PDA

View Full Version : best FSU lens 28-50 mm in LTM?


nzeeman
01-16-2006, 03:34
multiple choices allowed. my votes for i22 and jupiter 12

RML
01-16-2006, 05:55
Remind me again, which one is the collapsible 50?

The j8 is IMO the absolute best of the bunch.
The collapsible 50 is another favourite of mine, simply because it's a nice lens and collpasible is cool. :)

The j12 35mm flares too much in my experience. Mine is pretty sharp but consistently flares, even in situations where you wouldn't expect it. I guess it needs a hood, even though the lens is already deeply recessed.

pvdhaar
01-16-2006, 06:35
There seem to be a number of 50mm options, and but a single 35mm (j12). Aren't there any more FSU 35s, or are these just not listed? Same for the 28s.. Just asking cause I'm curious..

nzeeman
01-16-2006, 06:51
here u have list of FSU lenses in m39
http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/35mmrangefindercameras/lenses/index.htm

nzeeman
01-16-2006, 06:52
industar 22 is colapsible one.

lubitel
01-16-2006, 06:59
never heard anything of jupiter 17, whats that like?

Kim Coxon
01-16-2006, 07:27
From the list, it was an "experimental production" lens. I would assume it's a bit irrelevant as you are unlikely ever to use one.

Kim

never heard anything of jupiter 17, whats that like?

peterc
01-16-2006, 08:00
I'm kinda partial to the J-8 ... but the unmentioned Industar 26m isn't bad either.

Peter

rbiemer
01-16-2006, 08:36
I like the J-8 quite a lot. It is slightly faster than my othe 50mm lenses and significantly lighter than the CV 50mm I have. The Industar-50 is my 50mm of choice when I'm carrying the Zorki 3m(and it shares filters with my Leitz 90mm) as it makes for a very compact package.
Rob

reagan
01-16-2006, 08:49
Jupiter.8 & Orion.15 are my easy choices since that's the two I grab for the most. I like the I.50 or I.22 if I want something slim to go in a small bag/pocket, but it's rare occasions that I need that. The J.12 is definately a winner, absolutely no complaints, but when I decide for something wider than 50mm, 8 out of 10 times I'll skip it and pick up the Orion.

I have no experience with the I.61 or J.3 ..... yet

xayraa33
01-16-2006, 17:41
the J-8 is best on:

price & availability
the "look " it gives to a photograph
ample speed for most situations
uses 40.5 mm filters not 40mm or 39mm
its lightweight

taffer
01-20-2006, 02:19
the J-8 is best on:

price & availability
the "look " it gives to a photograph
ample speed for most situations
uses 40.5 mm filters not 40mm or 39mm
its lightweight

My vote as well for those reasons, plus:

less % of getting a dog lens

matti
01-20-2006, 02:59
I like the feel of the Industar 61/LD more than the Jupiter 8. Allso, when you don't have a meter in the camera it is a bit difficult not to have clickstops for the aperture, as it change easy. (Ok, I shoot with big gloves this time of the year...)
/matti

wilt
01-20-2006, 03:34
Jupiter 8 because of the look: tonality, bokeh.

Brian Sweeney
01-20-2006, 03:41
Well, I guess no one will guess who voted for the J-3.

Once adjusted, a good, cheap, fast lens.

Kim Coxon
01-20-2006, 04:02
~Hi Brian,
In mny ways, I would agree with you. Other great points are the compact size and same 40.5mm filter thread. The only reason I went for the J8 is that it is so very difficult to get a good J3 at a sensible price that doesn't need all sorts of collimation work on it. If you are happy to do this, go for the J3, if not the J8 is easier to sort.

Kim

Well, I guess no one will guess who voted for the J-3.

Once adjusted, a good, cheap, fast lens.

Richard Black
01-20-2006, 04:42
I voted for the J12 because I love its look. It can't be used on my Bessa R but on the Mir and Leica IIIc it is great. The J8 is equally as photographically good, but there is something special about the J12 I have. I was lucky. Now, I am not a lines/mm kinda guy, but I use it for the "old time look", like what I got when I was young.

arothaus
01-23-2006, 07:18
never heard anything of jupiter 17, whats that like?

Hello,

of the Jupiter-17 only prototypes exist. It should become a cheaper alternative to the Jupiter-8.

My favourite M39 lenses are the Jupiter-8 and the Orion. My favourite FSU rangefinder lens is the J-3 (I have a 1952 in Kiev-Mount).

regards,
Andreas

raid
01-23-2006, 18:30
I voted for the J3 after Brian adjusted it. Great little lens with excellent sharpness.

FrankS
02-25-2006, 08:17
Using the Jupiter VIII & Jupiter XII:

VIII: 5cm f2 - robust collapsible Sonnar design with metal fittings. It is a lens on the same plane as the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm f2 for its textural rendition of tones. As an uncoated lens, it surprisingly doesn't flare as badly as its' partner here. It's stepless aperture ring is very fine and requires fine attention to control. In this respect, it ressembles the Carl Zeiss lens down to its ergonomics.

