nation_of_pomation
Established
Does age matter much when it comes to Soviet lenses? So far, all of the lenses I've bought were newer ('77 or newer), except an I-22 that has an irregular serial that I'm not quite sure how to read. They've all treated me very well. However, I just bought a Jupiter-11 and realized the serial makes it a '57 Anyway, I thought there might be certain dates at which time things changed in production, either in general or at certain manufacturers, that might affect resolution or image quality or lens character. I understand some lenses have a P/П on them that indicates they are coated, but other than that I'm ignorant. Thanks in advance!
Filzkoeter
stray animal
As far as I understand the early lenses were built with better quality control... it's the same with every item from eastern bloc countries.
You have also to consider that eastern bloc countries started to have problems with raw materials (and working morale) in the 70s and 80s due to their bad planned economy.
There are some dates (e.g. until 1956 for the Jupiter-3) where captured German Zeiss glass was used, after those dates the lens designs were recalculated for Soviet glass.
You have also to consider that eastern bloc countries started to have problems with raw materials (and working morale) in the 70s and 80s due to their bad planned economy.
There are some dates (e.g. until 1956 for the Jupiter-3) where captured German Zeiss glass was used, after those dates the lens designs were recalculated for Soviet glass.
S.H.
Picture taker
All postwar soviet glass (that I know of) is coated. What matters more is condition and luck. Later soviet equipment (starting from the 1960) can have very spotty quality control and is mass-produced, but is is also newer so less chance to have been abused or tinkered about.
I do not think you can identify easily the millesime of those lenses just by looking at pictures. Some are well calibrated, some are not (and never have been), it a bit like a gamble.
I do not think you can identify easily the millesime of those lenses just by looking at pictures. Some are well calibrated, some are not (and never have been), it a bit like a gamble.
nation_of_pomation
Established
I had heard about the Zeiss glass, but is there any way the resolution on these lenses changed drastically over time? The Camerapedia page for the Helios-44 lists the difference in resolution across the different numbered versions and it seems like a steep improvement from the original to the -7 version. I'm slowly trying to educate myself on the technical aspects of this kind of thing.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I think that what's happened to the lens since it left the factory is more important. It could have had anything happen to it in the ensuing 50 or 60 years.
But, FWIW, the other day I was looking for something and found and was distracted by a 1974 copy of "Photo Technique"; it was the "battle of the formats" special issue and covered every camera available then. The comment on the Jupiter-8 in a FED was "excellent optical performance" and that magazine wasn't one to pull its punches.
As for worrying about technical matters; don't. You can fritter your life and cash away on those red herrings. Better to buy whatever you fancy or can afford and then get it checked and sorted out if you want 100% reassurance. One of my pictures is incredibly popular and I've given away far too many copies or it and had it "stolen" from websites. It was a grab shot, the camera was on P and is slightly OOF but people love it because it shows the young lady as she is/was then (ie unposed). The subject counts for far more than technical matters, which no one else will notice unless you've worked hard at screwing it up.
Regards, David
I think that what's happened to the lens since it left the factory is more important. It could have had anything happen to it in the ensuing 50 or 60 years.
But, FWIW, the other day I was looking for something and found and was distracted by a 1974 copy of "Photo Technique"; it was the "battle of the formats" special issue and covered every camera available then. The comment on the Jupiter-8 in a FED was "excellent optical performance" and that magazine wasn't one to pull its punches.
As for worrying about technical matters; don't. You can fritter your life and cash away on those red herrings. Better to buy whatever you fancy or can afford and then get it checked and sorted out if you want 100% reassurance. One of my pictures is incredibly popular and I've given away far too many copies or it and had it "stolen" from websites. It was a grab shot, the camera was on P and is slightly OOF but people love it because it shows the young lady as she is/was then (ie unposed). The subject counts for far more than technical matters, which no one else will notice unless you've worked hard at screwing it up.
