The EBay seller has mistaken RF coupling with Autofocus.
Just bought a Jupiter 8 and I'm not sure what to do next.
- Thread starter baerinatux
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 37
- Views 4K
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Slight aside to mention that RF coupling was marketed as autofocus back in the day.
Always tickled me a bit seeing that in old adverts.
baerinatux
Newbie
From what others have said and the research i've done, I just didn't know what exactly I was purchasing. What I would probably have to pay on the return shipping to Ukraine would be close to what I paid for the lens to begin with. So I think I'm going to keep it and look into some of the adapters that have been posted above.
wlewisiii
Veteran
You would problably be best off selling as a Contax RF J-8 lens.
Then, find a correct lens for _your_camera.
If you want/need help, pm me. I will assist you.
That said, you have a nice lens there. Don't piss it away just because it isn't what you thought it was,.
We ((here at RFF) can make it work, one way or the other. )
Take that as you will 😀
baerinatux
Newbie
I somehow didn't even think of reselling it as what it is and then purchasing the correct thing. I think that's the route I will go.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
If you do decide to go that route, honestly... skip the "LTM" Jupiter 8. There are a lot of LTM 50s that are much less hassle for not a lot more money.
People will wax lyrical about the Jupiter 8 on here and elsewhere, but as I said previously, unless you get one that you know someone like Brian has fixed or are willing (and able) to do the work yourself, it is going to be a roll of the dice as to whether you get one that will work properly on your camera (and the likelihood is that you won't).
Unless, of course, you're using a FED or Zorki; in that case, grab an "LTM" Jupiter 8 and go nuts. They are fine lenses... in the right setup.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Lets talk real talk here, instead of theoretical assumptions.
Which LTM 50 you will get for J-8 cost?
Somewhat next affordable is Canon 50 1.8 is much harder to find without non removable fog. Most black and silver ones are affected. Earlier, silver version is not, but it priced accordingly.
J-8 is hard to beat not only for price, but for size, aperture, performance.
And FSU RF optics, comparing to Leitz, Canon and even earlier Cosina LTM lenses, have much more stable optics. They are not prone to fog, separation and fungus which are normal characteristics of Leitz.
From my real world experience with dozens of all makes LTM lenses and FSU, Cosina, Leica RF cameras it is not uncommon to have 50/2 J-8 working straight on non-FSU and FSU LTM lens not been aligned on FSU body.
So, broad assumptions are false, sorry.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Wow, I never thought I'd see you defending Soviet gear, @Ko.Fe.; you're normally the first to belittle them!
Honestly, at this point, I've lost count of the amount of Soviet lenses of all flavours that have passed through my hands over the years. Nothing like as many as Brian, of course, but... a lot. And all of the FED and Zorki ones have consistently back-focused by the same amount on an LTM camera, whether it be Leica, Canon, Nicca, Leotax, etc.; the problem is known, understood, and measureable.
Very old test from ten years ago:
Soviet Lens Tests, Redux. by Tony Gale, on Flickr
Three different lens designs (J8, I26m, I22), three different sources, three different factories (KMZ, KOMZ, FED). All running to exactly the same spec and back-focusing by exactly the same amount compared to a Leica's rangefinder (shown as accurate using a Summicron in the same test). And this is at f/4; the difference is much more pronounced at f/2 on the Jupiter 8. Same thing happens the other way around: keep a FED calibrated to the Soviet spec and put a Leica or Canon lens on it, and it'll front-focus by the same amount.
You do raise a valid point about the lack of haze and separation in Soviet lenses - I was dwelling on that the other day while cleaning the haze out of a 90mm Elmar. So many Leitz lenses from the same era are hazy as hell, but Soviet ones are not. Instead, they have their own problem: lubricant that turns to beeswax and seizes the whole lens. Stripping out that old lubricant is the first "fix" I taught myself to do with lenses and cameras, and I ended up doing it for a lot of friends over the years as a result. It's an easy fix, sure, but it's still something you have to sort out alongside the RF calibration issue. This is another reason I'd suggest OP sticks with his Contax J8M and picks up an adapter instead.
As for affordable LTM 50s: I'd go for Canon's collapsible 50/1.9 Serenar, personally. Yes, it's more expensive than an "LTM" Jupiter 8, but not by much in the grand scheme of things. And looking through eBay here in the UK, the 50/2.8 Canon is only £60, which is basically the same price as a "good" Jupiter 8 which is unlikely to focus correctly anyway. Some of the Leonons also crop up for relatively cheap if you're patient.
Honestly, at this point, I've lost count of the amount of Soviet lenses of all flavours that have passed through my hands over the years. Nothing like as many as Brian, of course, but... a lot. And all of the FED and Zorki ones have consistently back-focused by the same amount on an LTM camera, whether it be Leica, Canon, Nicca, Leotax, etc.; the problem is known, understood, and measureable.
Very old test from ten years ago:
Soviet Lens Tests, Redux. by Tony Gale, on Flickr
Three different lens designs (J8, I26m, I22), three different sources, three different factories (KMZ, KOMZ, FED). All running to exactly the same spec and back-focusing by exactly the same amount compared to a Leica's rangefinder (shown as accurate using a Summicron in the same test). And this is at f/4; the difference is much more pronounced at f/2 on the Jupiter 8. Same thing happens the other way around: keep a FED calibrated to the Soviet spec and put a Leica or Canon lens on it, and it'll front-focus by the same amount.
You do raise a valid point about the lack of haze and separation in Soviet lenses - I was dwelling on that the other day while cleaning the haze out of a 90mm Elmar. So many Leitz lenses from the same era are hazy as hell, but Soviet ones are not. Instead, they have their own problem: lubricant that turns to beeswax and seizes the whole lens. Stripping out that old lubricant is the first "fix" I taught myself to do with lenses and cameras, and I ended up doing it for a lot of friends over the years as a result. It's an easy fix, sure, but it's still something you have to sort out alongside the RF calibration issue. This is another reason I'd suggest OP sticks with his Contax J8M and picks up an adapter instead.
As for affordable LTM 50s: I'd go for Canon's collapsible 50/1.9 Serenar, personally. Yes, it's more expensive than an "LTM" Jupiter 8, but not by much in the grand scheme of things. And looking through eBay here in the UK, the 50/2.8 Canon is only £60, which is basically the same price as a "good" Jupiter 8 which is unlikely to focus correctly anyway. Some of the Leonons also crop up for relatively cheap if you're patient.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Again, generalization is only somewhat accurate. 🙂
To me trying to take pictures on daily basis with any FSU camera is sadomasochism with uncertainty.
And I'm not alone on this one.
Those are awesome memorabilia to enjoy them once in a while. Back then we used them for few rolls per year.
But no FSU camera is capable of been daily use photography tool by now and hardly ever been.
Even during SU, SU based pros were ditching SU gear at very first chance for non SU gear.
RF LTM lenses are completely different story. I already mentioned why I'm not bashing them.
Nor I see practical reason to recommend some Canon collapsible lens only few collectors have seen.
And, of course, another somewhat less rarity from Canon (50 2.8) makes no sense.
If some is OK with f2.8, Industars are totally fine and cost as much as f2.8 should cost. Not "only" £60, which is ripoff for 50 2.8. IMO.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
And to cut theoretical part off here is the link to Jupiter-8 on FSU and mostly not cameras, plus another Jupiter lenses I used for real:
www.flickr.com
And to match some gear pictures above:
Leica M-E 220 with J-8.
Flickr Search — “Jupiter-8”
www.flickr.com
And to match some gear pictures above:
Leica M-E 220 with J-8.
Myrrys.eu
Established
Here's my jupiter-8 c/k mount on leica monochrom. It's a nice vintage lense with 3d pop, low contrast but works nicely 😊
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
That is a different animal, the C/K mounts are just lovely and work great
Hibbs
R.I.P. Charlie
I know there is an M42 version of the Jupiter 9, but was there a native M42 Jupiter 8?
~Hibbs
~Hibbs
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
How much does a Kiev/Contax --> Leica adaptor cost? Probably more than a usable Kiev body! Maybe someone here has one they'd part with for cheap/free? 🙂
wlewisiii
Veteran
Cheap Chinese one that only works with Live View? $50 ~ 75.
One that works well? Amedeo from Cameraquest for $400.
One that works well? Amedeo from Cameraquest for $400.
retinax
Well-known
No, note how close to the film plane the lens is? The rear element is right there at the rear flange. That's where the mirror is on an SLR. In the case of the J-9, the lens itself sits further forward in the barrel so it also works as an SLR lens.
Myrrys.eu
Established
I bought my internal mount with helicoid adapter for 16 euros, heavily used one. And it's correctly calibrated for leica rf. Luck might have more to do with it then anything else 😊
Would love to find external bayonet adapter for my jupiter-12 & 9 lenses. But they seem hard to come by
Would love to find external bayonet adapter for my jupiter-12 & 9 lenses. But they seem hard to come by
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
The Jupiter 12 won't work with most external mount adapters even if you find one. The rear element is too large.
Amazingly, the most recent Amedeo Contax-to-LTM adapters do work with it. I thought it'd only fit on a rangefinder-less Leica because I'd always heard the RF cam follower gets in the way, but nope. I've used a Contax Jupiter 12 on a IIIf without issue with one of the new adapters.
Similar threads