XII:35mm f2.8 The design with the bulbous rear element protrusion is a liability when changing lenses. It's taken some time for me to find a lens with an unmarked rear element lens. The rangefinder base for the lens is strikingly long, and perhaps, lacking in smoothness from close focussing: 0.9 - 1.15metres is very tight and hard finger wheel work to focus. The inconsistency of the focussing tension from infinity to minimum distance perhaps is a reflection of the sample I use, and not a general finding...

The black metal looks like plastic! Although the build is metal, it doesn't have the chrome solidity of the above. With respect to the aperture ring, also recessed into the lens hood, this is very awkward for rapid use. Although the sample I use is multi-coated (strong purple and blue coatings) , it still flares more than the 5cm Sonnar clone.

As a rigid lens, it also doesn't fit the particular camera case I've adapted for use.

An excellent performer in its own right, although nowhere near the legendary Biogon in design....

Just a few glitches, RJ:
you list the J8 as a collapsible Sonnar clone, but it's not collapsible
you list metal fittings, but all of these lenses have metal fittings
earlier J8s may be uncoated, but later ones are coated

when talking about the J12, when you say: The rangefinder base for the lens is strikingly long, do you mean the focus throw of the lens? The smoothness of the focus comment is obviously applicable only on an individual basis, not as a general statement for this type of lens.

Not meaning to be nit-picky, just mentioned for the sake of accuracy. :)

nrb
02-26-2006, 02:59
The J3 is simply a J8 with an extra stop, but all russian lenses can be capable performers if generally not in the same league as the original products. Remember that these are copies of german technology taken to the USSR as war booty.

Brian Sweeney
02-26-2006, 05:00
The 7-element F1.5 Sonnar was one of the few lenses to have the edge over its 6-element F2 counterpart.

So far, my better J-3's outperform the J-8's that I have used. The best is as sharp as the Nikkor 5cm/1.4 used wide-open.

darkkavenger
02-28-2006, 16:27
I would say the J3 if you want a 50mm, and the J-12 if you want a wide. The Orion-15 is too much expensive if you have to consider a performance/cost ratio. :)

peptonio
02-28-2006, 17:26
I like the feel of the Industar 61/LD more than the Jupiter 8. Allso, when you don't have a meter in the camera it is a bit difficult not to have clickstops for the aperture, as it change easy. (Ok, I shoot with big gloves this time of the year...)
/matti

I also think that the Industar 61 is a bit underrated here. ho the look of the J8 is nicer for me the industar can be an enormously precise performer, clear and sharp.
A bit like a CV 2,8/50 Skopar.

peppo

hoot
03-06-2006, 12:29
Collapsible Industar-22, hands down. Makes the camera truly pocketable, produces surprisingly good photos, has excellent handling and looks smashing too.

Somehow, the J-8 never did it for me. Sure, the photos left little to be desired, but the ergonomics of that lens are simply horrible. It's big, it's clunky, it's ugly, it's difficult to focus (incredibly long focus through, and nothing to grab onto while focusing), and the aperture setting can change at the lightest brush of your sleeve.

The J-12 is my runner-up to the I-22. Once again, it makes the camera more or less pocketable; it has less distortion than any other wide angle lens I've seen; it produces excellent photos (though the flare problem makes the lens absolutely unusable in any form of backlight, since the light completely spills over and ruins the entire negative) and it handles moderately well.

thafred
05-18-2006, 00:37
I like the Jupiter-3 best of the bunch because of the sharpness, nice bokeh and strong warm colors! (but I was lucky with my exsample it seems) closely followed by Fed-50 wich is very sharp over all with good contrast and pocketability! (as Hoot said!) ...is there a difference between I-22 and Fed-50 ??!?

Another favorite was the Orion 15....Vignetting wide open is quite strong and it has to be stopped down to 11 -16 to deliver a perfect picture..not very practical. When at 8 to 11 itīs sharpness for me leaves nothing to be desired! Colours arenīt too good in my eyes. Iīm selling mine on the Bay right now because I got the CV 21...a different animal (esp. for colour photography :rolleyes: )

Iīm with hoot on the Jupiter-8....Sharp lens but it does nothing for me that the J-3 canīt esp. wide open my J8 is horrible wereas the J3 shines at f 2.0! Ergonomics arenīt too good on both lenses, but the rotating aperture ring makes me go mad with the J8!

Hey hoot! Were in Vienna are you? Do you want to meet for a camera and coffee afternoon sometime?

OldNick
07-09-2006, 13:06
When this thread came out, I was just obtaining a Jupiter 12. I got my 1987 black version from Yuri, and it has turned out to be a great lens. There are a number of images from it in my current gallery, and it shows in my avatar.

Jim N.

Silva Lining
07-09-2006, 14:40
I have used all of these with the exception of the Orion, The J3 is my favourite. I think the Industar 61 is the sharpest, the Jupiter 8 is sharp with nice bokeh but I love the low-light usage of the J3, and it's bokeh is to die for...

Rayt
07-10-2006, 06:46
Just a thought: consider getting FSU lenses in Contax mount instead. Contax lenses have have less moving parts and that means less to get wrong. Either that or I have been extremely lucky.

robin a
07-10-2006, 18:19
Gotta be the J8,has it all.

Spyderman
07-11-2006, 05:05
I voted J-12 and J-8.

The J-12 indeed is a nice glass, but I also encountered the flare problem. It seems to me, that the flare comes from light reflecting between film and the rear element. Wish they made a film with non-reflective surface :D

The J-8 is another nice lens, sharp and fast. That said, after my bokeh comparisson, I'm beginning to like the I-61 (non L/D) more. The Sonnar bokeh just doesn't make it for me... and I-61 is at least as sharp as J-8, and IMHO has more pleasing bokeh. And as a everyday take-everywhere lens (where speed isn't that important makes more sense to me.

EDIT: I shot some more films with all my lenses since this post, and I must say it changed my opinion. IMHO the best lens is J-8. It's reasonably fast, light, cheap, has great bokeh and usually works right from the beginning - where J-3 usually needs some shimming to work with Leica or Bessa. If I could have only one lens - it would be an early tabbed aluminium J-8.

raid
09-29-2007, 22:35
My FSU lenses are few, but I have been enjoying using the J-3 and the I-50.

wlewisiii
09-29-2007, 22:49
Way back when, I voted for the J-12. Now, it's a bit later and I've found that after buying and selling many more FSU lenses, the one I have to have is an I-61L/D. It's just a really well made version of a Tessar and has always given me consistently pleasant results. I've sold the one I had three times and now know I'll not sell the fourth... :bang: ;)

It's good enough I could consider it as an only lens. I'd rather not, for a number of reasons, but if it came down to it, well, it's good enough for anything any normal lens can do. I hope, eventually, to have 3 normals - a Canon 50/1.5, a Canon 50/1.8 & the I-61L/D as each has a very different and delightful look to it.

Have 2 of the 3 & hopes for the last one reasonably soon... :)

William

raid
09-30-2007, 07:46
William,

Roland is selling his Canon 50/1.5 for alow price.

Murray Kelly
01-17-2008, 08:18
For me the J-3. I have the j-8s too but both my j-12 (Kiev and LTM) are dogs.
The J-9 is a close 2nd to the J-3. Pity the Helios-103 isn't available in LTM, it really impresses.

Murray
Brisbane, Oz

Ron (Netherlands)
01-21-2008, 12:14
Indu 22 because its better than the Elmar
and the 61 L/D because it is the only one with clickstop
I still have to test my Orion so I am not sure whether it is that good

Murray Kelly
06-29-2008, 09:23
J-3 no argument! "-)
Murray

payasam
08-26-2008, 00:17
Sorry, but it seems to me that a poll of this kind has little meaning.

Krosya
08-26-2008, 00:19
The J3 is simply a J8 with an extra stop, but all russian lenses can be capable performers if generally not in the same league as the original products. Remember that these are copies of german technology taken to the USSR as war booty.

Gotta love the booty. ;)
I voted for a J-3 - great compact lens, sharp and great bokeh, one I used to have didnt seem to have any focus shift either. I-22 comes next - great optics, poor handling - worth having though.

pesphoto
02-23-2009, 10:26
I just went thru an I22,I61,I50 and now a J3. The J3 is by far the best of the bunch.

januaryman
04-26-2010, 04:30
I like the faster lens of the J8, but the I 61/LD has a quality I like best. For LTM, that is. The Helios 103 is, hands down, the best lens out there for the buck, but Kiev mount.

raid
04-26-2010, 05:10
Jim,
Brian made me once a I 61 LD in Contax mount, and isn't the Helios 103 the same lens as a Menopta?

Dave Wilkinson
04-26-2010, 06:11
Amazing! - all the correspondence on this topic - almost weekly.....and a four year old thread is resurrected! :rolleyes:

januaryman
04-26-2010, 06:14
Afraid I have no idea, Raid. I'm pretty much just a lens user, not a guy who knows either the history or how the bloody things do what they do - But I discovered the Helios because I bought a sharp looking black painted Kiev 4AM. The camera itself was no good and went back, lens and all for a refund, but I went right back out to the bay and bought another copy that would ship with the Helios.

I need to use that camera more. But I hate the required backwinding to keep the frame spacing consistent.

januaryman
04-26-2010, 06:16
Amazing! - all the correspondence on this topic - almost weekly.....and a four year old thread is resurrected! :rolleyes:

Sometimes we need to be reminded how good an old, forgotten lens is, eh? ;)