Regards, David
paradoxbox
Well-known
The old lenses are better for a few reasons - there was less slop when they assembled the lens barrel and elements, and the shimming was done to more strict standards.
unfortunately the russians / eastern europeans know about this now and 1940's-1950's FSU lenses and cameras are nearly as or even more expensive than the genuine German cameras and lenses they were copied from - I recently saw an old Sonnar in good shape for around $250 - the same price Jupiter-3's in the same condition are going for these days.
unfortunately the russians / eastern europeans know about this now and 1940's-1950's FSU lenses and cameras are nearly as or even more expensive than the genuine German cameras and lenses they were copied from - I recently saw an old Sonnar in good shape for around $250 - the same price Jupiter-3's in the same condition are going for these days.
nation_of_pomation
Established
I guess for me, it's weird to hold a lens marked in centimeters and it not be falling apart. This one is absolutely spotless, I just opened the packaging. Does the age affect the resolution of the lens, though? Especially since it's on the cusp of being either Zeiss glass or Russian glass. Is there an easy way to see a difference?
goamules
Well-known
I think by 1957 the German glass had long run out. Most of what I read is the Jupiters prior to about 1952 may have German glass. More here: http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?553745048
I try to get 1950s Jupiters, and ignore those later than the silver era. I just like the aluminum mounts.
I try to get 1950s Jupiters, and ignore those later than the silver era. I just like the aluminum mounts.
Filzkoeter
stray animal
Very interesting read regarding Soviet lenses:
http://www.zenitcamera.com/catalog/lenseslist.html
Use google translate... there are very detailed descriptions for most Soviet lenses (even the years they got recalculated for domestic glass)
http://www.zenitcamera.com/catalog/lenseslist.html
Use google translate... there are very detailed descriptions for most Soviet lenses (even the years they got recalculated for domestic glass)
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
FWIW, I was talking to Malcolm Taylor a while ago and he was saying that the Russian lenses were exact copies of the Zeiss ones and added that he wasn't that surprised. Neither was I as others in other trades involving optics have said the same. My 2d worth is that they probably exist in duff versions but the owners may have something to do with it. Especially if they've tried "mending" one...
My experience with them in both Leica and FED or Zorki bodies has been good. And I think I've owned and used most of them (except the 135mm in both mounts). And when you look at the prices, from about 50 pennies upwards, they are a bargain.
Regards, David
FWIW, I was talking to Malcolm Taylor a while ago and he was saying that the Russian lenses were exact copies of the Zeiss ones and added that he wasn't that surprised. Neither was I as others in other trades involving optics have said the same. My 2d worth is that they probably exist in duff versions but the owners may have something to do with it. Especially if they've tried "mending" one...
My experience with them in both Leica and FED or Zorki bodies has been good. And I think I've owned and used most of them (except the 135mm in both mounts). And when you look at the prices, from about 50 pennies upwards, they are a bargain.
Regards, David
S.H.
Picture taker
Soviet optics can come fully non-calibrated from the factory 
, and they are not 100% compatible with Leica bodies for the LTM ones. So it is easy to see them as "dogs". But dogs they aren't.
Some earliest soviet lenses from 1947-1950 are in fact German optics in soviet barrels : I have a J-3 from 1950 which has a Zeiss s/n from December 1945.
, and they are not 100% compatible with Leica bodies for the LTM ones. So it is easy to see them as "dogs". But dogs they aren't.Some earliest soviet lenses from 1947-1950 are in fact German optics in soviet barrels : I have a J-3 from 1950 which has a Zeiss s/n from December 1945.
nation_of_pomation
Established
Thanks, those links were helpful.
I'm not quite sure what the difference in getting glass from Germany from WII versus the glass the Soviets could have gotten in the late 50's and onward would be, but I don't really know anything about how phot glass is made or chosen. Why would that be more desirable to have Zeiss glass? Is it quality or collectibility, or both? I guess I just wonder now how mine would stack up with a later sample of J-11 in the same condition, at least resolution-wise. That, to me, is the essential question I had in mind when I posted this. If the lenses are pretty much the same across the board, will the resolution also be? I mean, is that what you are getting at, Mr. Hughes? Because I knew for sure the formulae didn't change from the lenses they were copied from. Again, though, I am ignorant about how that kind of thing changes as technology advances. Also, in regards to the first half of the quoted comment: how do you mean they aren't 100% compatible? I see tons of arguments about this, and none are conclusive. I have a Canon P, and I don't want to be forced to buy another lens set for it.
Soviet optics can come fully non-calibrated from the factory
Some earliest soviet lenses from 1947-1950 are in fact German optics in soviet barrels : I have a J-3 from 1950 which has a Zeiss s/n from December 1945.
