paulfish4570
Veteran
if the jupiter 8, an NOS with painted numbers, or an older one with engraved numbers? if the industar, a zebra, chrome or black? aren't all 61s engraved?
Santafecino
button man
If you get a J-8, buy an earlier one with non-rotating mount. Better yet, with a focusing tab. As for the Industars, I have heard that they all (I-61s) have lanthanum elements, whether or not marked "L/D." I just looked at my 1994 black I-61, and it has painted numbers. I think the zebras have engraved numbers. I hope the painted numbers last.
The main thing is to have whichever lens you get collimated and shimmed so that it works on your Leica-standard camera.
The main thing is to have whichever lens you get collimated and shimmed so that it works on your Leica-standard camera.
colyn
ישו משיח
I'd go with the J-8 with engraved numbers. The Industar is f/2.8 whereas the J-8 is f/2..
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
From my experience the I61 is sharper and more clinical... where as my Jupiter 8 isn't always the sharpest especially wide open (though no slouch)... it's got much more character and that great Sonnar look... I love the bokeh of my J8... was never too enthralled with the I61.
Here's one from my Jupiter 8 wide open:
Here's one from my Jupiter 8 wide open:
paulfish4570
Veteran
character is good ...
thanks
thanks
I've had several of each. The I61 mechanics are just awful. Great optics in a not-so-well machined mount. You can get lucky. I took the optics out of mine and converted them to Contax mount. Some might view that as extreme.
The chrome J-8's with the non-rotating mount: I just rebuilt an early 1955 lens that is uncommon, and came out well. It does not have the three screws holding the retaining ring on the back of the lens. After that point, it became more cheaply made. I have some that came out fine, and some that have too much play in the helical.
Overall: the J-8 with the rotating front works out the best in terms of mechanical reliability. I've tested some against the Nikkor 5cm F2, and they were on par with it.
All that stated, I like the early J-8 with non-rotating front the best. I just had to go through several to get one I liked.
The chrome J-8's with the non-rotating mount: I just rebuilt an early 1955 lens that is uncommon, and came out well. It does not have the three screws holding the retaining ring on the back of the lens. After that point, it became more cheaply made. I have some that came out fine, and some that have too much play in the helical.
Overall: the J-8 with the rotating front works out the best in terms of mechanical reliability. I've tested some against the Nikkor 5cm F2, and they were on par with it.
All that stated, I like the early J-8 with non-rotating front the best. I just had to go through several to get one I liked.
stompyq
Well-known
Brian how do you know if a J8 has a rotating front or not? Serial number? silver vs black lens?
The look is very different. If it has a tab, it is a 1950s lens and is non-rotating. The 1960s Aluminum lenses are also non-rotating, with the change-over at about 1969~1970 from examples that I have seen.
Easy way to tell: the rotating type has Two sets of F-stop numbers on it. The black lenses are all the rotating type.
Easy way to tell: the rotating type has Two sets of F-stop numbers on it. The black lenses are all the rotating type.
ampguy
Veteran
question on late black one
question on late black one
Brian, my black one is s/n 8million something, black, I think '80s. It was re-lubed by another rffer and the focus is smooth, but the aperture ring up front has no tension, maybe .25 mm of play in there, and the aperture goes from 2 to about 11 and then stops.
The glass is clear, but a smidgeon of oil on the blades. If I use this at F2 (and match with other F2's by metering), and adjust focus for the non-shimming, is this basically what the Sonnar example is (from an M8), or is there something else about Sonnars that this J8 wouldn't show?
question on late black one
Brian, my black one is s/n 8million something, black, I think '80s. It was re-lubed by another rffer and the focus is smooth, but the aperture ring up front has no tension, maybe .25 mm of play in there, and the aperture goes from 2 to about 11 and then stops.
The glass is clear, but a smidgeon of oil on the blades. If I use this at F2 (and match with other F2's by metering), and adjust focus for the non-shimming, is this basically what the Sonnar example is (from an M8), or is there something else about Sonnars that this J8 wouldn't show?
I have not tried out a J-8 on the M8 yet. That is coming soon. I just shimmed a 1962 KMZ J-8 in a new mount. It is perfect glass. Also shimmed the Wartime Sonnar 5cm F2 "T". So- my comparison is on the list.
Okay- the J8 is a good copy of the wartime coated 5cm f2 Sonnar. The uncoated SOnnar gives softer colors, and much less contrast wide-open.
Uncoated Sonnar at F2, on the M8.
Nikkor 5cm f2, at F2 on the M8.
I'll try out the J-8 and Coated Sonnar soon.
On the Shimming: usually 0.1mm increase does the trick. On the aperture being too loose. Sometimes a little heavy grease under the aperture ring does the trick. You have to take off the variable stand-off ring, and take off the aperture linkage, take off the cone, and apply a little grease.
Okay- the J8 is a good copy of the wartime coated 5cm f2 Sonnar. The uncoated SOnnar gives softer colors, and much less contrast wide-open.
Uncoated Sonnar at F2, on the M8.
Nikkor 5cm f2, at F2 on the M8.
I'll try out the J-8 and Coated Sonnar soon.
On the Shimming: usually 0.1mm increase does the trick. On the aperture being too loose. Sometimes a little heavy grease under the aperture ring does the trick. You have to take off the variable stand-off ring, and take off the aperture linkage, take off the cone, and apply a little grease.
Last edited:
gho
Well-known
Personally I would recommend the J8 over the I61L/D. The J8 has a very special look and the bokeh is nice also, if you care for that. I tried 3, all were good. Currently I am using a black one probably built in the nineties. f2 is also sufficient for available light work, if you are using high speed film.
But I must add, I have only exposed one roll with the I61L/D. The results looked a bit hard to my eyes.
And there is also the Industar 50 (Elmar copy?). I did not use it very much, but liked the results I got in B/W. It is not expensive and worth a try, if you can live with f3.5 and some vignetting wide open. Some may even find this desirable. It is very sharp.
But I must add, I have only exposed one roll with the I61L/D. The results looked a bit hard to my eyes.
And there is also the Industar 50 (Elmar copy?). I did not use it very much, but liked the results I got in B/W. It is not expensive and worth a try, if you can live with f3.5 and some vignetting wide open. Some may even find this desirable. It is very sharp.
MartinP
Veteran
Leaving aside build quality, there is the point that the Industars are Tessar-style designs and the Jupiter is Sonnar-style. That makes for some differences. The Industars I am using have a 'modern' contrast, but still with a nice Tessar-style background. I am still to try a Jupiter. I got side-tracked off the FSU lenses by a Summilux, oops.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
What Martin says (except for the Summilux part 
): The Industars are a bit 'harder' but definitely sharper. The Sonnar formula interesting to shoot with, from comparing Brians shots above, I feel the Sonner shot is more 'unreal', dreamier almost, while the Nikkor shot is more realistic, and sharper.
I'd recommend you to buy both over time and try them. On the X-mas giveway thread two years ago, I donated one Industar to Dave and he showed up with shots where the Industar outperformed the borrowed Nikkor 180/2.8 of a neighbour on a D200 That's how good they can be!
): The Industars are a bit 'harder' but definitely sharper. The Sonnar formula interesting to shoot with, from comparing Brians shots above, I feel the Sonner shot is more 'unreal', dreamier almost, while the Nikkor shot is more realistic, and sharper.I'd recommend you to buy both over time and try them. On the X-mas giveway thread two years ago, I donated one Industar to Dave and he showed up with shots where the Industar outperformed the borrowed Nikkor 180/2.8 of a neighbour on a D200
That's how good they can be!
I-61L/D on the Nikon RF. I have made three of these, all sold. I will do a 4th for myself.
Tight Crop.
I'm not a nice person.
Helios-103 on the Nikon RF. Helios Glow.
There is 1 of these in LTM.
Tight Crop.
I'm not a nice person.
Helios-103 on the Nikon RF. Helios Glow.
There is 1 of these in LTM.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
Thanks Brian, The nikkor looks like higher contrast on the chopped wood, and less shadow detail behind the pile of wood than the KMZ.
robbeiflex
Well-known
Go for the J-8, it's a great lens!
Last edited:
paulfish4570
Veteran
keep the advice coming. a manualfocuslens forum acquaintance sent me an industar 50 to mess around with as i make up my mind. it arrived today. the controls feel crude, but it spun into place, the r's meter seems to be working through it just fine. the glass and aperature look great. whether the rangefinder matches perfectly, i'll find out in a day or so. i loaded the r with walgreens 200 asa color, and promptly shot six pics with the meter set on 400. what a dork. i will finish the roll tomorrow and drop it at walgreens. the lens is tiny, compared to m42 lenses for my spotmatic, and the fixed lens on my minolta a5. brings back the memory of an elmar 50/2.8 collapsible ...
paulfish4570
Veteran
the r's viewfinder and ranegfinder are fantastic; incredible blessings for my right eye. wow!
paulfish4570
Veteran
found a "chrome" (isn't it really bare aluminum?) jupiter 8 with a focusing tab on ebay. seller says it was made in 1958. how is the build quality on such a lens compared to a NOS jupiter 8 from the early 90s? it is a particular nifty looking version. and i like tabs ...
paulfish4570
Veteran
no thoughts on the early jup-8 with tab?