J-9, which year is the best?

Z

zhang xk

Well-known
Local time
4:47 PM
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
853
Hi all,

I have a few J-9s in various mounts, and noted that some later uncoated J-9s in M42 mount are not very sharp wide open. And some early J-9s in M39 mount appear to be a little sharper and more contrasty. I will find time to test them on my DSLR to see which one is better. But may be you already know which version is closer to the Zeiss 85/2 Sonnar? Prices for J-9 seems to be on the rise on the fleabay, so maybe it is time to find a good J-9 before they disappear? I assume that like many other Russian gears, the early 50's are the best?:D

I have an early 50's J-9 in Kiev mount, but the lens group can be removed and mounted on a M42 J-9's lens mount for the test.

Cheers,

Zhang
 
Ancient Legend says, that the best Jupiters were ZKs - very early lenz versions made on KMZ under name ZK - Sonnar of Krasnogorsk ('Zonnar Krasnogorsky' in russian) circa 1947-1949.

Reality says that 99% of today offered ZKs are faked Jupiters with remarked outer barrel :D

So the best lens imho will be that lens which YOU will found the best one. It could be any lens from more than 40 years of soviet/russian photography optics production.
 
QUAsit,

My 80mm sonnar is from 1980. I feel it has a nice "touch." Still, the value is subjective.
Johne
 
Soviet QC wasn't always as good as it could be. Monday morning and Friday afternoon lemons abound. And lemons made before holidays, the arrival of a bottle of vodka, on bad hair days, etc. increase the likelihood of getting one. But test it, shim it when needed, even take it apart when all else fails. But when you get a good one, you'll love it.
 
RML said:
But when you get a good one, you'll love it.
Click to expand...

I completely agree! My J9 is from '85, and I love it!

As far as the softness wide open is concerned, I talked about that with a former Leitz mechanic. He told me that some Russian lenses were (re-)constructed to be soft wide open (at f2) in order to work as a soft kind of portrait lens and get a lot sharper when closed (from f4 on).
Since my J9 exactly works like that, I like to believe him! ;)

Kent
 
As others have suggested, the variation in individual quality control was probably far greater than the variation in overall quality from year to year, so I think all you can really say is that a good one is a good one and a bad one isn't. For example, my 1977 black one performs beautifully but my 1961 chrome one is a dog.
 
I don't have a J-9 (yet) but I've wondered if later ones would fit properly on my 1950's Kiev. I bought a 1980's J-12 and it was almost unremovable once it was on the camera. I then bought a 50's example of the same lens, made before production was moved to Leningrad, and it fit (and came off) perfectly. There's a part of the mount that's rectangular on the Leningrad lens but tapered on the earlier one, and I've seen a picture of a later J-12 with that part -- a broad pin, not sure what to call it -- filed down, perhaps to make it fit on an older Kiev. I have no idea if the J-9 could have the same compatibility issues, but it seems possible to me...

Michael
 
Not Leningrad but LZOS probably - Lytkarino factory near Moscow. LOMO afaic never made series of rangefinder J-12 or any other interchangeble lenses except small serie of Almaz optics - last soviet attempt to make pro-grade camera.
 
QUAsit said:
Not Leningrad but LZOS probably - Lytkarino factory near Moscow. LOMO afaic never made series of rangefinder J-12 or any other interchangeble lenses except small serie of Almaz optics - last soviet attempt to make pro-grade camera.
Click to expand...

I don't know if J-9 was ever made in Almaz(PK) mount or in Start mount. But J-9 in Kiev 10 mount is a rare bird that is still missing from my J-9 collection. All accessary lenses made for Kiev 10,15 have a different construction, and seem to have a better optical quality.
I guess J-9 made by various factories might have different quality? At least some earlier J-9s are coated, and that suggest different optical glasses although they are all called Jupiter-9.

But I agree that Russian lenses is a hit or miss matter.
 
J-9 were made by KMZ (Krasnogorsk), LZOS (Lytkarino) and Arsenal in Kiev. Actually LZOS is still manufacturing multi-coated Jupiter-9 MC in M42 SLR mount.
Still I think that rangefinder KMZ versions are mostly very good optics. At least I always prefer 'white' lens versions from 50-60s and they never betray me =)
 
QUAsit said:
Ancient Legend says, that the best Jupiters were ZKs - very early lenz versions made on KMZ under name ZK - Sonnar of Krasnogorsk ('Zonnar Krasnogorsky' in russian) circa 1947-1949.

Reality says that 99% of today offered ZKs are faked Jupiters with remarked outer barrel :D.
Click to expand...

But some aren't :) It's a great lens, QUAsit

This is mine (from 1950). Note the 1.8m min focus on the barrel:

62330179-L.jpg


the matching Zeiss serial inside the mount

62327494-L.jpg


and the coating rings

62327501-L.jpg


and here a photo taken with the lens:

64293523-M.jpg


Got to love the Sonnar look !

Roland.
 
QUAsit said:
Not Leningrad but LZOS probably - Lytkarino factory near Moscow. LOMO afaic never made series of rangefinder J-12 or any other interchangeble lenses except small serie of Almaz optics - last soviet attempt to make pro-grade camera.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. In fact, I think I read that and was confused, thinking Lytkarino was the factory that became LOMO. Thanks for setting me straight!

-- Michael
 
QUAsit said:
J-9 were made by KMZ (Krasnogorsk), LZOS (Lytkarino) and Arsenal in Kiev. Actually LZOS is still manufacturing multi-coated Jupiter-9 MC in M42 SLR mount.
Still I think that rangefinder KMZ versions are mostly very good optics. At least I always prefer 'white' lens versions from 50-60s and they never betray me =)
Click to expand...

I heard that white Jupiters still has Zeiss glass elements.

Zeiss Sonnar 85/2 was more expensive than a Leica M3 or Contax IIa body in 1950's. Then Soviets made them dirt cheap.:bang:
 
ferider said:
But some aren't :) It's a great lens, QUAsit

This is mine (from 1950). Note the 1.8m min focus on the barrel:

62330179-L.jpg


the matching Zeiss serial inside the mount

62327494-L.jpg


and the coating rings

62327501-L.jpg


and here a photo taken with the lens:

64293523-M.jpg


Got to love the Sonnar look !

Roland.
Click to expand...

Hi Roland,

That IS a lovely lens and girl!:D

Zeiss Sonnar 85/2 cost 510 german marks and Contax IIa camera body cost 495 marks in 1950's. I will check my J-9s to see if someone on a weekend put Zeiss elements in them.:)

Cheers,

Zhang
 
I have a -86 j-9 export version i have recently dev the first test roll.First imp. higher contrast than my j-8 56 and j-11 maybe other coating on newer lenses.But you get a different look my j-8 and j-11 have the same look..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom