Good Jupiter lens repairman?

[Jamie Pillers]

I just purchased a Jupiter-9 lens. Aperture ring moves smoothly and easily, but the focusing ring is stiff. Can anyone here tell me of a good repairman that's familiar with these lenses? Preferably located in Northern California, but if not, then elsewhere.

On a related matter, I haven't yet tested the lens yet. Do I need to look out for potential focusing problems on this lens like the ones I read about regarding the Jupiter-12 (where they sometimes need shims replaced/adjusted)?

Thanks for any advice.

Jamie

 

[payasam]

The J-9 has a reputation for being among the most troublesome of FSU lenses. You might ask Yuri of www.fedka.com (New York) if his technician will do it.

 

[jarski]

any difference known between J-9 LTM and M42 versions ? am just thinking to buy one and use with with EOS adapter 🙂

 

[wlewisiii]

Eddie Smolov at 123camerarepair@gmail.com - fast, cheap & high quality. I send him all of my Contax/Kiev gear for the work I need done. Tell him I sent you.

William

 

[xayraa33]

Yuri's repairman at Fedka works on the J9 but will not charge little money, as he has to repair problematic J9s that were most likely screwed up on someone's kitchen table.
the J 9 is the more troublesome FSU lens, seconded by the Jupiter 3.
the LTM version of these lenses have a known history of problems before they are sorted out.

the J 12 is not known to need shimming much.
DOF covers a lot of errors in a 35mm lens.

 

[xayraa33]

any difference known between J-9 LTM and M42 versions ? am just thinking to buy one and use with with EOS adapter 🙂

I have both versions.

the M42 J 9 is a great trouble free lens with none of the focus problems of the LTM J 9, as you are focusing the M42 J 9 through the lens on a focusing screen on an SLR camera.

 

[wlewisiii]

Jarski,

From my understanding, the M42 is derived from the LTM lens so it would be likely to have similar issues. The Contax mount version, OTOH, because it's what Zeiss originally designed, is almost always in good working order if the glass hasn't been abused.

I have heard that the Helios 40-2 is a better bet for the m42 portrait lens, for what it's worth. See here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tomtiger/russcam/helios40.html

William

PS - good point about focusing on the ground glass. So whichever one is easier to come by for you might well be better.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

William,
Thanks for the information. I'm going to contact both Eddie S. and Yuri B. to see what they say. I'll report back on this thread when everything gets resolved. 🙂
Jamie

 

[jarski]

thanks also for M42 information (and sorry of taking this a bit OT).

 

[alanika]

Before you desire to give it out for repair, I think you can try this too:
http://www.pentax-manuals.com/repairs/j9service.pdf
I hope it can help 🙂

 

[jmkelly]

Every J-9 I have ever handled seems to have been assembled with cheap bearing grease, which has dried to a nondescript substance with the consistency of a mix of wax, taffy and amber (including the one I'm sending you, William 😀).

I never got around to trying the DIY re-lube, but I found another good set of instructions here: http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/Jupiter-9 dismantle.html

 

[uinku]

William,
Thanks for the information. I'm going to contact both Eddie S. and Yuri B. to see what they say. I'll report back on this thread when everything gets resolved. 🙂
Jamie

Everything resolved, yet?

 

[rxmd]

From my understanding, the M42 is derived from the LTM lens so it would be likely to have similar issues. The Contax mount version, OTOH, because it's what Zeiss originally designed, is almost always in good working order if the glass hasn't been abused.

Well actually the LTM version is derived from the Contax lens, too, it's just more complex mechanically. The Contax rangefinder works by inferring distance from rotation, so all you need mechanically is a spring to keep the lens at the correct distance. That's why all rangefinder-coupled Contax lenses that attach to the outer bayonet cover the same rotational angle for the same focusing distance. For the Leica-type rangefinder, though, the lens needs to translate the outward movement of the lens barrel to a different movement of the rangefinder cam. Therefore the LTM version needs a double helix, which has a tendency to gum up. The M42 version doesn't need that because there is no rangefinder, and focusing is less critical on an SLR lens anyway because you get focus confirmation through the lens. That's why it's the LTM lens that is "evil", and the other versions are considerably simpler.

I had a J-9 generously fixed by Kim Coxon for me, which has been focussing flawlessly; the problem is rather my own eyes, and the fact that at f/2 and 85mm focusing is difficult with any lens. You're in Noctilux territory there.