Nomad Z
Well-known
Hi All.
I'm considering getting a 35mm Color Skopar Classic to replace my Russian Jupiter-12. The Skopar I mean is the one that's in the same barrel as the 25mm lens, has a focussing tab, and a short screw-in hood. I think it's also referred to as a 'Compact'.
I like the J12 optically, but the aperture adjustment is fiddly and prone to being knocked out of position, especially with a metal hood screwed on. The lens would be used on a Leica M2 with adapter, and occasionally on a IIIf. Subject matter is landscape, architecture and street.
I'd appreciate responses to the following questions to help me make up my mind...
I read that the black version of this lens is painted brass. Is the silver one chromed brass, or clear anodised aluminium?
How does the Skopar compare with J12 in terms of optical quality? Specifically, does it have any noticable barrel or pincushion distortion?
How does the build quality stand up after a lot of use?
Thanks.
I'm considering getting a 35mm Color Skopar Classic to replace my Russian Jupiter-12. The Skopar I mean is the one that's in the same barrel as the 25mm lens, has a focussing tab, and a short screw-in hood. I think it's also referred to as a 'Compact'.
I like the J12 optically, but the aperture adjustment is fiddly and prone to being knocked out of position, especially with a metal hood screwed on. The lens would be used on a Leica M2 with adapter, and occasionally on a IIIf. Subject matter is landscape, architecture and street.
I'd appreciate responses to the following questions to help me make up my mind...
I read that the black version of this lens is painted brass. Is the silver one chromed brass, or clear anodised aluminium?
How does the Skopar compare with J12 in terms of optical quality? Specifically, does it have any noticable barrel or pincushion distortion?
How does the build quality stand up after a lot of use?
Thanks.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Chromed brass, I believe. It's a much more contrasty lens than the J-12, but never threw up any distortion that I could see. Always seemed sharp across the frame with minimal light fall-off towards the edges. Mechanically the only bad point I found was that the aperture ring click stop was too weak, making it far too easy to change aperture by accident - something common to all the screw-mount VC lenses I've tried. Other than that mine stayed tight and true for the couple of years I owned it. The focussing lever may or may not suit your tastes, but it's the same as for many of the screw-mount VC lenses.
Personally I never really warmed to it due to its high contrast, and ultimately traded it away towards a replacement 40mm Nokton while keeping my J-12.
Personally I never really warmed to it due to its high contrast, and ultimately traded it away towards a replacement 40mm Nokton while keeping my J-12.
Sparrow
Veteran
I've been using one for my colour stuff for years now
and in B&W sometimes
PS I think the sliver one is anodised aluminium, it's not as heavy as brass would be
and in B&W sometimes
PS I think the sliver one is anodised aluminium, it's not as heavy as brass would be
Last edited:
Nomad Z
Well-known
Thanks. Just found the pictures section, and have been looking - it does seem very free of noticable distortion. I also have the LTM 15mm and 90mm APO Lanthar, and the aperture rings on those have been okay for me. Both were bought used, but in near-mint condition. I mostly shoot colour and B&W negative, slides very rarely, so I think I can live with a contrasty lens - my preference is generally for sharp and contrasty images. My next most-used lens is the 15mm, and I like it.
I'll be keeping the J-12 as well. Not valuable enough to be worth selling, and it could be handy to have a 35mm for both cameras. Might be better suited to slide film as well (the M2 is my main camera, and the IIIf often has an alternative type of film in it).
I'll be keeping the J-12 as well. Not valuable enough to be worth selling, and it could be handy to have a 35mm for both cameras. Might be better suited to slide film as well (the M2 is my main camera, and the IIIf often has an alternative type of film in it).
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
As far as I can judge, the black 35/2.5 Color Skopar C that I have isn't painted. Rather, it appears to be anodized aluminium.. Where the metal on the thread of the lens hood shines through, it is light grey (as in not brass).
gho
Well-known
I have one of these and I find it is a quite contrasty lens, but it is possible to compensate for that during development, if you want to use it for black and white work.
As for distortion, there is indeed some slight barrel distortion, but that is hardly noticable unless you are photographing a brick wall parallel to the film plane. What I like about the lens is its compactness.
As for distortion, there is indeed some slight barrel distortion, but that is hardly noticable unless you are photographing a brick wall parallel to the film plane. What I like about the lens is its compactness.
