How do you rate Industar/Jupiter lenses?

[Bosk]

Being very new to the "rangefinder scene", I have only had the pleasure of using Leica and Voigtlander lenses so far but remain curious about the cheaper Russian counterparts.

I was hoping that some of the 'old hands' on this board might be able to clue me in regarding the performance of these vintage lenses.


Would it be accurate to suggest that they represent the Sigma and Tamron of the 'rangefinder world' perhaps?

Are there any Jupiter or Industar lenses in particular that are well-regarded optically?


Thanks very much for reading, I'd love to hear your views. 🙂

 

[lushd]

Hi and welcome. I am sure many will express a view so here's mine. Russian lenses are not as technically outstanding as modern Leica or Voigtlander lenses, or even many of their contemporaries. They can be very competent - surprisingly so. The Jupiter 8 and Industars 22, 50 and 61LD can still surprise with great sharpness and tone even though I have been using them fo r years. There are loads of examples in the gallery. I like them for this and they (especially the Jupiter 8) have a smoothness and "look" all of their own. They are all pretty cheap - give them a try!

 

[FrankS]

All of the common Russian lenses are well regarded in terms of image quality, especially considering their modest cost, but with the caveat that there is a great deal of sample variation due to intial build quality control, and due to subsequent inept repair attempts.

 

[Duncan Ross]

I adored the I61LD with its punchy colours and strong contrast. My main lens is the J8M which has a classic look and handles highlights smoothy. As far as comparisons with other more expensive lenses, I just look through the members galleries. The breadth of ability, creativity and vision on display amazes me every day and the least important factor seems to be the brand of lens so maybe it's an issue that can easily be over-emphasised! I'll be really interested in the experience of others though.

 

[Jocko]

Donald, Frank and Duncan have put it very well. The range of soviet lenses is not enormously large and with the exception of a few rarities (eg the Russar 20mm) they remain inexpensive and easily available. The j-12 and J-8 are much liked on this forum, although the J-3, the flagship 50mm lens, is notoriously erratic and routinely needs adjustment to give of its best. I personally have a soft spot for the I-61, which seems to me ideal for my particular type of B&W photography.

In essence these lenses are not so much cheap alternatives as a route to the optical technology of the 40s and 50s, and are enjoyable for precisely that reason.

Cheers, Ian

 

[jody]

Get a j8 or two even three they are cheap to buy good quality and eventually you will fine one that is a fine example. I have found that they are better than the old canon lenses I bought for more money.

 

[colyn]

I have the I61 in screw mount the J-8, J-9, J-11, and J-12 in Kiev mount and can't complain. They are all very good performers though not up the the standards of my Leica glass.

 

[Xmas]

Well Erwin Puts the journalist who reviews leitz kit encapsulates the problem, unless your technique is real good, heavy tripod, microfilm, actuance developer, accurate focus, optimium aperature etc. you wont use or see 100 % of a lens performance. And then you need to use an equivalent good enlarger away from traffic vibration etc. for a 20x16" The lens is not the critical link in the chain, all the links need to be good...

Hand held, local store rush chromegenic process, and scanner not much better than dig cam...

The Sonnar clone (in a J8 configuration) is pretty close to a leitz lens indeed HCB used a Sonnar in LTM from choice for a time, HCb came from affluent family...

A J8M from a late Kiev which has not been badly treated over the years, will only be a little flatter in contrast.

The Tessar (four element) deratives are less good but you will need the heavy tripod etc as above to see this difference, from the six element Sonnar types.

The new asph lens that Erwin reviews hold up their performance to the edges at wider aperatures, they employ high refractve glass and non spherical surfaces to allow the edge performance, dont put your FSU subjects at edge.

If you want bubble jet photos and not 20x16 AgBrs, try a FSU. You may need to also buy watch makers screwdrivers, getting 20x16 paper is difficult nowdays.

Noel

 

[Spyderman]

I say: Jupiters rule! 😉