How good should a Jupiter 8 lens be?

[wilwahabri]

A technical question for FSU rangefinder camera buffs.
See the attached photo which is a composite of two images of the same building taken under broadly the same lighting conditions.

The photo on the left was taken with my Kiev 4 and Kiev Jupiter 8 lens at f11 1/250s . the other half of the picture was taken with an Olympus iS-3000 bridge camera, f8 @ 1/180s - I'll admit the lens is outstanding on that particular camera for the genre.

Is the difference in detail recorded by the Kiev lens what one should expect from the lens? It was reported to be a very good performer but seems to lack detail in anything more than 10 metres from the camera.
Is this a "quality" issue or genuine performance?

Appreciate any comments or advice. The Kiev 4 is working properly and even the lightmeter is reasonable accurate! Not bad for a 45 year old camera!

 

[valdas]

I can't see any photos attached...

 

[JeffS7444]

I had to copy the image URL and view on Flickr.

Not seeing anything obviously wrong with the Kiev image: A little bit of chromatic aberration in the center, and some softness in the corners. Tonality is different from the Olympus image, and texture on the building looks bright and washed-out, but that may be due to how you scanned or processed the image.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

You are comparing apples and oranges.
The Olympus will self correct focus while you have the inherent weaknesses of a rangefinder in the Kiev to fight against.
The J-8 was produced over nearly a 50 year period and there is a lot of sample variation. To get the most of this lens, it needs to be tweaked a little bit to ensure all the optical groups are properly centered, and the helicoid assembly of the camera is in good order, lubed and damped well, and not at all loose or wobbly. Add to that, the J-8 lens needs to be calibrated with the rangefinder of your camera to ensure maximum performance.
All that said, a LOT of good image quality can be squeezed out of a J-8 but it can take some work. Fortunately, it's a very easy lens to work on.
A few folks on the forum here are far more experienced with the J-8 than myself and may chime in with recommendations

Phil Forrest

 

[Coldkennels]

There's also the issue of what film you're using, how you've exposed it, how it's developed, and how it's digitised.

I've used a few different J8s in both LTM (on bodies calibrated for them - FEDs and Zorkis, not Leicas, Canons, etc.) and in Contax/Kiev mount. They're fantastic lenses when in good condition and on a properly calibrated body.

Looking at the comparison on Flickr, I'd argue the J8 is doing a much better job than the Olympus at resolving detail; look at the text above the door, which has pronounced edges on the Jupiter 8, but looks like mush on the Olympus shot. Same with the plant pots (?) at the base of the building.

That said, this definitely isn't the best you can get out of a J8, but I think the scan or the post-processing is to blame, not the lens.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Some scans of something are not good way to evaluate the lens.
Both sides of the image shows way too heavy grain and absolutely equal on lack of media resolution.

Best way to test the lens and camera RF is at MFD. With focus check ruler/target.
If it is correct the rest is also correct.
Or/and you could test it with tele lens and mechanical camera pointed to J8 on Kiev.
http://elekm.net/zeiss-ikon/repair/collimate/

Both methods could be done with ground glass or its substitute instead of film, lousy sensor.

 

[BernardL]

Looking at the comparison on Flickr, I'd argue the J8 is doing a much better job than the Olympus at resolving detail

Same for me. Not only detail, but also contrast.