Zeiss even produced some M42 lenses recently, or no?

Cheers,

Zhang

[Jocko]

Originally Posted by zhang xk

Hi Ian,

I thought Ruben wanted to know all other Jupiters that fit all types of cameras. Some interesting M42 lenses could be used on rangefinder cameras with an adaptor ring, 8mm, 16mm fisheye, 20mm wideangle,etc.But viewfinder is hard to find.

Cheers,

Zhang

Hallo Zhang! I realised that, but I was worried that Ruben would explode unless someone told him ! I also agree with you - M42 is an excellent fitting with an unmatched variety of intriguing lenses. I'm looking forward to trying the 42mm version of the Industar 61 once i'm up and about

Cheers, Ian

[ruben]

Originally Posted by zhang xk

Hi Ian,

.......Some interesting M42 lenses could be used on rangefinder cameras with an adaptor ring, 8mm, 16mm fisheye, 20mm wideangle,etc.But viewfinder is hard to find.

Cheers,

Zhang

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?????????????????

Dear Comrade, kindly post all info you have for Kontax M42 options. The truth is that there is an M42 with formal European award wining medal, of a focal length of 40mm or very close to that, which is the focal length I dream to have in my Kievs....

Personally, my wide angle ambitions stop at 24mm, and my tele ones have no limit, although it will be realistic to stop by 180/200. So if you know something here too, kindly gossip.


Cheers,
Ruben