Jupiter 12 on an M2

[DeeCee3]

Try as I might, I simply cannot justify paying the price of a used Leitz/Leica 35mm lens for my recently acquired M2 and I can't find a previously-owned Cosina-Voigtlander. Years ago I used a Schacht-Ulm Travenar 35 on the M2 I had then but no one seems to have heard of Schacht lenses these days, let alone has any old ones in stock.

This leaves me with strongly considering a Jupiter 12. I've read all sorts of advice on photo.net and elsewhere about which Jupiter is better, the silver or black, the older serial number or the younger, and other assorted esoterica.

Can someone give me some advice about this reportedly pretty good knockoff of the old Zeiss Biogon?

dc3

 

[zuikologist]

Some of the Canon lenses can also be found cheaply.

 

[venchka]

Canon 35/2.8. Small. Make that Tiny! 34mm filter ring & less than 1" long from the mounting flange. Sharp. Chrome over brass, a.k.a. Tank like construction. A nice lens to be sure. Not terribly expensve.

 

[mr_phillip]

Personally I'd consider a J12 only as a stop-gap until a good used Voigtländer turned up (Skopars can be had for bargain prices and are way better than any Soviet or vintage Canon 35s - and I say that as a card-carrying Canon RF fan).

I've owned a few J12s, but the one I kept was a late black model. Performance is rather good once you stop it down a bit. And that wacky rear element great for eliciting oohs and ahhs from SLR users 🙂

 

[ferider]

My recommendation is to be a little bit patient -
the CV 35/2.5 does show up occasionally for less
than US 200. The J12 is not bad, but the CV is much better, also
handling wise (it's a pain to change the J12's aperture.

The other option is a Canon 35/2.8 like Wayne said.

Best,

Roland.

 

[Tom A]

I have the J12 35f2.8 and it is not a bad lens, particularly when you you take the price into consideration. It is not "bitingly" sharp at 2.8, but good enough for "walk about" shooting. As mentioned, the aperture ring is not an ergonomic marvel! You quickly develop a style that leaves the lens at 5.6 or 8 and change shutter speeds instead! It can flare, but not badly and you really have to work at it!
As a stop gap it is a good lens, the Canon's are nice enough, but start adding to cost and with the Jupiter or any Canon, you have to add the cost of the screw to bayonet adapter. Either a Leica or a Voigtlander is fine (the VC adapter has the advantage that it comes with a proper M-back cap).
Once you get around to upgrade to a newer and more convinient 35, look for a 35f2.5II VC, a bit slower than the 35f2 Summicron but just as good. IF by any chance you find larger amount of money in the Christmas stocking, think about the 35f2 Biogon ZM. I feel that this is one of the best 35mm lenses ever made by anyone! Much less money than the 35 Summicrons and though a bit bulkier, it is a stunning performer, particularly in bl/w.

 

[DeeCee3]

Grateful!

Grateful!

I asked for advice and I got it...thank you all for the guidance. I'd appreciate hearing just WHERE these used bargains you fellows mentioned can be found! None of the usual used lens vendors have them right now (eBay excepted as it is a market of last resort for me!).

If I decide to go for the J12, I'll specify a later model. But in the meantime, I will likely keep my eyes open for a Voigtlander f2.5. Perhaps one will turn up.

To respond directly to you, Tom: I already have the adaptor ring left over from my earlier days matching up LTM glass with M-mount bodies, and as far as the ZM is concerned, I shot CZ lenses on a G2 and found the f2 Biogon to be superlative! Wish there were an adaptor for G > M mounts!

dc3

 

[peterm1]

I know this is not what you want but I mention it more as an aside for people who may be interested. I have recently seen several shots taken by the Zeiss Flektagon 35mm f 2.4. It is incredibly sharp with beautiful color rendition. Only problem is that it is only available in M42 mount. Still it can be used with an M42 to LTM adapter and I have never found zone focusing on a wide angle to be a problem. Like I say I am not floating it as a real option for you but some others may be interested to know about this lens.

For those interested here are some shots taken with one (not mine.)
http://www.pbase.com/hqdesign/carl_zeiss_flektogon_35mm_mc

 

[ferider]

I asked for advice and I got it...thank you all for the guidance. I'd appreciate hearing just WHERE these used bargains you fellows mentioned can be found! None of the usual used lens vendors have them right now (eBay excepted as it is a market of last resort for me!).

There was one here in the classifieds just last week. Sometimes they
come up at KEH/Adorama. Photovillage has a new Color Skopar classic
for US 229.

Also, I forgot in my previous post. If you want a Summicron but cann't
afford the 35/2, consider one of the 40/2 versions. They are just as
good and run you around US 300.

Best,

Roland.

 

[kevin m]

I've got one on my shelf. It was my first 35mm lens and I used in on my button rewind M2. It's ok wide open, certainly not horrible, and pretty darned good stopped down.

The bakelite case and Cyrillic documentation alone are worth the price of admission!

 

[David Murphy]

They are a great bargain. You can get a good one for about $60 +/- $10

-- not as good as modern 35's, but good nevertheless

Try as I might, I simply cannot justify paying the price of a used Leitz/Leica 35mm lens for my recently acquired M2 and I can't find a previously-owned Cosina-Voigtlander. Years ago I used a Schacht-Ulm Travenar 35 on the M2 I had then but no one seems to have heard of Schacht lenses these days, let alone has any old ones in stock.

This leaves me with strongly considering a Jupiter 12. I've read all sorts of advice on photo.net and elsewhere about which Jupiter is better, the silver or black, the older serial number or the younger, and other assorted esoterica.

Can someone give me some advice about this reportedly pretty good knockoff of the old Zeiss Biogon?

dc3

 

[Graybeard]

The Jupiter-12 is a decent lens. similar to the Summaron 35mm in performance.

Among the Russian LTM lenses, the J-12 (along with the J-8) is generally one of the better, reliable ones - that is it will focus properly. Since the J-12 can often be had for under $50 it is quite a bargain and you might want to get one irrespective of if you also acquire a Voigtlander lens.

I also had a Schact Travenar 35mm lens in LTM that I used on my IIIf (paid $30 for it in 1971). The J-12 is a sharper lens, IMHO.

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

I own a Jupiter 12 35 mm f/ 2,8 in LTM mount and few years ago i owned the same lens in Kiev/Contax bayonet mount. This version was very sharp and contrasty but the Kiev 4a and 4am (with very ggod, sharp and contrasty Mir 53 mm f/ 1,8) was very poor cameras and i selled all. Now, i own only the Jupiter 12 35 mm f/ 2,8 in LTM mount, occasionally used by my brother on Leica M4. The LTM mount of my Jupiter 12 is a good lens but quite far form the results of my old Jupiter 12 in the Kiev/Contax bayonet mount. The very problem, with the russian lenses, is the uncostant quality production: for example, i own a very loved Jupiter 9 85 mm f/ 2 in LTM mount, while some friends of mine own a bad sample of the same lens. With the russian lenses is necessary a lot of luck. However, the optical and mechanical quality of my Leitz Summaron 35 mm f/ 2,8 or VC Ultron 35 mm f/ 1,7 is sensibly better of the best Jupiter 12 35 mm f/ 2,8.
Ciao.
Vincenzo