Last edited:
Nomad Z
Well-known
Thanks, folks. It seems that they are becoming hard to find, and that was what tipped the balance a couple of nights ago. Bought an E++ sample in black which should arrive tomorrow. I was really struggling to find any others in the various UK online sources. With the Ultron already gone, that would have left the Nokton 1.4, which I'm not keen on and is too pricey. Beyond that, it's the vintage glass minefield or a modern Biogon, also all too pricey for now. I'll see how I get on with the Skopar.
Tipton
Tipton Photo
I never had any distortion problems, and the lens wore really well. I had the classic for over 2 years, basically glued to my M6, as I was saving up for a Cron, and I am not easy on any gear, it got beat up and put through rain, snow, deserts, fals and drops, and still was great....and now, I miss the hell out of it! You won't be disappointed, that little thing gave me some of my favorite frames, period. I'll be picking one up again when I can find a nice black one! That isnt selling for 320+ 
You might want to try the PII version since you'll be using an M2...?
You might want to try the PII version since you'll be using an M2...?
Nomad Z
Well-known
Got a IIIf as well, and I'm trying to stick with LTM lenses. I'm hoping there's a cron ASPH in my future, and I'll be happy to restrict that to the M2 if it ever comes along. (Could keep the Skopar on the IIIf, then.)
newspaperguy
Well-known
Have both the CV and the J-12. Both have been used on the IIIf,
a pair of FSU Barnacks, and my Canon P & 7. The CV only on my CL.
The Rooski gives a nice vintage look, but the CV gets regular work.
PS- Sparrow: Love the artist at work.
.
a pair of FSU Barnacks, and my Canon P & 7. The CV only on my CL.
The Rooski gives a nice vintage look, but the CV gets regular work.
PS- Sparrow: Love the artist at work.
.
Last edited:
Tipton
Tipton Photo
Ah, then the classic makes more sense. You're in the same boat as myself, saving for a 35 ASPH. Anyway, Classic or other, you'll like the Skopar.
Jim-st
Well-known
Red Dot has one tonight @ a pretty good price. You might want to check it out (I've no connection to them)
traveler_101
American abroad
question CV 35mm/2.5--Classic + b&W
question CV 35mm/2.5--Classic + b&W
If i might ask since I recently bought this lens and am about to have the first roll of Tri-X developed. Sorry, I am sure this is an elementary question. What does it mean to say that the lens provides too much contrast for b&w? I am not developing film--at least not yet--so does this mean I should lay off using this lens with b&w film?
question CV 35mm/2.5--Classic + b&W
If i might ask since I recently bought this lens and am about to have the first roll of Tri-X developed. Sorry, I am sure this is an elementary question.
What does it mean to say that the lens provides too much contrast for b&w? I am not developing film--at least not yet--so does this mean I should lay off using this lens with b&w film?Nomad Z
Well-known
The one in Red Dot didn't appear in my searchings, unfortunately, and I had already ordered the one I did get by then. Anyway, shot a test roll today, and included some shots with the Jupiter-12. Film was Fujicolor 100, processed by the local Boots minilab machine.
As noted above, the Skopar has some slight barrel distortion, while the same subject with the J-12 had some pincushion distortion. I'd say the J-12 has more pincushion than the Skopar has barrel - the Skopar's bent line was noticably less bent (both shot at f5.6). I also did some scenic views with tree branches at the side of the frame, and buildings on the horizon. Shot a series on each lens, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8. The Skopar was sharper at the edges (used a lupe on the prints, and pixel-peeped the 2mp scans). It was very hard to tell the lenses apart in the centre of the image.
Neither lens seemed to have any chromatic aberration - no fringing on the twigs in any of the shots. With colour balance, the J-12 seemed to lean towards being more blue than the Skopar. Hard to say which was more 'correct', but, side by side, the Skopar shots seemed to have a better balance than the J-12. In terms of contrast, the Skopar has more than the J-12, but not as much as I expected - but it's possible that the minilab machine has fiddled around with that and reduced the value of the comparison. The Skopar did seem to have a slight edge in either overall contrast or apparent sharpness, but not huge.
One thing I did notice with the J-12 was lightening of the corners. It looks like some kind of flare, but appears in all four corners. Sun was low in the sky, behind me and to the left - no chance of veiling glare. The same shot with the skopar had none of this - it maintained good contrast all the way to the corners. I don't normally see this on the J-12, but I didn't use the vented metal hood that I normally do (didn't think it was needed). Would be worth trying some more shots with and without the hood, to see if it helps.
The conventional aperture ring on the Skopar is a huge improvement over the J-12's rotating filter ring arrangement, although I felt that the clicks were a tad light. The rings on my CV 15mm and 90mm lenses are stiffer. I felt that the Skopar's ring has the potential to be knocked off by mistake. The forcus ring is quite well damped, but in use, I found that I had nudged the focus off sometimes. This could just be a handling issue with it being an unfamiliar lens, but something I need to watch out for when I'm using a hyperfocal setting. By contrast, the J-12 feels like it has similar damping, but has rarely moved out of position (I added a focus tab to it recently, and that doesn't seem to have had an adverse effect).
Conclusion, based on a fairly quick and dirty test, is that the Skopar is the better optic. In all differences that I could see, it did better than the J-12. At typical prices, the J-12 is excellent value (I got it to see if I liked the 35mm focal length). Although it has its flaws, I would class it as cheap and cheerful rather than cheap and nasty. So far, though, I think it will retire to the unused lenses drawer rather than spend time on the IIIf - the Skopar is enough of an improvement for me to prefer swapping it to the IIIf if I want 35mm on that camera, and I'm happy to save some weight in my bag. It remains to be seen whether the stiffness of the aperture and focus rings of the Skopar will be an issue (must trawl for dissasembly guides). Overall, so far, I'm glad I got it - definitely a worthwhile upgrade from the Jupter-12.
As noted above, the Skopar has some slight barrel distortion, while the same subject with the J-12 had some pincushion distortion. I'd say the J-12 has more pincushion than the Skopar has barrel - the Skopar's bent line was noticably less bent (both shot at f5.6). I also did some scenic views with tree branches at the side of the frame, and buildings on the horizon. Shot a series on each lens, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8. The Skopar was sharper at the edges (used a lupe on the prints, and pixel-peeped the 2mp scans). It was very hard to tell the lenses apart in the centre of the image.
Neither lens seemed to have any chromatic aberration - no fringing on the twigs in any of the shots. With colour balance, the J-12 seemed to lean towards being more blue than the Skopar. Hard to say which was more 'correct', but, side by side, the Skopar shots seemed to have a better balance than the J-12. In terms of contrast, the Skopar has more than the J-12, but not as much as I expected - but it's possible that the minilab machine has fiddled around with that and reduced the value of the comparison. The Skopar did seem to have a slight edge in either overall contrast or apparent sharpness, but not huge.
One thing I did notice with the J-12 was lightening of the corners. It looks like some kind of flare, but appears in all four corners. Sun was low in the sky, behind me and to the left - no chance of veiling glare. The same shot with the skopar had none of this - it maintained good contrast all the way to the corners. I don't normally see this on the J-12, but I didn't use the vented metal hood that I normally do (didn't think it was needed). Would be worth trying some more shots with and without the hood, to see if it helps.
The conventional aperture ring on the Skopar is a huge improvement over the J-12's rotating filter ring arrangement, although I felt that the clicks were a tad light. The rings on my CV 15mm and 90mm lenses are stiffer. I felt that the Skopar's ring has the potential to be knocked off by mistake. The forcus ring is quite well damped, but in use, I found that I had nudged the focus off sometimes. This could just be a handling issue with it being an unfamiliar lens, but something I need to watch out for when I'm using a hyperfocal setting. By contrast, the J-12 feels like it has similar damping, but has rarely moved out of position (I added a focus tab to it recently, and that doesn't seem to have had an adverse effect).
Conclusion, based on a fairly quick and dirty test, is that the Skopar is the better optic. In all differences that I could see, it did better than the J-12. At typical prices, the J-12 is excellent value (I got it to see if I liked the 35mm focal length). Although it has its flaws, I would class it as cheap and cheerful rather than cheap and nasty. So far, though, I think it will retire to the unused lenses drawer rather than spend time on the IIIf - the Skopar is enough of an improvement for me to prefer swapping it to the IIIf if I want 35mm on that camera, and I'm happy to save some weight in my bag. It remains to be seen whether the stiffness of the aperture and focus rings of the Skopar will be an issue (must trawl for dissasembly guides). Overall, so far, I'm glad I got it - definitely a worthwhile upgrade from the Jupter-12.
Last edited: