Industars, Jupiters and other stuff

tho60

tho60

Well-known
Local time
12:56 PM
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
309
Recently I have found two very interesting posts regarding some FSU normal lenses. (Which is your favorite FSU "normal lens" and why? ; Jupiter 8 equal to Jupiter 3?)

So I decided to write a longer comment and I am eager for knowing your opinion. Before going further, I guess that there is not and can be not an absolutely best normal lens, being an FSU or not. It depends on your artistic purpose, your financial possibilities or even your taste. (In comparison: which is the best car brand, or politician?) Your hidden expectations exaggerated by others, and placebo effects can come into play as well.

However, I would like to mention some factors which you should take into account when choosing an FSU normal lens.

For general purposes resolving power and sharpness are the most important elements, regardless you use a color or BW film. And in these fields Industar lenses outperform the Jupiter ones; according to the factory data an Industar-50 lens has a 25% better resolving power than a Jupiter-8. Unless you take indoor or night pictures regularly, you cannot take advantage of the fastness of Jupiter lenses.

In the 60’s the Svema 64 (about ASA 80 sensitivity) was the default photographic material. This allowed f/11 and 1/125 in sunny conditions and f/4 and f/60 when the weather was overcast. Nowadays with 400 ASA speed you can use Industar lenses everywhere.:cool:

Thus, I would recommend an Industar-22 or 50 lens for outdoor photography, but I won’t dissuade you from shooting with Jupiter lenses at all. I have some of Jupiter-8, but I use them mostly for indoor pictures.;)
 
This is my silver 1960 J-3 I reshimed for my Bessa R. Shot on Plus X 125. It's good enough for me. Shot this last week.

 
For general purposes resolving power and sharpness are the most important elements, regardless you use a color or BW film. And in these fields Industar lenses outperform the Jupiter ones; according to the factory data an Industar-50 lens has a 25% better resolving power than a Jupiter-8. Unless you take indoor or night pictures regularly, you cannot take advantage of the fastness of Jupiter lenses.
Click to expand...
You have to take into account that those factory tests were done at full aperture. Of course Jupiter at f/1.5 is worse than Industar at f/3.5, but Jupiter at f/3.5 may in fact be "better." Also, for what it's worth, a stopped down wide aperture lens typically has less vignetting than wide open lens of moderate aperture.
 
t6un said:
You have to take into account that those factory tests were done at full aperture. Of course Jupiter at f/1.5 is worse than Industar at f/3.5, but Jupiter at f/3.5 may in fact be "better." Also, for what it's worth, a stopped down wide aperture lens typically has less vignetting than wide open lens of moderate aperture.
Click to expand...

You might be right, but my Industar-22 and 50 lenses performed much better under outdoor circumstances. I would show you pictures, but my quota exceeded.
 
tho60 said:
For general purposes resolving power and sharpness are the most important elements, regardless you use a color or BW film. And in these fields Industar lenses outperform the Jupiter ones; according to the factory data an Industar-50 lens has a 25% better resolving power than a Jupiter-8. Unless you take indoor or night pictures regularly, you cannot take advantage of the fastness of Jupiter lenses.

In the 60’s the Svema 64 (about ASA 80 sensitivity) was the default photographic material. This allowed f/11 and 1/125 in sunny conditions and f/4 and f/60 when the weather was overcast. Nowadays with 400 ASA speed you can use Industar lenses everywhere.:cool:

Thus, I would recommend an Industar-22 or 50 lens for outdoor photography, but I won’t dissuade you from shooting with Jupiter lenses at all. I have some of Jupiter-8, but I use them mostly for indoor pictures.;)
Click to expand...
My rigid I-50 is a bit rough but I like how it renders on my Bessa R. If I felt comfortable taking it apart I'd give it a CLA. I took this shot a couple of years ago wide open at 3.5 from the front seat of our car. (wife driving):D Developing skills were & still are so so but I like it anyhow. I need to shoot some portraits with it. I also have an I-61. I haven't shot with that lens in a while.
 
I think I can say that for outside photos with b&w film my Jupitar's, least as far as clarity & sharpness goes murders my Industars. I paid &10.00 for this J-8. This is from a walk around at Old Salem.

I'm guessing this is around f8. But it's sharp wide open. As sharp as my J-3. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying my Industars are crap, just saying there different. The glass on my Industar's are as clear as the jupitar's. Thanks for the thread, you got me wanting to break them out again & use them. Perhaps I might change my mind. or maybe learn how to use them.:D

How about some examples from others.
 
wolves3012 said:
I'm curious how you arrived at that statement. Can you explain why this should be?
Click to expand...

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.:cool: I have shot several pictures with Industar-50,22, 61 and Jupiter-8. Pictures taken with Industar-50 and 22 show much more sharpness and resolution than the others. I would have shown pictures, but I cannot attach them becuse my quota exceeded.

You might take into consideration that Soviets shared my opinion. In the manual of Zorki-6 camera you can read: "The camera is fitted with either of the three lenses listed below:
(a) lens "Industar-26M";
(b) lens "Jupiter-8";
(c) lens "Industar-50" (Fig. 1), in sliding and fixed mounts.
All these lenses have their advantageous features: the two first lenses possess high (maximum) rapidity, while the third lens has a somewhat increased resolution all over the picture area."
 
I think my 1974 Jupiter-8 hits a genuine sweet spot of a classical sharpness and softness. It's not quite as good at microcontrast as my '59 Summilux, but it has a pleasing look all its own. And there's a "time travel" thing going on with it- wide open, it feels like a lens from the 30's or 40's and it gets more modern-looking as you stop it down.

Here's a few shots from it:


Wise Oven Bakery, Old Cheney Farmers' Market, May 9, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


On The Move, September, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Handicapped Parking, Special Olympics Citation Airlift, July, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr

It handles color well and Portra seems to love it.


Stylemaster, Wilber, NE, August, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
 
Originally Posted by t6un
Also, for what it's worth, a stopped down wide aperture lens typically has less vignetting than wide open lens of moderate aperture.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how you arrived at that statement. Can you explain why this should be?
Click to expand...
Take a look thru your lenses: at full aperture you can see the circular opening only when you look along the optical axis. Looking off axis the real aperture gets smaller, because the edges of the outer lenses step into the view. Less aperture area > less light for the image corners > more vignetting? Now stop the lens down and you'll see the same circular aperture from both on and off optical axis. Less vignetting?
I myself like both my J-3 and I-50, for different reasons, but usually end up carrying only the Jupiter, because I'm just used to use it. Or, I prefer sonnar to sunny.:)
 
t6un said:
Take a look thru your lenses: at full aperture you can see the circular opening only when you look along the optical axis. Looking off axis the real aperture gets smaller, because the edges of the outer lenses step into the view. Less aperture area > less light for the image corners > more vignetting? Now stop the lens down and you'll see the same circular aperture from both on and off optical axis. Less vignetting?
I myself like both my J-3 and I-50, for different reasons, but usually end up carrying only the Jupiter, because I'm just used to use it. Or, I prefer sonnar to sunny.:)
Click to expand...
This I don't see. If you compare the off-axis aperture of a Jupiter 8 with an Industar 22 (which is what I did) but at the same aperture, I see the Jupiter as superior. At f/3.5 the Jupiter shows little to no loss of pupil, the Industar clearly shows a loss, at the same off-axis angle. As near as I could tell anyway.
 
wolves3012 said:
This I don't see. If you compare the off-axis aperture of a Jupiter 8 with an Industar 22 (which is what I did) but at the same aperture, I see the Jupiter as superior. At f/3.5 the Jupiter shows little to no loss of pupil, the Industar clearly shows a loss, at the same off-axis angle. As near as I could tell anyway.
Click to expand...

I think you are both talking about the same thing and agreeing with each other: any lens wide open is likely to exhibit vignetting more than when stopped down. From this we can deduce that at least in theory a J3 when stopped down to f3.5 should exhibit less vignetting than an Industar-22 wide open at f3.5.
 
randomm said:
I think you are both talking about the same thing and agreeing with each other: any lens wide open is likely to exhibit vignetting more than when stopped down. From this we can deduce that at least in theory a J3 when stopped down to f3.5 should exhibit less vignetting than an Industar-22 wide open at f3.5.
Click to expand...
Not really. As far I understand it he says:
t6un said:
Also, for what it's worth, a stopped down wide aperture lens typically has less vignetting than wide open lens of moderate aperture.
Click to expand...
Which I read as meaning an Industar 22 wide open is better than a Jupiter 8 (or 3) when it's stopped down to f/3.5. This is what I do not see.
 
The resolving power of lenses is an important consideration if you're doing large prints, but one variable that isn't mentioned is that today's films are MUCH better than the films of yesteryear. Not necessarily in IQ, I still love the old versions of Panatomic X and Tri-X, but today's films do a lot better job w/ the grain. So differences in resolving power may not be as important as they once were.

Lenses are funny. I agree, an Industar 22 is a great lens, as is a J8. But sometimes for portraits I have a difficult time w/ these two examples. Granted, I should be using a 90mm for that. Other lenses like Nikons have given me trouble w/ head shots. I had a 105 2.5 Nikon PC lens that was really sharp, but portraits looked really bad. Minolta 135 (really sharp, and cheap too) was the same thing. Shooting the same person w/ a Leica R 90 lens, the shot was superb. Landscapes, it was hard to tell them all apart. Consistently, Leica glass gives me the best portraits. They just seem to do an excellent job w/ that for some reason. It's unfortunate, as I'd sure rather shoot w/ a $50 lens than a $500 one.
 
Wolves, Jupiter-3 at f/3.5 is 2.5 stops from it's maximum aperture while Industar is at it's maximum at 3.5. Thus, assuming their wide open vignetting is about equal(based on my subjective observations only), stopped down Jupiter has less vignetting than wide open industar?
I speciallly avoided the words "better" or "superior" and btw, at f3.5 I too prefer the Industar's look over that of the Jupiter, probably because of the vignetting and it's effects on the OOF areas.
 
I own and use regularly Industar-61 and 50 (collapsible), Jupiter-8 and Helios-103.

Jupiter-8 (and -3) is a Sonnar design, Industar-61 and 50 are Tessar-type lenses. Each has its own character, strong and weak points, and quite a lot of sample variation.

The comparison of both designs has a long history. I like both of them and have gotten good results with all of these lenses.

My favorite, however, is the Helios-103.
 
Here's a shot from my 1961 Jupiter-8 I got recently to compare to my J-3. I think these Jupiters are very good.

6916179967_db9acea80e_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom