Follow-up to f2/85 Jupiter question...Pictures?

[fishtek]

I've got this mindset about sharpness...."Sharper is better"...I prefer to avoid softening images.....would anyone like to post their "Sharp" images from the Jupiter?

Thanks again!
Don

 

[Spyderman]

How about this one?
J-9 @ f/4

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ondrej_p/214281034/

And take a look here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25762

 

[dazedgonebye]

Somehow, Spyderman cheats. I've seen many sharp images from this lens on his flickr account.

 

[fishtek]

Thanks, Ondrej!

Thanks, Ondrej!

I think the J-9 is gonna be just fine. I've bought one, and now have to be patient and wait for it to show up. I'll let the forum know what I think after I've gone through a roll or two.

Regards!

Don

Oh, yeah...Thanks to Steve, too!

 

[Igor.Burshteyn]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?ppuser=2326&cat=500
many pics there with J9@f2.8-4 on kiev
It's sharp enough for people portraits for me. My definition of "sharp enough" - I print 15x21cm with no visual quality loss in eyeball&eyelashes, with results similar to nowaday 50mm prime (definitely better than my OM 135mm f2.8 - maybe I have a bad one). Going 30x45cm already requires viewing from some 1/2 meter away - it's a limit sharpness-wide for my combo (kiev/J9 61y vintage).
This one
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=11770&cat=5634
is with J9@f8 - but I don't use J9 for f8-f16 shots 🙂 it's best in F2.8-f5.6 range.

 

[oscroft]

These two shots from my gallery are from a J-9 at mid apertures, and I'm happy with their sharpness (though obviously you can't really tell from such small reproductions)...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=46527&cat=6232
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=46526&cat=6232

 

[fishtek]

Thanks, Igor and Alan! I think I'm gonna be quite happy with the 85.

regards!

Don

 

[fishtek]

Nice Bokeh....was it shot wide open?

Thanks!
Don

 

[clintock]

That yellowish coating on the outside of the lens barrel? The film that I once assumed was cigarette smoke residue or something? It's just shellac! I've been trying to get that off for the longest time, turns out to be simple shellac.. wipes right off with alcohol.
Those clever Russians..
I have a new J9 that's been new since '53, was amber colored until fifteen minutes ago.
joy

 

[fishtek]

While "researching" this lens...

While "researching" this lens...

I came across a few references to peeling "varnish" on the lens barrel. Don't know if I'd put ANYTHING on...will just need to be cleaned and replaced, sooner or later.

I'm expecting one in a week or so, and will be interested in the cosmetic quality, but MORE interested in the glass and images.

Regards!
Don

 

[clintock]

From what I can tell, the lens barrel is made of aluminum alloy, and not anodized, so if the lens was stored forever it may go grey and require polish- thus the shellac?
I can't imagine they put the shellac on there as a finish, since it's not uniformly applied and the color is (was) inconsistent. A couple of paper towels with alcohol on them took it all off fast. I'm thinking the shellac was put on as a preservative, like the west would use that clear peel off plastic film such as comes on the displays of cell phones etc.
The lens did have to sit on a store shelf from 1953 to 2003 before being sold, and now looks gleaming and new, so I guess the plan worked!
Now I need a lens hood for the thing..
oh and to stop playing and take some photos!!
clint

 

[fishtek]

If I would decide to "protect" the outside of the lens, I'd use a very small amount of Butcher's Wax, applied with an old T-shirt rag. Doesn't haze, doesn't turn color, and protects the metal from oxidation. I've used it successfully on vintage carbon steel sword blades, as well as various copper, brass, and aluminum stuff.

Yeah...start shooting...
Don