industar61 VS Jupiter-8

[paapoopa]

which is a better lens?

 

[davelrods]

Hard to tell I imagine. I have both and have juggled them around a bit. I think there is much more difference in the cameras you are likely to use them on than there is in the respective lenses. I would have to do a lot of testing to nail them down.

I hope this is a better answer than you might get from some folks who would probably offer: "better for what."

 

[payasam]

Both a bit susceptible to flare. J-8 a stop faster but does not have click stops for aperture. I-61 has more contrast and apparent sharpness.

 

[mcgrattan]

I used to have both and both were excellent. I think I took marginally better photos with the Industar, but I did some testing one day and went out and shot a roll of colour film with consecutive frames with two different Jupiter-8s and my Industar 61.

The results were inconclusive. All three lenses were sharp enough although in the tests I slightly preferred the Jupiter-8 shots in most cases. The Industar was more prone to flare.

The Industar has click stops for aperture which is quite useful, and, although this is only a suspicion, I think it rendered colour more accurately than my oldest Jupiter-8. On the other hand, the Jupiter-8 had, I think, slightly nicer 'bokeh' and controlled flare slightly better. A good example of either is going to be a decent picture-taker.

 

[mcgrattan]

Incidentally, I would have expected the Industar to control flare better. It was a more recent lens with much more obvious coating [my Jupiter-8 was a 1960s model and the coating was either non-existent or very unobtrusive] but this was definitely not the case.

At first I thought I'd mixed the shot order up, but I double checked my notes and frame order several times, and the Industar was definitely more prone to flare.

Both lenses flared much worse than, say, my multicoated Pentax SMC-A 50, but with a lens hood both were still far from terrible.

 

[Rhodes]

I have both and I like more the jupiter 8, but the first time i tried the industar I was suprised with the resaults! It's a matter of taste, I think!

 

[wolves3012]

My experience says the Industar has more sharpness, saturation and contrast. They do vary though! I haven't had problems with flare but I tend to be aware of the problem, that may be why (I don't use a hood).

 

[MartinP]

I have tried various Industars (22, 25, 61, 61 L/D) but never had a Jupiter-8. The Industars are related to the tessar design and the Jupiter-8 descended from the sonnar, so they 'should' be different - but I am curious how one can quantify those differences.

Then again, from the O.P.'s question - better for what ? Both are very old designs and can look attractive for sure. An artist friend said that an Ind-61 made photographs like an oil-painting . . . a bit of tessar smoothness and careful depth-of-field, so that sort of thing could also be achievable with a sonnar design - but not looking identical ?

Maybe I'll go and look up one of Raid's lens test threads !

 

[januaryman]

I like them both - the J8 (Sonnar) is a tad faster, if that's important. The Industar has greater contrast, I find, in my specimens. They're cheap. Buy both.

 

[mh2000]

stopped down, the Industar will produce results competitive with modern lenses, the Jupiter gives a more old fashioned look, but less sharp in my copy. I find my I-61 l/d cheap and nasty and don't use it, my white Jupiter is a pretty lens on a camera. I greatly prefer my C/V color-skopar 50/2.5... if that fits your budget. I like the I-22 for a nice collapsible.

 

[pschauss]

I have not used my I-61 l/d in quite some time, but it did give more contrast and perceived sharpness than my J-8. On the other hand, my I-61 l/d was very stiff when I first got it and, after I lubricated it, it had a considerable amount of play in it. I suspect that the factory depended on the grease to make up for poor machining tolerances.

 

[wolves3012]

I have not used my I-61 l/d in quite some time, but it did give more contrast and perceived sharpness than my J-8. On the other hand, my I-61 l/d was very stiff when I first got it and, after I lubricated it, it had a considerable amount of play in it. I suspect that the factory depended on the grease to make up for poor machining tolerances.

Out of the seven I-26/I-61 lenses I have or have had, all 7 needed a re-lube. They're old and it's unreasonable to expect grease to last that long, especially russian grease! I have only one with noticeable "slop", that being the newest of the bunch. In terms of using grease to make up for machining deficiencies, it's worth noting that a certain german manufacturer of high standing did the same on their lenses too.

 

[morgan]

I agree about the I-61 having more contrast, but somehow I take better shots with my j-8. I do think the j-8 has better bokeh, but I see it more with the wider aperture. I think both draw in a certain vintagey-looking way. i think both are great lenses (especially for the price, and have it all over my ltm elmar). I've been kind of lusting after a new 50, either a summicron or maybe the new sonnar. I'd love to see some side by sides between that lens and the j-8.