I bought a Canon 7

[Phil_F_NM]

The reason I push the J-12 is that it has no distortion, it is based upon an amazing design which is quite expensive, it is a great performer, and it is CHEAP. Don't buy one for over $100, don't even consider that. I got my most recent one from an rff member who confirmed it worked well on his Leica cameras. It works perfectly. My first LTM J-12 cost $16, straight from Ukraine. The next two were in Kiev mount and worked amazingly on a Nikon S2, SP, and Leica M9. My most recent one is LTM and fitted to an adapter for my M4. Every single one of these has worked admirably and has taken little to no work to do so. And they are way less expensive than the Canon focal length equivalents. You can't compare the J-12 to the Canon 35mm f/2 because they are completely different lenses, different classes, different designs, for different purposes.
Phil Forrest

 

[retinax]

I agree the J-12 is a lovely lens, needs to be used to its strengths though. Freedom of distortion (and flat field) is not among them. Different from most other wide angles, it has pincushion distortion.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

What do I need to know?
Wide angle probably not needed.

Forest, As far as 50mm go, keep an eye out for the 50mm f1.4. I don't know what your bottom line is but I got a clean one with the hood and a yellow filter off the auction site for not much money. They called it the Japanese Summilux.
That and a CV Color-Skopar 50 2.5 LTM are my 50 lenses, and they produce fine results.

https://lhsa.org/2017/01/the-japanese-summilux-the-canon-501-4-ltm-lens/#myaccount

 

[Scrambler]

The J12 should work perfectly fine with the Canon-7. The Canon-P has potential issues with the internal baffles hitting the protruding rear element — but clearance is tighter on the P. My J12 just barely fits in my P. Should be fine on the 7.

The other issue with Jupiter (or any soviet LTM lens) is the focusing helicoid. I just mentioned this on another thread so here it is again: when the soviets reproduced Contax and Leica cameras postwar, they used the Contax-spec helicoid for both systems, which is fractionally different than the Leica-spec helicoid. The soviet LTM bodies were manufactured to match, but this means that soviet LTM lenses don’t focus quite precisely on German and Japanese LTM cameras. The issue is inconsequential for wider lenses (like the 35mm J12) because depth of field can easily accommodate the error. For 50’s (J-3 and J-8) it’s just enough off to make near-focus at open apertures to miss focus. This is where you read of shims, to adjust the lens so focus is dead on at close range, with the assumption that increased depth of field at far range will accommodate the shift. (Focus shift is inherent in the optics of Sonnar lenses like the J-3 but that’s another topic). The effect is more pronounced on longer soviet LTM lenses (85,100,135) and they don’t work well with Leica or Canon: they’re great at distance but focus becomes increasingly poor as you get closer. Again, you could adjust one to be optimal at portrait distance.. but the longer lens would be unlikely to focus at infinity.

To sum up: a Jupiter-12 should work fine on a canon-7.

This.

You won't have an issue with the J12. I don't worry about the aperture, close range, whatever. It will focus as well as any RF lens: good enough rather than perfect.

I like my Canon 50/1.4. These are a surprisingly modern look of image, though not quite as crisp as current lenses. For a good quality image where the lens used is not a feature, it's a good lens.

I use a collection of lenses that generally announce themselves: that includes the J12. I also like Sonnar images and the faster the Sonnar the more it does the Sonnar thing. If you want character lenses, remember that this is pretty much the opposite of fully corrected, flat field, little drop-off, crisp rendition, colour precise. The 50/1.4 tends to lower character (=better correction).

 

[Forest_rain]

Seller offered a $25 refund for the hazed lens. I paid $163+$10 shipping, total with tax was $180. New total is $157 incl. shipping, tax.

Does this sound reasonable? It still sounds a little high, maybe, considering the lens may have reduced sharpness/contrast. Maybe usable, maybe not.

I saw a Canon P, body only, go for $144 recently. Canon 7 body only (non-working meter) go $57-78. However, those bodies may have had slow shutters as well.

Then again, if it works it works. I do like the camera, meter works, I timed the shutter speed using slo-mo on my phone and I approximate the 1/1000th speed at 1/650th. However the measuring is imperfect and impossible to measure without proper tools, it "feels" pretty fast but maybe a tiny hair slow when I eyeball it compared to a CLA'd camera. I think it's probably "close enough" considering the camera is from 1961 and unreasonable to expect the shutter will be spot on. All slow speeds work as well.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Don't worry about that lens. It can almost certainly be cleaned or polished to be a great shooter. As others have said, there are other good lenses out there you can eventually collect but for now just go shoot. If it passes light, it will still draw an image, but it will be prone to flare and have a little more "glow" at wide apertures. Don't worry, people who shoot Leica pay hundreds more for t legendary "glow" (uncontrolled aberrations).
Even newly CLAd Leica M (M3, M2, M4, M5) bodies don't have top speeds that are bang on. Sherry K. and Youxin have both told me that with cameras this old it's better and also standard practice to dial back the 1/1000 a bit. When my M4 came back from CLA in 2007, the too speed was 1/800, not 1/1000, specifically because Sherry set it that way. If your meter works, keep the camera. Keep it stored in the dark and keep it as dry as possible, to extend the life of the meter. Eventually send it off to get serviced but for now, just use it.
Have fun.
Phil Forrest

 

[newst]

At this point, it is really up to you. Canon 7 bodies, plus shipping, can easily run to the $150 range.

Do you like the camera? Have you shot a roll of film through it yet? If so, did you like the results?

If you are happy with the performance of the camera, consider the lens as an ornament unless you choose to have it CLAd. (In that case, I would recommend Youxin Ye.)

I personally have a Canon 7 that I never use. It came as a body cap on a lens that I wanted and was willing to pay the asking price for. The light meter is non-functional, but I am used to using an external meter. I ran a single roll of film through it and was satisfied with the results, but now it sits in a drawer as I prefer to shoot my Canon P or the V L2. If you are happy with the camera's performance you can do the opposite and keep the lens in a drawer. But shoot it first, its performance may surprise you. I have seen many great images taken with seriously compromised lenses. You cannot know until you try.

 

[Forest_rain]

Sorry to keep extending this thread, looking for a Jupiter 12...Is this the one I'm looking for, m39, without the metal guard on the back which will interfere with the interior baffle of the Canon?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

That looks great. How about the body and the 50mm though? How do they perform so far?
Phil Forrest

 

[davhill]

Is this the one I'm looking for, m39, without the metal guard on the back which will interfere with the interior baffle of the Canon?

That looks right, very similar to mine. The diameter of the rear element on mine is 29mm.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

What is the serial number?
Phil Forrest

 

[Forest_rain]

That looks great. How about the body and the 50mm though? How do they perform so far?
Phil Forrest

I'll be sending the film to the lab today - closed over Labor Day. And since all non-essential businesses are closed here in Hawaii I have to mail it to them and have them mail it back, so it will take a few more days 🙁

We are locked down over here, and likely extended another two weeks, including beaches, parks, so not as many chances to go out and take photos.

Maybe a good time to try street photography with a wide angle lens

 

[Forest_rain]

What is the serial number?
Phil Forrest

Serial number is 6009444, so 1960, which means not German glass unfortunately, I think.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Not German, but that is still a better one than the 1980s. Those can be great shooters but some of the QC could be lacking and things could need tightening/relubing. I had a 1983 J-12 which I used on my M9 and it was great as long as I stuck to black and white.
Phil Forrest

 

[rfaspen]

Mine's a 1972. All black and it works well. I tend not to use my J-12 much because I have so many other lenses (so many other 35's) with ergonomics that I prefer. Still, I have no complaints about the images my J-12 makes. In terms of "value", this is a tremendous lens -- a lot of capability for so little $$. I think the last of the part-German lenses were made around 1953-54. I would love it if someone here could tell us more about that.

I haven't tried lately, but I'm quite sure I have mounted my J-12 on one of my Canon 7 bodies without any issues. I did have one camera (can't remember which) that was a tight squeeze and it nicked the black paint the surrounds the giant rear element. No actual damage, just a scratch in the paint, which I promptly repaired. Could have been the Bessa R?

Something to keep in mind now. There's a lot of variation in FSU lenses, we all know that. But, I know people occasionally get a dud J-12 that has issues beyond QC. I think it was here on RFF I read about a J-12 that we ultimately decided was taken apart and re-assembled incorrectly. That caused a lot of head-scratching for the poor owner. Moral of the story: do what you can to improve the odds your lens is intact and funtioning. Buying from Fedka is one approach, from a known RFF member in our classifieds is also in your favor, and if it must be ebay I would be looking for some way to determine the "honesty" of the seller....since I don't do ebay anymore I would defer to others just how to go about that.

I hope to see some images from a "new" J-12 soon.

 

[davhill]

Serial number is 6009444, so 1960, which means not German glass unfortunately, I think.

No, not German glass. Mine is also 1960 (N6003131). These were made by KMZ until about 1960, when production shifted to the LZOS plant. Mine is tagged with the LZOS logo (a triangle overlapping a circle, with a smaller circle in the middle).

 

[Forest_rain]

Finally got the roll back. Here's some sample pics. Just drove around a random neighborhood here in Hawaii, it's not the nicest neighborhood, but they are just sample pics.

Shot with Kodak Ultramax 400.

Keep in mind some pics are from within my car. So there may be reflections/reduced IQ in some of those through the window. I actually prefer the pics sometimes from through the window - perhaps it filtered out some stray light and tightened up the glow a bit? Don't worry - I wasn't driving in the pictures within the car 🙂

The lens seems to be just a little bit soft. Also there seems to be a slight glow in challenging light, but I'm not sure if these things are part of the characteristic of the lens or due to the haze, or if I'm being overly critical and "looking" for problems in the lens too much.

Perhaps a hood or polarizer would help with the blown out skies? I'm not sure if the days were overcast as well.

What do you guys think - is it "acceptable" quality or should I try to clean up the lens a bit?

 

[davhill]

“Finally got the roll back...”

Personally, I’m impressed. These are taken with the seriously fogged Canon 50/1.8, right? Yes, they are softer, with considerably more glow than normal in certain light. This is not characteristic of the 50/1.8, albeit not a bad effect and you can consider it part of your lens’ character. Definitely worth keeping in the short term and worth saving in the longer term if you want to try cleaning it up.

 

[Peter Jennings]

The lens isn't that bad! The versions of this lens I had with Canon haze produced a noticeably softer result with lots more glow. Normally, in good condition, this lens has very good contrast, and is very sharp.

 

[Forest_rain]

Spent several hours polishing the rear lens element with rubbing alcohol and microfiber cloth. Then switched to a slightly more abrasive cleaning cloth and scanner glass cleaner.

Still some spotting, but much better.

So this haze can be salvaged.

Ordered some cerium oxide, but not sure I'll risk it since it looks decent now.

Now:

Before: