Jupiter-12 silver vs black re. flare

fer_fdi

fer_fdi

Well-known
Local time
6:15 PM
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
401
Hi all,

I have a black Jupiter-12 from 1986 that I like a lot.
I use it on my digital (Fuji X-E1, APS-C sensor, so 1.5 crop) and have no problem at all with flare as many report from silver Jupiter-12 on film. In fact it is very flare resistant and has great contrast always.
Coatings look very different though; black ones have a darker multicolor coating and silver ones have that blueish coating from the 50's.

I plan both to buy a film body (CLE maybe) and a second Jupiter-12, but a 50's silver this time.

I'd like to know about your experience with flare with this lens in both the old silver type from KMZ and the more recent black type, since I read here many users complain about annoying heavy flare from this lens, and it seems (to me, I may be wrong) to be related to silver ones and film...

So, those of you having both types, how do they compare re. flare?

Many thanks in advance,

Fernando
 
fer_fdi said:
I plan both to buy a film body (CLE maybe) and a second Jupiter-12, but a 50's silver this time
Click to expand...

Hi Fernando

I don't know about the lens but a word about the camera. The CLE has a 40mm frame, not 50mm. And the 40mm frame is a bit on the small size already, so I would not recommend this camera if you want to use a 50mm lens. I use mine with 28mm (where the VF is better than any other RF camera with a 28mm lens) and 40.
If you want to use a 50mm lens, then I would suggest a Voigtlander Bessa R2/3/4 or Zeiss Ikon or a Leica M.

Good luck!
Huss
 
J-12 is a 35mm lens (not a 50) + light and small.

I'd like to keep this thread focused around the flare (and talk about framing with this lens on a new one : )

Thank you anyway
 
I have a black J12 and its so good I often use it instead of my much more expensive CV and/or Nikor 35's....Yes Zero flair with it. No experience with silve versions.
 
ray*j*gun said:
I have a black J12 and its so good I often use it instead of my much more expensive CV and/or Nikor 35's....Yes Zero flair with it. No experience with silver versions.
Click to expand...

Funny this thread should come up as I am playing around (once again) with ordering copy of this lens for a Leica IIIf. The black one you have, are the markings in Latin letters as opposed to cyrillic?

I have been leaning now to getting a black one from the 1980s made for export because I read it increases the chance of the thread matching a Leica camera. On the other hand, I have read that the silver ones form the 1950s are better performers - specifically that they are better controlling flair. Searching and searching . . . I found very little information actually.
 
Meh, they are same. Black and white. You could get the lemon with both.
I asked once user of J-12 how come his pictures so good. He told me it was nothing special, but black J-12 with the hood. He specifically mentioned the HOOD.
I have sane issue with my CS Color Skopar 35 PII which was awful sometimes. Added hood and all flaring was gone.
 
I have a 1976 LZOS black version, latin name, also with Made in USSR on body.

I've used in on FED-2, Zorki-6, Zorki-1 and Canon-7. It has flare in situations when most lenses would have, so I must say I haven't been bothered by flare from it and it's a nice lens.

I don't have a sliver version to compare with though.
 
The Jupiter 12 has a rear element that protrudes far into the camera. Is this a safe lens to use with the CL meter? I have both silver and black and they are very good lens's. Joe
 
so, no one finding silver version more prone to flare?
I understood that it was not only because of coating (old vs newer multicoating) but because inner parts being raw aluminum instead of non reflective black color...

What other causes could make some J-12 more flare prone apart of coating, color and scratches on the rear element?
 
Here is no multi coating in any FSU lens, they have different versions of coating. Different years, different factories.
As I and many have mentioned in many threads and different forums each copy is variable. Of any FSU lens. It might flare, be soft and else. This is why any FSU lens is cheap and same age Leitz isn't, despite more problems with glass comparing to FSU.
 
OK, rereading all threads commenting about this flare-like issue with Jupiter-12, it seems that it is more of an internal reflections problem... shown as a purple highight...


I never saw it with my black 1986 specimen... (on APS-C, not film)

Looking fwd to read about more experiences related to this.
 
fer_fdi said:
so, no one finding silver version more prone to flare?
I understood that it was not only because of coating (old vs newer multicoating) but because inner parts being raw aluminum instead of non reflective black color...

What other causes could make some J-12 more flare prone apart of coating, color and scratches on the rear element?
Click to expand...

What I read about different iterations of this lens:
1) biggest issue altogether is scratching/haze on the rear glass; it is enormous and vulnerable, though the later versions have sheathed it in black metal earlier versions not so.
2) the later versions were multi-coated, though we have that disputed in this thread
3) the earlier versions up to year - not ascertained - were made at KMZ and are better than later versions made by LZOS. The former are marked by a red P and fetch quite a premium on the market, an assertion which I was able to find some evidence for by looking through transactions listed by a couple of sellers. Whether these higher prices reflect better performance has not been shown, though I did find the results of a comparative test taken against a back lit subject indicating the superiority of the older version in handling flair.
4) Not to buy any lenses that begin with serial numbers 58 or 59 (i.e. 1958 or 1959) if you want them to screw onto a Leica camera. Not a problem for the OP.
5) I saw one case of a shot ruined by a blob on the scan caused, says the poster, by internal reflection in the lens. Not sure what caused that.

other tidbits:

In addition to be unusable on the M5 and CL; it's a no go on all Bessa cameras - blocks and can damage light sensor.
And doesn't fit with SONY A7.

There seems to be a paucity of reliable information. There are a few nay-sayers but many that like have had good experience with this lens.
 
but my 1986 does not do that! as many other examples I've seen

So it seems it's not clear if it is specimen dependant or what's the cause...
It looks more like light leaking... maybe thru the lens in some lenses?

That's what I'd like to know
 
fer_fdi said:
but my 1986 does not do that! as many other examples I've seen

So it seems it's not clear if it is specimen dependant or what's the cause...
It looks more like light leaking... maybe thru the lens in some lenses?

That's what I'd like to know
Click to expand...

Interesting - and fortunate for you: you have a good example!

Then I suppose we are back to Ko Fe's observation, made by many, that quality control in the old Soviet factories was spotty at best.

To look for other explanations: Can light "leak" through a lens? Or has the lens been assembled (or reassembled) incorrectly such that the relation between the elements is out of whack? I've read that many of these lenses that you buy on e-bay have already been taken apart and then reassembled resulting in poor performance. I also read that lenses that look pristine are duds and you are better off getting one that has been well used (laughs).

Fer, why do you want an old silver one if your black one works well? Or are you just curious? I admit the silver ones are really cool looking, but they will need a CLA for sure - if you find a good one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom