hagiri_11
Newbie
Hi,
I just bought this lens a few hours ago, and after browsing around the net, I discovered that I might have paid around USD350 for a fake! :bang:
Can anybody please help confirm this? These are some pictures from ebay:
After surveying around on ebay, I found that good looking Jupiter-3 Sonnar copies sell for around USD200-300. So maybe I didn't lose much..
What's frustrating for me is that I just remembered that I have read about these fake Zeiss lenses some time ago, but I seem to have forgotten about it when pressing the buy button..
I just bought this lens a few hours ago, and after browsing around the net, I discovered that I might have paid around USD350 for a fake! :bang:
Can anybody please help confirm this? These are some pictures from ebay:
After surveying around on ebay, I found that good looking Jupiter-3 Sonnar copies sell for around USD200-300. So maybe I didn't lose much..
What's frustrating for me is that I just remembered that I have read about these fake Zeiss lenses some time ago, but I seem to have forgotten about it when pressing the buy button..
haempe
Well-known
Yup, its a fake or a Zeiss optical block in a Jupiter corpus.
But 350$ is not that much overpriced for a SK (Sonnar Krasnogorsk).
Also the possibility of Zeiss glas inside (check for a stamped number onto the optical block).
And in the end - if the results are good... who cares?
But 350$ is not that much overpriced for a SK (Sonnar Krasnogorsk).
Also the possibility of Zeiss glas inside (check for a stamped number onto the optical block).
And in the end - if the results are good... who cares?
I Love Film
Well-known
It could be a ZK grafted onto a J3 body, but many of these are horrible Frankenstein creations.
It could have glass and parts from 4 different lenses, or be insanely assembled.
There is one eBay seller, SOVDEPIA, who always has one or two Frankenstein ZK fakes for sale each week, with crudely painted lens front rings.
It could have glass and parts from 4 different lenses, or be insanely assembled.
There is one eBay seller, SOVDEPIA, who always has one or two Frankenstein ZK fakes for sale each week, with crudely painted lens front rings.
raid
Dad Photographer
Send it to DAG or someone similar for a "perfecting job".
The lens is worth it in the end. I once got a Frankenstein lens that had very bad performance until Brian replaced one of the "wrong" glass elements.
The lens is worth it in the end. I once got a Frankenstein lens that had very bad performance until Brian replaced one of the "wrong" glass elements.
I Love Film
Well-known
Brian can resuscitate the dead.
dexdog
Veteran
Looks like a fake to me, too. I doubt that the glass is Zeiss either, given the strong purple color of the coating on the front element. The purple coating is typical of Jupiter lenses. Definately a J-3 barrel, with the capital M on the distance scale.
raid
Dad Photographer
I agree with Mark regarding the coating. An orignal Sonnar is single coated or uncoated. Right?
hagiri_11
Newbie
Thanks for the comments.
So, it's most likely a fake, but there's a possibility of Zeiss glass? May I know why? Is it the reflections of the coating?
So, it's most likely a fake, but there's a possibility of Zeiss glass? May I know why? Is it the reflections of the coating?
I Love Film
Well-known
The lens in the OP's post is 100% fake, including the lens cap. No question about it whatsoever.
It may, in fact, have some Zeiss parts, but like I said, it was probably assembled from multiple parts. It is a J3 barrel.
It may be multicoated on the front element, but have elements from other lenses. I would doubt highly it has any "Zeiss" at all.
If it was an eBay sale, cancel the sale if you can. You probably bought a mess.
Did you get it from SOVDEPIA?
It may, in fact, have some Zeiss parts, but like I said, it was probably assembled from multiple parts. It is a J3 barrel.
It may be multicoated on the front element, but have elements from other lenses. I would doubt highly it has any "Zeiss" at all.
If it was an eBay sale, cancel the sale if you can. You probably bought a mess.
Did you get it from SOVDEPIA?
hagiri_11
Newbie
Nope, got it from moscowphoto ->another indicator that it's not Zeiss..
Why only now do I notice all of these signs pointing to its a fake..
But, I think I'm gonna keep it anyway. Seems interesting, looking at the history which have been discussed at length here and other threads.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The front element at least is not Zeiss, and not even early ZK - that violet/purple hue is particular to their coatings after they had departed from/improved on the original Zeiss coating technology. Earlier Zeiss coatings (as seen on Soviet lenses with a original Jena optical block) have no particularly distinctive colour, later ones from the re-established CZJ (and Opton) are dominantly cold blue with a yellow shimmer at some angles.
hagiri_11
Newbie
I have received the lens & have even shot a test roll.
The lens is good cosmetically. Unfortunately, it is totally out of focus. I didn't manage to get accurate focus for almost all of my test shots, although the rangefinder patch indicated that the subject is in focus.
I have contacted the seller, and planning to sort out with him, whether I should return the lens for a refund, or ask for a refund only to cover the realignment repairs (if possible).
The lens is good cosmetically. Unfortunately, it is totally out of focus. I didn't manage to get accurate focus for almost all of my test shots, although the rangefinder patch indicated that the subject is in focus.
I have contacted the seller, and planning to sort out with him, whether I should return the lens for a refund, or ask for a refund only to cover the realignment repairs (if possible).
dexdog
Veteran
Not too surprising- the lens is set up for the Contax standard rather than the leica standard (different distance to film plane, IIRC). A common problem with Soviet lenses in LTM. Lens can be properly collimated to the leica standard by shimming.
Classique
Well-known
I recently purchased a jupiter 3 from another RFF member. Mine is from '61 and has purple, yellow shimmer to the coating.
One thing is that it was way off correct focus, even more so than other Jupier 3's I've read about.
Try testing the lens with a focusing screen taped on your film gate to act as a viewfinder. If the lens backfocuses, if the distance scale says 1m but you are at 1.2 m in actual focus, you are in luck. You can simply add some shims (many possible materials, even paper) to make the lens focus perfectly. However, if it front focuses, like mine did, it will be harder to get it to focus correctly. You can try reducing the shim and if that is not enough, may have to move your rear element closer. Mine did not focus correctly without any shim and could not move optical element any closer. However, I was able to remove the minimum focus/infinity stop screw, set infinity further out to make it focus correctly, at least for closer distance (so far 1m - 7m seems to focus perfectly). I am testing a roll with it for further distance and infinity so we shall see how close I got to fixing a non-usable lens!
Let me know if you have any questions. Maybe I can be of help.
One thing is that it was way off correct focus, even more so than other Jupier 3's I've read about.
Try testing the lens with a focusing screen taped on your film gate to act as a viewfinder. If the lens backfocuses, if the distance scale says 1m but you are at 1.2 m in actual focus, you are in luck. You can simply add some shims (many possible materials, even paper) to make the lens focus perfectly. However, if it front focuses, like mine did, it will be harder to get it to focus correctly. You can try reducing the shim and if that is not enough, may have to move your rear element closer. Mine did not focus correctly without any shim and could not move optical element any closer. However, I was able to remove the minimum focus/infinity stop screw, set infinity further out to make it focus correctly, at least for closer distance (so far 1m - 7m seems to focus perfectly). I am testing a roll with it for further distance and infinity so we shall see how close I got to fixing a non-usable lens!
Let me know if you have any questions. Maybe I can be of help.
I Love Film
Well-known
You should send it back. You paid top dollar and it is probably assembled from a parts bin. Mismatched elements, decentered, what-have you. Just forget it. Why are you intent on keeping it? Because it has a fake "ZK" front ring that you like?
Better to try your luck with an early 1950's Jupiter 3 with clean glass.
If you return it make sure you send it with signature confirmation.
Better to try your luck with an early 1950's Jupiter 3 with clean glass.
If you return it make sure you send it with signature confirmation.
Membedeep
Member
Don't worry, it happened to most collectors. I also bought something like that, a fake one. But I paid 200 de lei here, that means around 70 US Dollars, less than I paid for a Jupiter 3.
Carey M
Established
Came across one of these recently. Aperture ring is aligned roughly 180 degrees from the original position, so that the dot and aperture markings are on the bottom.
Some dust and bubble inside:
Example shot taken with a Fuji X-T1:
100% Crops:
And one example on Kodak Portra 400, taken with a Leica M2:
Some dust and bubble inside:
Example shot taken with a Fuji X-T1:
100% Crops:
And one example on Kodak Portra 400, taken with a Leica M2:
valdas
Veteran
yep, looks very much like my J3 (120 EUR). Any ideas why it came in this black box with KMZ logo on it?
Carey M
Established
Because it is a KMZ made Jupiter-3?
I envision these fakes all being made by one guy, in his basement, somewhere in Moscow suburbs...
I wonder why the aperture ring on my example is 180 degrees off. Hasty assembly? Focus seems to be roughly in the right ballpark with a Leica.
DanskDynamit
Well-known
just send it back