The J-12 3.5cm F2.8 is an inexpensive wide-angle lens available in Contax/Kiev mount and in LTM. It is a coated copy of the Pre-War Zeiss Biogon. The J-12 cannot be used on the Contax IIa and Contax IIIa. It will fit on all Kiev's, COntax II, Contax III, and Nikon S-Mount cameras.
I've custom-shimmed one J-12 for a Nikon, but it was probably off to begin with. The 1960 chrome J-12 that I use now was good-to-go on the Nikon.
The lens has good contrast, color rendition, and is "sharp Enough". Watch out for flare and reflections.
All of these photo's were taken Wide-Open on the Nikon S2 at the Udvar Hazy Air and Space Museum. Kodacolor 400 film.
The Space-Shuttle Enterprise. Used for unpowered glide tests of the Airframe.
You can see the blue-reflection at the bottom of the image, from the bright window above.
.
Stuntplane:
Tight Crop:
no problems with Center Sharpness.
Stearman. My Dad trained in these
Biplane carried on a Dirigible.
Nice colors with this lens.
Ar-234b
Again, you can see the reflection of the bright lights on the right near the engine to the left.
I've custom-shimmed one J-12 for a Nikon, but it was probably off to begin with. The 1960 chrome J-12 that I use now was good-to-go on the Nikon.
The lens has good contrast, color rendition, and is "sharp Enough". Watch out for flare and reflections.
All of these photo's were taken Wide-Open on the Nikon S2 at the Udvar Hazy Air and Space Museum. Kodacolor 400 film.
The Space-Shuttle Enterprise. Used for unpowered glide tests of the Airframe.
You can see the blue-reflection at the bottom of the image, from the bright window above.
.
Stuntplane:
Tight Crop:
no problems with Center Sharpness.
Stearman. My Dad trained in these
Biplane carried on a Dirigible.
Nice colors with this lens.
Ar-234b
Again, you can see the reflection of the bright lights on the right near the engine to the left.
I saw Bob Hoover land this plane on one wheel. Focus is on the engine nacelle.
One more, taking it all in.
Again, bright lights cause flare in this lens, more than my other wide-angle lenses.
This lens was $20. You cannot find another wide-angle lens for a Leica or Contax for this kind of price. It is not as sharp as my Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 or the Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8. Those lenses cost 10x and 20x as much as this lens. For the money, it will give good results. The next lowest price wide-angle lens that I have for my Leica's was $150, for a Canon 35/2.8.
Again, bright lights cause flare in this lens, more than my other wide-angle lenses.
This lens was $20. You cannot find another wide-angle lens for a Leica or Contax for this kind of price. It is not as sharp as my Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 or the Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8. Those lenses cost 10x and 20x as much as this lens. For the money, it will give good results. The next lowest price wide-angle lens that I have for my Leica's was $150, for a Canon 35/2.8.
raid
Dad Photographer
Brian,
You will enjoy visiting the Museum at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola.
I have two black J-12 LTM. One was basically free because it does not focus, and I don't know which of the two it is. I have been using my Canon 35mm lenses instead.
You will enjoy visiting the Museum at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola.
I have two black J-12 LTM. One was basically free because it does not focus, and I don't know which of the two it is. I have been using my Canon 35mm lenses instead.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Perhaps I was expecting more but those images look kind of soft on my monitor.
I've shot with this 1960 J-12, and a later Black J-12 of 1970s vintage. They are not as good as the Nikkor wides, or the Canon wides.
All of these shots are wide-open. The J-12 is better when stopped down to F8. Of all my FSU lenses, it is my poorest performer. This thread is prompted by the recent discussion of the J-12 on the Zeiss forum.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82885
All of these shots are wide-open. The J-12 is better when stopped down to F8. Of all my FSU lenses, it is my poorest performer. This thread is prompted by the recent discussion of the J-12 on the Zeiss forum.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82885
Last edited:
Santafecino
button man
I recall that there was a comparison test of 35mm & 40mm lenses a couple of years ago. The Jupiter 12 came off pretty well. When I'm back at my regular computer I'll find it and post the thread.
raid
Dad Photographer
If the J-12 [typo was J-3] was a copy of the original Zeiss Biogon, would this suggest that the Zeiss lens also is sub-par?
Last edited:
I think Raid meant the J-12.
The J-12 is a copy of the Biogon. The Biogon underwent a major redesign after WW-II. Remember that Zeiss abandoned the pre-war Biogons, as they will not even fit on the IIa and IIIa.
