Leica IIIa - which lens to buy? Jupiter-8?

[mnutzer]

Any Barnack Leica in good condition should be worth using with equally good Leica lenses.
Only a few third-party manufacturers such as Cosina-Voigtlander, Nikon or Canon can keep up in terms of quality.
If an Elmar 3.5 or 2.8-50mm is too slow, a clean Summicron 2.0-50mm would be a better choice.
At least a Summaron 3.5-35mm and an Elmar 4.0-90mm should be added later, otherwise a viewfinder camera with a fixed lens would suffice.
So save up for a Leica lens or, if you can't afford the investment, consider selling the IIIa.
For the proceeds you should get enough cheap Leica copies with suitable lenses to be able to participate in the FSU lottery.
And remember, film is getting more and more expensive.
Sometimes I take a few digital test shots before switching to a camera with film loaded.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The FSU lenses are made to the Zeiss standard of a nominal 52.4mm as per the Data Sheets that come with the lenses. There is a +/-1% deviation in the focal lengths, as per the data sheets that come with some of the ones I've bought. On average, there is a back-focus of these lenses. Some of them, on the short range of the focal length will be fine. Others will be way off.





Hard to believe that some sellers of Russian lenses in Fed/Zorki Mount continue to give bad information that they can be used on a Leica standard camera, that the Russian lenses were made to the Leica 51.6mm standard.

THEY ARE NOT, How do I know? Because I have the Data Sheets that came with some of my lenses. That simple. 52.4mm +/- 1% tolerance. If you get lucky, and the lens is on the lowest end of the tolerance- it's close on a Leica. Gaussian Curve for tolerance- you need to adjust the shim. Far end of the tolerance, you need to adjust focal length and the shim.

That's the laws of Physics.

Sellers that claim the Russian lenses were built to the Leica 51.6mm spec are liars. I have serviced a number of lenses sold by these same sellers.

And for the Jupiter-3, stay away from Valdai.

https://cameraderie.org/threads/vald...nd-test.37816/

 

[Sonnar Brian]

My Jupiter-3 lenses in LTM are the product of cherry-picking the optics, cleaning and fine-polishing of the mechanics, and careful calibration with respect to focal length and setting the shim. Currently fourteen of the best J-3's from going through a few hundred.

The Canon 50/1.5: etched glass and damaged coating behind the aperture is a problem that affects a large percentage of them. Optimized for F2.8. I shimmed mine for wide-open use. I also modified one of my Summarits for wide-open/ close-up use.
Nikkor 5cm F1.4: Mine was $95 when RFF was new, prices are way up. Bokeh is harsh. David Douglas Duncan is reputed to have preferred the Nikkor 5cm F1.5. So do I. I only have 1 of those, and 10 of the 5cm F1.4- mostly S-Mount. Nikon changed the formula of the F1.4 lens early on, probably due to DDD's feedback.

The Jupiter-8 is plentiful, the mechanics are not as good as the J-3.
Overall- The Nikkor 5cm F2 in LTM is the one to get. Not too pricey, less than a good J-3.

Get a J-3- be prepared to do some work on it. Same with a J-8 if you like to use it wide-open and close up. Avoid the ones from the 1960s, silver mount, without a focus tab. Machining was all over the place, many with a wobble to the mount.

These Three Jupiter-3's were all made in 1956.

RIMG0088 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

They all are different optical formulas. The rear fixture is different on all three. The one on the right is a first-version KMZ J-3, uses German Glass. It is the best performer and matches a Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5.

 

[Coldkennels]

Given so many other options, cheap and pricey, I don't see the appeal at all of FSU M39 rangefinder lenses. Either pay a pro to adjust them or use something else. If you want the Sonnar experience, you can use a Nikkor 1.4, an early Canon 1.5, or adapt to Leica M the common and fairly cheap Contax RF 1.5, A much better platform for those FSU lenses are the M42 versions - where you can ensure that everything is in focus and function correctly.

I think this is a bit harsh. On a FED or Zorki, some of them are fantastic lenses - a clean Industar 22 is definitely on par with an Elmar 50/3.5, and a good Jupiter 8 is a stunning thing. The optics in the Industar 61 L/Z are great, but the body of the lens is uniformly cheap-feeling. In terms of bang-for-the-buck they represent a good deal, but you're best using them with a rangefinder that was designed to take them - or, of course, slap them onto a mirrorless body so you can focus through the lens and skip the rangefinder issues.

So what you have demonstrated is that you have three bad lenses whereas I have demonstrated I have one good one, possibly two if the camera repair ever sends it back to me. This is a dicey area, the old Soviet lenses, and a sweeping generalization is dangerous as there are now so many variables between when it was brand new and now.

I see you skipped over one crucial point in that test: I took three very different lenses with very different designs, all sourced from different geographical locations and sellers, and they all performed consistently. This isn't "you have bad luck and three bad lenses" - I have three very good lenses that all work perfectly and produce stunning images on a FED or Zorki. On a Leica, which uses a different standard for the rangefinder, they all perform as they should - i.e. not correctly. I've since done similar tests with other Soviet lenses (including the 85/2 Jupiter 9, which really highlights this problem), and guess what? The exact same back focus occurs to a predictable and measurable degree.

So either I have the most wildly bad luck and every single seller I've ever purchased a lens from happens to be tinkering with lenses and butchering them in exactly the same way - or this is how they were actually produced. Even without other evidence to support my position, Occam's razor suggests my explanation is the likely one - and the information Brian has provided should be the final nail in the coffin. FSU lenses that correctly focus on a Leica are the exception, not the rule.

Or he has demonstrated that you have a bad one that was badly calibrated to Soviet spec, which is vastly more likely given the massive variation in Soviet-Era quality control over the production years.

I don't even think this is the case, to be honest. It's more likely that a) it's been modified at some point or b) it was intentionally manufactured to Leica spec.

The latter notion is a dubious one, but I seem to recall reading a rumour somewhere that Jupiter 8s shipped with either the Drug or Leningrad cameras were calibrated to Leica spec and not Soviet ones - presumably so that the camera could also be shipped in Leica spec and used with Leica lenses alongside the J8. However, this is something I stumbled upon well over a decade ago now, so any evidence to back that claim up is probably long gone - buried in some old website or forum post. Maybe Sonnar Brian has heard similar over the years. Or maybe I'm just going crazy.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I remember from ~50 years ago that a New York based camera shop imported Fed cameras and lenses and had their repair department do a CLA on all of them, made them Leica compatible. I've seen many lenses that were shimmed for the Leica standard that were done after manufacture, evidenced by an extra set of taps for the set screws. I have seen a few Jupiter lenses that were perfect on the Leica and did not have extra taps showing it had been recalibrated. +/-1% deviation on 52.4mm puts the short end close enough to the Leica standard to be perfect across range used wide-open. I could see these lenses being cherry picked for an export market.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

It's all easily explained.
Jupiter-3

Infinity

1/(focal length)= 1/(distance)+ 1/(backfocus)

1/52.4mm= 1/infinity+ 1/(backfocus)

1/52.4mm= 1/ (backfocus)

back-focus= 52.4mm



at 0.9m

1/52.4mm= 1/(900mm)+ 1/(backfocus)

0.01908mm= 0.001111mm+ 1/(backfocus)

0.07969mm= 1/(backfocus)

Backfocus= 55.6514mm


Travel from Infinity to 0.9m: 55.2976-52.4 and is 3.2514mm


Leica:

Infinity

1/(focal length)= 1/(distance)+ 1/(backfocus)

1/51.6mm= 1/infinity+ 1/(backfocus)

1/51.6mm= 1/ (backfocus)

back-focus= 51.6mm



at 0.9m

1/51.6mm= 1/(900mm)+ 1/(backfocus)

0.019380mm= 0.001111mm+ 1/(backfocus)

0.0182688mm= 1/(backfocus)

Backfocus= 54.7380mm


Travel from infinity to 0.9m: 54.7380- 51.6 and is 3.1380

Difference in travel: 3.2514- 3.1380, equals 0.1134mm.

The last number is the required difference in the Shim for a Jupiter-3 to focus on a Leica. As actual focal length varies +/-1%, this number will be different on lenses. This all assumes the shim is correct to start with. Often- it is not.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Wide-Open.

1952 Jupiter-3 5cm F1.5, originally in Kiev Mount. Converted to LTM. The last J-3 I bought was a 1964 ZOMZ, focus way off. Discovered it had been set in an earlier KMZ focus mount. I switched them.

It was a lot of work. I use polishing sheets made for fiber optic connectors on the metal of the parts of the mount, including the inside of the focus ring to get it really smooth. Get the old grease out using paint thinner. Pick guide screws for the inner/outer helical that exactly fit the groove. It's like knitting, can be very relaxing- if and only if you OWN the lens. This one is very smooth. The KMZ lenses are the best.

 

[David Hughes]

As has been pointed out several times, sellers will say these things and the makers get bashed for it and the lenses get a bad reputation.

It's a pity the auction site doesn't stamp on it...

Regards, David

 

[neal3k]

After all this talk of shimming, I was wondering why I was so happy with my Jupiter 8 and 11, my three different Industars, and my two Fed 1 lenses. It looks like coldkennels in his post explained it when he pretty much described the way I shoot my Leicas, Feds, Zorkis, Canons and Nicca: On further distances and stopped down, it's less obvious. Depth of field can cover it, and most people aren't that picky anyway. But the difference does exist.

 

[Coldkennels]

Yeah, I've managed to "blag it" by keeping things to f/5.6-ish and down and had tolerable results (especially with Industars), but I'm the absolute worst for picking up missed focus. Doesn't have to be out much and it's all I can focus on (ironically). So while some folks have nothing to complain about... I can see it. And if I can, I'm sure others will, too.

Incidentally, my ex hated watching TV shows with me because I was always pointing out when someone had missed the intended focus point. The worst is stuff that was shot in the pre-HD era and remastered for HD - small errors that weren't noticed in the 80s and 90s are really visible now. Blurry eyes but in-focus ears, etc.

 

[Dralowid]

Wouldn't need all this brouhaha if the OP would be happy with an Elmar...!

 

[raydm6]

Wouldn't need all this brouhaha if the OP would be happy with an Elmar...!

Lol! We could also use an FSU Body/Leica Lens combo thread (...joking...🙂)

 

[Coldkennels]

Lol! We could also use an FSU Body/Leica Lens combo thread (...joking...🙂)

...oddly enough, that's a way easier combo to get going, as you can adjust the various FSU cameras to focus perfectly with a Leica lens by rotating the sled-shaped cam follower in the lens mount.

So if you've ever wanted to use a Summicron on a FED 2 or a Zorki 4, you can rest easy at night. Works a treat (once you've done some tinkering, anyway).

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Nikkor 5cm F2 works well on my Zorki 3M, I calibrated the RF for it and the Nikkor has a thick Cam. I like the viewfinder and styling of the Zorki-3M, have two of them. One from Oleg, smooth.

Leica mount lenses with a thin RF cam, such as the Summarit 5cm F1.5, will jam up on the FSU "Finger" style RF Follower.

 

[David Hughes]

Interesting that no one has mentioned the Industar 10, which were labelled "FED" and were the first ones used. The bodies from then are very good and so I can;t help thinking the 10's were made with f=50mm. I vaguely remember reading that they were but the usual brain fade means I wonder where. I'm thinking that early ones, made pre-war means they turn up on much later camera bodies following the evacuation of the factory to escape the invading Nazi Govy's army etc. The industar-26 then replaced the 10 on FED bodies in the mid 50's. There's two styles of the f/3.5 ones; some close to f/16 and some to f/18.

Regards, David

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Of the collapsible Industars: I really like the I-50. Beautifully made, lots of brass and the optics are as good as my post-war coated Elmar 50/3.5. The latter- $50 with a Leica IIIf on it, ~1992. It was in a Brown Grab Bag at a camera shop, $50, could not peek until paid for. The sales people made me open it, they had no idea of what the Manager had put in it. I was happy, any of them could have bought it. The Industar-50 was under $50. The I-10 I had, came on a Fed. Was very soft. I have a Rigid I-22 and two collapsible I-22's. All are very good- but the I-50 is better.

The IIIf+Elmar is my 3rd least expensive Leica. Black III with uncoated Elmar and Chrome IIIa with Summar, $15 each at a local antique/junk store.

 

[boojum]

I think this is a bit harsh. On a FED or Zorki, some of them are fantastic lenses - a clean Industar 22 is definitely on par with an Elmar 50/3.5, and a good Jupiter 8 is a stunning thing. The optics in the Industar 61 L/Z are great, but the body of the lens is uniformly cheap-feeling. In terms of bang-for-the-buck they represent a good deal, but you're best using them with a rangefinder that was designed to take them - or, of course, slap them onto a mirrorless body so you can focus through the lens and skip the rangefinder issues.



I see you skipped over one crucial point in that test: I took three very different lenses with very different designs, all sourced from different geographical locations and sellers, and they all performed consistently. This isn't "you have bad luck and three bad lenses" - I have three very good lenses that all work perfectly and produce stunning images on a FED or Zorki. On a Leica, which uses a different standard for the rangefinder, they all perform as they should - i.e. not correctly. I've since done similar tests with other Soviet lenses (including the 85/2 Jupiter 9, which really highlights this problem), and guess what? The exact same back focus occurs to a predictable and measurable degree.

So either I have the most wildly bad luck and every single seller I've ever purchased a lens from happens to be tinkering with lenses and butchering them in exactly the same way - or this is how they were actually produced. Even without other evidence to support my position, Occam's razor suggests my explanation is the likely one - and the information Brian has provided should be the final nail in the coffin. FSU lenses that correctly focus on a Leica are the exception, not the rule.



I don't even think this is the case, to be honest. It's more likely that a) it's been modified at some point or b) it was intentionally manufactured to Leica spec.

The latter notion is a dubious one, but I seem to recall reading a rumour somewhere that Jupiter 8s shipped with either the Drug or Leningrad cameras were calibrated to Leica spec and not Soviet ones - presumably so that the camera could also be shipped in Leica spec and used with Leica lenses alongside the J8. However, this is something I stumbled upon well over a decade ago now, so any evidence to back that claim up is probably long gone - buried in some old website or forum post. Maybe Sonnar Brian has heard similar over the years. Or maybe I'm just going crazy.

You piqued my interest so I shot three photos wide open on the 35, 50 and 85mm Jupiters. The 35 and 50 were spot on. The 86 was not. It registered just over 1.8 meters using the RF however the other two had registered just under 1.7 meters using the RF with them. When I focused the 85 to just under 1.7 meters it was in focus at f/2.0. It could use shimming. But as I do not think I will be doing much with it at that distance and aperture I can let the shimming slide until the next time I am in PDX when I will drop it off at a reputable camera repair.

The 35 and 50 are just as they were when they arrived. My guess is that the seller, in Ukraine, had corrected them. His rating is high and he has always sold me good gear at a fair price. This is my experience.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Jupiter-9: Best to buy the Kiev version and use it with an adapter for the Leica. This is with my 1955 KMZ J-9 on the $70 Chinese Contax to LTM adapter.

Wide-Open. Perfect.

 

[boojum]

I cannot say, "Wide Open. Perfect." Mine is a black '88. Its logo is a triangle with a "c" inside it and the triangle is imposed upon a circle. At infinity it is as sharp as one would want and I believe it can be when focused closely when shimmed. Its color rendition is good. US$121 from Turkey. I have the usual Chinese LTM to M39 adapter (28 - 90). I use it rarely as the Amotal on the M9 keeps me pretty happy, followed by that '57 J8. I believe in the Soviet Zeiss clones as good lenses. Yes, QC makes buying them a crap shoot. But my experience with patronizing highly rated eBay sellers has paid off, at least in the case of this fellow in Ukraine. I just checked his rating, 100%, He doesn't have enough cousins to make that happen. ua_iesh is the fellow. FWIW I buy KMZ, early 50's, red "P." The J9 is an exception.

J9 at infinity and stopped down:

​

OK, much later, I found the color image of the Ro-Ro. The Jupiter-9 does do good color:

​

 

[dexdog]

Lens is made by the LZOS factory, in Lytkarino. Ro-ros are odd looking ships
A webpage on Soviet camera and lens factories http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/logos/