I'm not quite sure what the difference in getting glass from Germany from WII versus the glass the Soviets could have gotten in the late 50's and onward would be, but I don't really know anything about how phot glass is made or chosen. Why would that be more desirable to have Zeiss glass? Is it quality or collectibility, or both? I guess I just wonder now how mine would stack up with a later sample of J-11 in the same condition, at least resolution-wise. That, to me, is the essential question I had in mind when I posted this. If the lenses are pretty much the same across the board, will the resolution also be? I mean, is that what you are getting at, Mr. Hughes? Because I knew for sure the formulae didn't change from the lenses they were copied from. Again, though, I am ignorant about how that kind of thing changes as technology advances. Also, in regards to the first half of the quoted comment: how do you mean they aren't 100% compatible? I see tons of arguments about this, and none are conclusive. I have a Canon P, and I don't want to be forced to buy another lens set for it.
S.H.
Picture taker
Collectibility IMHO. After the German glass ran out the formula were tweaked because Soviet glass was slightly different. But I doubt you could see it on pictures, this is probably less visible than the variations between two random samples. It seems there is less sample variation on 1950 lenses.
For compatibility with Leica : for j-12 or j-8, it is OK but j-3 should often be shimmed to work correctly, and you have to choose between infinity and close range (often calibrated at close range letting DOF at 4 or 5.6 get the infinity). Never came across an accurately focusing j-9 or j-11 on a Leica.
See here: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I wish I had the time to sit down and type what I'm thinking about this but I haven't.
Zeiss lenses had a brilliant reputation, based imo on their binoculars which were a result of collaboration between Abbe at the Jena University, Schott the chemist and glass maker and Zeiss. The binoculars made from about 1895 bear comparison with many made these days, I've a pair from 1904 (the Mk II version) and 1910 and it is easy to see how good they are by using them. They'd be even better if I could afford to have them cleaned etc.
Naturally every aspect was patented, which stopped others copying them. This happened when Leitz and Zeiss went head to head over cameras in the 30's. The Contax was over complex because Leitz' better design was patented and so Zeiss had to reinvent everything for their camera. It also explains why Leitz never copied the RF and VF in one that Zeiss had.
Of course the second world war changed all that, German firms lost their exclusive rights - which is why the Japanese then copied things and shot ahead. And WW2 accelerated research into glass etc and here I'm going to stop because the reality gets messy due to politics and so on.
Getting back to cameras; testing lenses gives numerical answers but theory and practice are not the same. I'm old enough to know that what I like and what you like could be the same and could be widely different. Worse still, resolution isn't the only thing that counts and all the other factors (even the film, lab and subject) can mess things up when making comparisons.
Then there's all those people who think they can easily take a lens to bits and put it back again who don't even realise that there's a front and a rear to each piece of glass and so on. So it's a messy business. And often failed repaired lenses get sold on and add more damage to the reputation of the original makers.
You can see this in the words people use to describe them and what they don't say either. How anyone can expect a 60 year old second-hand lens to work brilliantly in a body it wasn't designed for escapes me but they do. Again I blame the second-hand sellers; they describe cameras as Leica copies when they are developments of a 1930's Leica copy. So people expect them to mix and match and they don't always. This doesn't surprise me, both Leica and FED/Zorki have moved on from the 1930's and in different directions for different reasons: some involving the politics of other countries...
My experience of a couple of dozen ex-USSR lenses (dated from the 1930's to the late 80's) is that they bear comparison with most of that era and produce very pleasing results today, even in the wrong bodies. Looking at prints is my test: ask me for an opinion of a wine and I'll suggest a corkscrew and glasses are needed. But many people think it can be done by looking at the price and reading the label...
Anyway, with any make of second-hand lens or body, its provenance is very important. And if you can't get it then pay someone to check it and so on. But it's easier to use Leica lenses in Leicas, FED's in FEDs and so on. And regards crossing them over as an experiment.
Get a J-8 adjusted for a Leica and you'll upset the next buyer of it who will try it in a Zorki and curse the makers and ruin their reputation a little more.
Regards, David
PS And another thing, a few years ago there was an open day at the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, not the American copy but the real one. I gave a talk one evening on binoculars and so on and afterwards was talking to someone from the IoA or else the RGO. He was saying that they'd been asked to do some tests on various optical items and was very impressed by the (then) Russian stuff. A bit old fashioned but delivering the goods was his opinion and some of it, he said, couldn't really be bettered. Point made?
I wish I had the time to sit down and type what I'm thinking about this but I haven't.
Zeiss lenses had a brilliant reputation, based imo on their binoculars which were a result of collaboration between Abbe at the Jena University, Schott the chemist and glass maker and Zeiss. The binoculars made from about 1895 bear comparison with many made these days, I've a pair from 1904 (the Mk II version) and 1910 and it is easy to see how good they are by using them. They'd be even better if I could afford to have them cleaned etc.
Naturally every aspect was patented, which stopped others copying them. This happened when Leitz and Zeiss went head to head over cameras in the 30's. The Contax was over complex because Leitz' better design was patented and so Zeiss had to reinvent everything for their camera. It also explains why Leitz never copied the RF and VF in one that Zeiss had.
Of course the second world war changed all that, German firms lost their exclusive rights - which is why the Japanese then copied things and shot ahead. And WW2 accelerated research into glass etc and here I'm going to stop because the reality gets messy due to politics and so on.
Getting back to cameras; testing lenses gives numerical answers but theory and practice are not the same. I'm old enough to know that what I like and what you like could be the same and could be widely different. Worse still, resolution isn't the only thing that counts and all the other factors (even the film, lab and subject) can mess things up when making comparisons.
Then there's all those people who think they can easily take a lens to bits and put it back again who don't even realise that there's a front and a rear to each piece of glass and so on. So it's a messy business. And often failed repaired lenses get sold on and add more damage to the reputation of the original makers.
You can see this in the words people use to describe them and what they don't say either. How anyone can expect a 60 year old second-hand lens to work brilliantly in a body it wasn't designed for escapes me but they do. Again I blame the second-hand sellers; they describe cameras as Leica copies when they are developments of a 1930's Leica copy. So people expect them to mix and match and they don't always. This doesn't surprise me, both Leica and FED/Zorki have moved on from the 1930's and in different directions for different reasons: some involving the politics of other countries...
My experience of a couple of dozen ex-USSR lenses (dated from the 1930's to the late 80's) is that they bear comparison with most of that era and produce very pleasing results today, even in the wrong bodies. Looking at prints is my test: ask me for an opinion of a wine and I'll suggest a corkscrew and glasses are needed. But many people think it can be done by looking at the price and reading the label...
Anyway, with any make of second-hand lens or body, its provenance is very important. And if you can't get it then pay someone to check it and so on. But it's easier to use Leica lenses in Leicas, FED's in FEDs and so on. And regards crossing them over as an experiment.
Get a J-8 adjusted for a Leica and you'll upset the next buyer of it who will try it in a Zorki and curse the makers and ruin their reputation a little more.
Regards, David
PS And another thing, a few years ago there was an open day at the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, not the American copy but the real one. I gave a talk one evening on binoculars and so on and afterwards was talking to someone from the IoA or else the RGO. He was saying that they'd been asked to do some tests on various optical items and was very impressed by the (then) Russian stuff. A bit old fashioned but delivering the goods was his opinion and some of it, he said, couldn't really be bettered. Point made?
nation_of_pomation
Established
That was absolutely brilliant! I guess what it comes down to was I had been unsure if I should try to keep like items together, and I believe I will. I'm sure getting Canon lenses for my Canon camera won't kill me. I do wish getting a 50mm in good condition wasn't nigh-impossible, but I am patient and I honestly think I prefer the FSU cameras I own as of now. It means a lot to be able to have people such as yourself, S.H. and others that are more knowledgeable about these things. I use the equipment to create, but I very much want to lessen the blow of disappointment as much as possible when it comes to mixing and matching. Maybe it's a fault of mine, but part of why I choose to use what I do is technical, but I'd be lying if I said I knew fully what I was doing! I suppose it'll be just a matter of testing this specific sample of Jupiter-11 and seeing how she works.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I forgot to add; about pre-war Leitz and Zeiss lenses: about 30 or 40 years ago I bought an almost new Summicron in "as new" condition and was suitably impressed by it.
Then 10 or 15 years ago I bought a Summitar f/2 from the USA (a bit of a risk as the seller was the other side of the world) but the lens was brilliant. As good as the Summicron at times and better now and then and vice versa of course, depending on the subject etc. Here's a sample, look at the grass in the corners;
I can't say the same about my Zeiss lens on the Contax II but given their age I often wonder if I should get the Sonnar sorted out or just take more pictures and see what happens.
Anyway, the point of all this is to add that I think, but can't be 100% certain, that Leitz overtook Zeiss by the late 30's.
Regards, David
Then 10 or 15 years ago I bought a Summitar f/2 from the USA (a bit of a risk as the seller was the other side of the world) but the lens was brilliant. As good as the Summicron at times and better now and then and vice versa of course, depending on the subject etc. Here's a sample, look at the grass in the corners;
I can't say the same about my Zeiss lens on the Contax II but given their age I often wonder if I should get the Sonnar sorted out or just take more pictures and see what happens.
Anyway, the point of all this is to add that I think, but can't be 100% certain, that Leitz overtook Zeiss by the late 30's.
Regards, David
goamules
Well-known
David, thanks for the good summation of these topics above. I think I agree with everything you wrote.
To the OP, I'd say just get a canon lens or two for the P. They are made to work with it, and have been in the country in closets, not sitting in bombed out rubble and revolutions! I like the FSU lenses, but some do have problems. I've never had a Canon lens I didn't like, and I have a P also. The 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 are very good, and not that expensive. The 1.8 is probably a lot cheaper now than a J-3, and it's build quality blows it away.
To the OP, I'd say just get a canon lens or two for the P. They are made to work with it, and have been in the country in closets, not sitting in bombed out rubble and revolutions! I like the FSU lenses, but some do have problems. I've never had a Canon lens I didn't like, and I have a P also. The 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 are very good, and not that expensive. The 1.8 is probably a lot cheaper now than a J-3, and it's build quality blows it away.
S.H.
Picture taker
Technically, I'd say Zeiss had the upper hand until the 1950s with better coatings and high-speed formulas like the 180 and 85 Sonnar, the 35 Biogon and the 1.5 50 Sonnar. (also don't forget the postwar 21 Biogon wich was used long after the Contax ceased to exist) Just my opinion of course.
I have a Summilux 50 (1st version) and my Zeiss-Opton Sonnar is better up to f5.6. Any Sonnar that I have (I have half a dozen of them) is better up to f2.8 than my Summilux on film and on my M8. And my Summilux is calibrated, my Leicas too. But I had once disappointing results with this Zeiss-Opton on a prewar Contax body. Go figure.
This is a good example : with such old lenses, used with RF bodies, each photographer can have its own conclusion, based on its own gear. It is hard to give useful blanket statements. The RF and lenses should be well calibrated/matched and there is sample variation. Also, we do not have the same expectations of "quality".
I have some Contax lenses and bodies, I plan to have them sorted out with a collimator to match them with a well performing body. With old RF stuff, this is probably the only way to have top notch results.
Bottom line for the OP: shoot what you have, make sure it performs within specifications (lens and RF calibration), when you have something that is satisfying (to you), keep it! Do not let collectors like myself prevent you from taking pictures
David Hughes
David Hughes
Thanks folks, it's nice to feel appreciated.
SH's point is a good one about outfits. I already do it in that I try to use the Summar on the model II, the Summitar on a contemporary IIIc and so on. I've often wondered about getting them all up to speed but, really, I knock out 5" x 7" prints most of the time and can't justify it and afford to add the odd lens to the collection. (Well, I can but I like to eat now and then... )
I shall have to spend some time playing at mix and match this summer. I might bring the Kiev 2 and its outfit into play as well.
As for coating, I think that this was a cottage industry at times. I've seen some Summars ruined by it; a sort of cold dip - I was told by an expert. A pity the 3rd Reich didn't get them to work together during the war. Although what they (the 3rd Reich) did manage, terrified me at the time: so perhaps not.
Thanks again. Regards, David
PS I should have added that the little white things in the corner of the photograph above are daisies in the grass.
SH's point is a good one about outfits. I already do it in that I try to use the Summar on the model II, the Summitar on a contemporary IIIc and so on. I've often wondered about getting them all up to speed but, really, I knock out 5" x 7" prints most of the time and can't justify it and afford to add the odd lens to the collection. (Well, I can but I like to eat now and then... )
I shall have to spend some time playing at mix and match this summer. I might bring the Kiev 2 and its outfit into play as well.
As for coating, I think that this was a cottage industry at times. I've seen some Summars ruined by it; a sort of cold dip - I was told by an expert. A pity the 3rd Reich didn't get them to work together during the war. Although what they (the 3rd Reich) did manage, terrified me at the time: so perhaps not.
Thanks again. Regards, David
PS I should have added that the little white things in the corner of the photograph above are daisies in the grass.
nation_of_pomation
Established
I understand what you guys are saying about sample variation and whatnot. I like the Russian stuff because sordid histories make the best stories. For me, there's something special about making the best of a bad situation, which I guess it part of the box I like to give myself when I am working. Also, at least for me, I don't feel wary because there are more reputable people to buy them from than seems like there were when the gear was contemporary. Like I say in my signature, I really do have tons of toy cameras and a few of them I favor more than my "real" cameras. So, just to reiterate: if my sample of Jupiter-11 13,5cm from 1957 is good (and I will assume it is because I trust Yuri), it should perform optically just as well as a late model, build quality aside?