Like most Russian lenses, there are always "pick of the litter" lenses. This is true of my J-3's.
The J-12 is a copy of the Biogon. The Biogon underwent a major redesign after WW-II. Remember that Zeiss abandoned the pre-war Biogons, as they will not even fit on the IIa and IIIa.
Like most Russian lenses, there are always "pick of the litter" lenses. This is true of my J-3's.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks for pointing out the typo. I meant the J-12.
So the pre-war Biogons also had their own shortcomings then.
I've never used the pre-war Biogon, and can't answer that out of direct experience. It did undergo a major redesign to eliminate tha massive rear element. Nikon did not copy the pre-war design for their wide-angle lenses. The Nikon wide-angle lenses do not have the giant rear element of the pre-war Biogon. It seems to me that the giant rear optic so close to the film plane could cause reflection problems as seen in these images.
raid
Dad Photographer
Does this imply that the Canon 19mm 3.5 and the Minolta Rokkor 21mm 4.0 share such a problem due to the gian rear elementbeing close to the film? I find the two lenses excellent lenses overall. Both lenses are very sharp and I see minimal distortion for such wide lenses.
Last edited:
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
.....on mine too! (especially the first one) - but I did'nt like to say anything, as I get accused of 'sour grapes'!, I suppose the summary is - 'if you can't afford much more, a J12 will get you by untill........'Perhaps I was expecting more but those images look kind of soft on my monitor.
Dave.
PS - these shots would probably look fine - as a postcard- size snapshot.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Brian, would this also, perhaps, point to why Canon spent so much time and effort on their wide angle designs? I'm thinking of the Serenar 28/3.5 & 35/3.5 series of lenses that have no apparent relationship to the lenses of Leica, Zeiss, Nikon or anyone else?
William
William
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
I can't speak for the others you mention - but the 35mm f3.5 Canon Serenar that I had was in a similar class to the J12 - disappointing! later Canon r/f lenses (after they dropped the 'Serenar' name) were, apparently - a good deal better.
Dave.
I wanted the pictures to speak for themselves, and they did. No one is missing anything. Wide-open, I can even see the lack of performance at the edges of the 4"x6" prints. Stopped down to F8 or so, the J-12 is better.
I like to find out for myself what a lens can do. I've tested $15 Helios-103's on the same roll as my Millennium Nikkor 50/1.4 that was ~$1000. The Helios did quite well. The J-12 is no where near as good as the Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8, Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5, or Canon 35/2.8 that are all from the same period.
It's a cheap starter wide-angle that does well when stopped down.
I like to find out for myself what a lens can do. I've tested $15 Helios-103's on the same roll as my Millennium Nikkor 50/1.4 that was ~$1000. The Helios did quite well. The J-12 is no where near as good as the Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8, Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5, or Canon 35/2.8 that are all from the same period.
It's a cheap starter wide-angle that does well when stopped down.
Last edited:
dee
Well-known
I love my Helios - but this is an occasion when my 35mm f 1.8 Rokkor would be pressed into service with lovely compact SR1s ... this is my problem - when it matters , the old , known lenses get used .
Though I should try the 35 f 2.5 Color Scopar on the Leica IIIc , I guess . It's kinda fixed on the M8 .
Though I should try the 35 f 2.5 Color Scopar on the Leica IIIc , I guess . It's kinda fixed on the M8 .
ethics_gradient
Well-known
Brian, do you know if it is possible to modify the LTM J-12's to work in a wider range of cameras? I think the consensus is that the rear element protrudes too far into a Bessa, it either has a danger of touching the shutter or the whole thing blocks the metering cell.
The later J-12's did away with the protective ring around the rear element, but it still protrudes far into the camera. I just looked at a Biogon in an early LTM mount. The rear element interfered with the RF pickup wheel, making RF coupling impossible. The rear element would have to be sliced to make it work reliably.
In LTM, I would go with a Canon 35/2.8 and not a J-12. The difference in price between the two is not that great once shipping from Russia is added to the cost of J-12's on Ebay. My Canon 35/2.8 was ~$150.
In LTM, I would go with a Canon 35/2.8 and not a J-12. The difference in price between the two is not that great once shipping from Russia is added to the cost of J-12's on Ebay. My Canon 35/2.8 was ~$150.
raid
Dad Photographer
The Canon 35/2.8 is a notch or two better than the J12.