Advice, please: Jupiter 8 or 5?

[payasam]

I recently acquired a IIIc and a coated Summitar. Will be tried out only when they come back from hospital in ten days or so. My memory of the lens, a borrowed example of which I used for a while in the mid 1960s, is that from f/4 or thereabouts it is practically as contrasty as the Summicron, which was of course derived from it; but at larger apertures it is soft. While this feature can be used to advantage, the lens cannot be called an all-purpose one. This is of particular concern to me, since I do a fair bit of low-light work at full aperture and do not fancy getting only "dreamy" results.

Having already invested in a Summaron 35/3.5 and a Steinheil 85/2.8, I cannot spend too much on another 50. Not a collector but a working photographer who's not working much at present and who has other equipment too. I am therefore thinking of either a Jupiter 8 or a Jupiter 3. A maximum aperture of f/2 is enough for me, but I understand the J8 is of possibly flimsy aluminium construction. The J3 is built better, but I cannot cleanse my brain of the memory of the Summarit I had, but did not use, for 17 years on account of flare, flare and more flare (used a Serenar 1.8 instead). Yes, Zeiss had hard glass and coating and Leitz had soft, but we all know about phobias. Besides, the J3 is rather more expensive. The Industar 61 L/D has a fine reputation, but the difference of one stop may amount to amputation.

Far too many words, so let me put two questions. First, is the J8 mechanically reliable if handled gently? Second, is the J3 prone to flare? I always use hoods.

 

[Bobbo]

For the Jupiter 8, it depends on if you get a good one or not. the Jupiter 8 on my kiev is pretty sharp and pretty well-made (not a Contax Sonnar, but not too bad)...I got lucky🙂

The J3 has flare like any pre-WWII lens design. Coatings make a difference, but a hood always helps. With a hood, you won't have a problem unless you like to shoot bright sources of light.

 

[JoeFriday]

experience among RFFers has shown that the J3 is not a good match for non-FSU gear unless it is calibrated and shimmed for your particular camera.. and even then, I haven't seen much evidence to show that it's a better lens than the J8

the J3 is a lens that many people lust after, but usually it disappoints.. the J8, on the otherhand, is a very unpretentious lens that is often underestimated.. it's also very reliable

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I vote for the J8. I enjoy mine. You have probably seen what members have done with this lens.

Don't count the Industar 61 l/d out. It can be a real bargain. The results from this lens are very nice. I never felt like I was short due to the 1 stop difference. It was my favorite for classic car shots due to the six pointed star that would show up on the bright highlights. I'm getting another one for my Fed 3. Fortunately they can be found daily on *bay for a song.

 

[payasam]

That was quick, friends. I understand, Bobbo, that the J8 is a Zeiss Sonnar clone, and that the earliest were in fact made with Zeiss components. As for flare, I'd give much more importance to a hood than to coating. The enormous SOOPD for the Summitar is a case in point. What you say, Joe, matches the impression I've formed: though I'd point out that incorrect flange-film distance will affect *any* lens. For me, your having pronounced the J8 reliable is what counts. Right, Bob, the J8 it will be. It's not as if I count out the I 61 L/D: from all accounts, it's dead sharp and, some say, even too contrasty. It costs little and I may get one for precisely these qualities. However, the one-stop difference is important. While I'm generally safe down to 1/4 sec. with a normal or a wide, 1/2 sec. gets dicey. But a six-pointed candle flame in a wholly out of focus background indoors does appeal...

[EDIT] In the thread title, please deduct 2 from 5. I *can* count.

 

[darkkavenger]

My J8 is awesome, I'm not sure if going for a J3 would make any great improvement. J3s are rarer to find than J8, and some have suffered disassembly so they might not be as well calibrated as a J8. Well, I speak of my experience with Kiev-mount J8s

 

[rover]

Another vote for the Jupiter 8. I have a later black version bought on ebay, listed as new. I guess it was made around 1980, but it is significantly better made than the J3 that I have, no comparison. You are much less likely to have any compatibility issues with the J8 too. Here is an interesting article.

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

 

[hoot]

It was my favorite for classic car shots due to the six pointed star that would show up on the bright highlights.

Great for photographing Jewish weddings, too. 😀

I have a Zorki-1 (built very similar to a screwmount Leica) and a Jupiter-8. With a hood mounted, the J-8 obscures most of the built-in 50mm viewfinder. The J-5 should be significantly bigger than the J-8, so I wouldn't be surprised if it obscures the *entire* viewfinder as well as part of the rangefinder patch. You could always mount an accessory 50mm finder, but that kind of defeats the purpose of your small, elegant camera.

My PasOptik 21mm lens obscures about half of the Zorki's rangefinder patch with no hood mounted. Once you mount the accessory hood (which is relatively tiny), the entire rangefinder patch is gone, turning it into a scale focus lens (which is not a problem with 21mm, except that this lens isn't priced for scale focus).

Good luck!

 

[wlewisiii]

Given what you're looking for, I'll vote for a black Jupiter 8 as well. Get a small simple hood (I got a folding rubber one on ebay for a couple of bucks) and your set. Small, good quality and that classic sonnar look all make for a great and underappreciated lens.

That said, don't discount the I-61 out of hand. It's a very sharp high contrast lens that probably pushes the envelope on the Tessar design just about as far as it can go. Just it is a stop slower, but look at that as an inducement to work with it's capabilities via fast film and technique rather than just opening up even further. Personally I find quite often that a 2.8 lens is sufficently fast, though that is a very personal preference.

Last, the only way to bother with a Jupiter 3 is if you get a shimmed one from Brian. It's just not worth the hassles otherwise.

Hope this helps,

William

 

[lido]

I have a late 70's black J-8 that I use on my Bessa R. The only problem with this lens is close focus, it will focus behind the subject on anything closer than 2-3 meters. Other than that it is a fine lens and I can highly recommend it.

 

[xayraa33]

I have the J-3 and many J-8s, as JoeFriday said, even good J-3s that have lubed and adjusted properly are not much different than a good J-8 , which are easier to get. and at a quarter of the price a J-3 . there are more chances of getting a bad J-3 in LTM off Eb*y, for instance, than a bad J-8, and you 'd be out of more money. a J-8 can be mechanically reliable if you get a good one that has been recently cleaned, lubed with quality modern grease and adjusted by a competent tech with the proper tools and skills.

 

[darkkavenger]

About J8's, have you seen early J8 lenses bearing the KMZ logo (seems I've seen one around on the net) .. I don't mean ZK 50/2, but lenses with the Jupiter-8 inscription. I just can't remind if it was mounted on a Kiev or not.

 

[xayraa33]

If you mean the prizm with the bent arrow logo, Massimiliano? if thats the KMZ logo, its on my 1956 J-8 LTM and I also seen it on a 1955 J-8 LTM and on my 1952 Kiev J-8.

 

[darkkavenger]

yes, I was wondering about this one... seems that KMZ produced the LTM version and KMZ gradually transferred the Kiev version to Arsenal ... maybe ?

The 50/2 ZK "Sonnar" (in Contax/Kiev mount) was produced by KMZ originally, I thought maybe KMZ kept producing its own batch of J8s. I was just curious about it. 🙂

 

[xayraa33]

maybe KMZ made the Kiev (Contax) mount J-8 in Krasnagorsk, and sent them to the Kiev Arsenal plant in the Ukraine, rememeber it was still one big (happy?) country back then. The 35mm J-12 was made by KMZ in both mounts until 1960, then production shifted to a different plant for both lens mounts to Lykrino (sic). I know that Zenit slr cameras were made in Krasnagorsk (KMZ) and later somewhere in Beloruss at the same time as the Krasnagorsk ones. Would you believe, the the Beloruss ones were even worse in quality than the Krasnagork ones.

 

[VinceC]

Here's a recent unsuccessful attempt to make the J8 flare (it WILL flare in sun without a sunshade).

 

[xayraa33]

I agree with you Daniel, I have some J-8s that are simply great lenses in both lens mounts.And I have used Ltm Nikkors 50mm, Canons 50mm(every one, but the f3.5 and f1.9) and M mount Elmars f3.5 and Summicrons 50mm. The 50mm cron is the best 50mm I ever used, but the good J-8s are not that far behind.

 

[darkkavenger]

We should make a FSU Historical Society. 😀

 

[xayraa33]

We should make a FSU Historical Society. 😀

I would love to, very good idea Massimiliano!.. we sure devote a lot of our time (and some money) on FSU gear!. ..who would be president of this society? or shall I say"the first commissar of the FSU politburo"

 

[payasam]

What's been going on? I start a thread asking for help but am not told of *fifteen* posts? Not fair.

Massimiliano, Dad Rover, Hoot, William, Doug, Xayraa33, Daniel, Vince: thanks to you all.

Hoot, I have a turret finder (35-50-100) to cope with my lenses, so that's taken care of. If a hood blocks the rangefinder, though, I shall be in trouble. One option is to have a cut-out in the rear plate of the hood, like that in the Leitz SOOPD. The other -- the only one if the entire lens rotates when focussed -- is to use a vented hood (I have seen that type called "ventilated" and am waiting for an improved, air conditioned, version).

William, I *do not* discount the I-61 out of hand, hoof, or any other extremity. You might like to look at #5 above.

Doug, this nearest focus thing puzzles me. Everything I've seen gives 1 metre as the closest focus, presumably coupled. Might the lens be incompatible with your Bessa for some reason? Also, do other lenses exhibit the same behaviour on that body? Perhaps others who use other camera bodies will say if they too face this problem.

Vince, I have this thing about hoods. Nothing will shake my belief than any lens, even one made of just half a polychromospectracoated element, will exhibit at least some flare if used without a hood. Day or night doesn't matter, nor whether there is a bright source of light within or outside the field, nor even the presence of no bright source. People have called me loony, but they've shut up on seeing pictures taken with ancient lenses in conditions close to impossible.

Note: Payasam, which means rice pudding and similar sweet things, is my real, real name. Some, for whatever reason, also call me Mukul (Dube).