Jupiter 3 or Jupiter 8?

CharlesDAMorgan said:
Looking to do a bit of experimenting with soviet glass. Of the two Jupiter 3s which do you prefer and why, just interested to see if there is a noticeable difference.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

They all differ, even within the same type.

No two of my J-3s draw the same, each has its own bokeh signature.
The early 1960s ones seem sharper at full bore than the latest black J-3s but the colour saturation in photos is better on these late made black J-3s.
But all that could be just from my sample of lenses.

The J-8s also vary, some are duds and not sharp, many are just average and some are equal to the finest Zeiss Sonnar f2 lenses, year of manufacture makes no difference to these variances .

If you do not need the speed and there is less chance to need shimming and want lower cost the J-8s are fine, as both lenses draw very similarly at the medium aperture settings.
 
J8 is just neutral lens. With two choices. White, which could be from fifties and black, which are up to nineties. Blacks have more modern rendering and easy to shim.
J3 is character lens at f1.5 and also better lens at f5.6. After trying of all pre-asph Crons, 1.5 Norton, Planar ... I prefer J3. Black version also exist, but it is next to white elephant.
I'm fine with J3 from fifties. It is very good on bw films and OK on digital M.
But I know how to shim them. If it is not shim, then soft stories are made.
 
I had a Jupiter-8 for a while, and was quite happy with the images from that lens. It was a 62xxxxx lens from the KMZ factory. I really don't care for the design of mount on these lenses though, and ended up moving it along. I don't like that the mount surface that screws onto the camera (or adapter) is thin, and has another ring there that doesn't contact the camera...
 
As forum member Kim Coxon can attest, the very last made black J-3 lenses are difficult to fully correct with shimming and back lens element movement correction, as the back lens element block is glued in on these, versus being in threaded bezels of the earlier J-3s.

With these very pretty and late made black J-3 lenses one could be stuck with a more expensive to buy J-3 lens that can never be made sharp at full bore to use on Leica standard type cameras.
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
So earlier rather than late for J3s - any date onwards to avoid?

Shimming is to get the correct lens register for the L39 right I assume.

Thanks all, very helpful!
Click to expand...

The very early J-3s are more for collectors, made in late 1940s early 1950s, expensive to buy now, and some might have Zeiss parts/glass to varying degrees combined with FSU made glass/parts. Lens hacker supreme Brian Sweeney did not think these were the best overall, a mixed bag.

Personally I found the early 1960s (JFK era) ones to be the best and fairly consistent in quality, although early 1970s aluminum finish J-3s are very good too. Avoid the final made early to mid 1980s black finish ones, can't really shim them properly, or to be more accurate.. cannot adjust the back lenses grouping like in the older J-3s, although sellers ask top dollar for them because they are not common and pretty and in good shape.
 
I found a 50s Jupiter 3 on Ebay with M adapter, so have ordered that. I'll check focus on my Sony and on my M3 (a few frames remaining) and hope it's fine.

Thanks to all for the advice, it is much appreciated!
 
My 1957 J-3 gives me the results I expected from this lens. It was shimmed by a fellow RFF member at some point. Of course its a fast Sonnar, but I only need to remember to "lean in" about 5cm when shooting wide open and close.

My 1960's J-8 is a perfectly fine lens but not remarkable in any way. Consequently, I fine myself passing over the lens in favor of one of the many (too many?) other 50's in my lens closet. I think the J-8 makes a good lens for an economy setup, or for those times when you anticipate potential risk to your equipment -- in that case the J-8 is nearly ideal because its performance is rather good. Same comments apply to my 1970's J-8. I never had one of the more recent black ones. Some people say they're quite good (as opposed to the recent black J-3).
 
I thoroughly enjoyed my time with J8s and J3s ... I VASTLY preferred the J3 ... that big beautiful front element ... so much cheaper than a Summilux (was my reasoning).

This is a tiny file from my iiifrdst/J3 ...

U3373I1162955884.SEQ.0.jpg
 
How is the J-3 distortion-wise? The J-8 has a bit of pincushion distortion which can be annoying for someone who, like me, likes architecture and placing horizons near the edge of the frame.
 
Both lenses are good overall, but I prefer the J3. I like the rendering from J3’s from the 1950’s. My lenses were shimmed. My old 50mm lens comparisons had several J3 lenses in the pack. RFF members misled them to me for the comparisons. The three J3's used in my comparisons did not behave exactly the same way. This has been already discussed here by others. When shimmed appropriately, a J3 is not inferior to a Zeiss 5cm 1.5. Same goes for J8 and Zeiss 5cm/2. The Zeiss lenses are harder to find in ltm, and they cost a lot. I also have a "transition lens" (ZK) that supposedly has Zeiss glass but was put together in FSU. Sometimes it is best not to take such lenses apart to figure out if it is a genuine ZK or a false one. Just shim the lens and use it. I own a 5cm/2 ltm with Zeiss glass and a Leica lens barrel. I was informed that this lens is one out of 200 lenses that was sent to Sweden in return for iron ore. The history part is interesting to me. If you already have a Contax-LTM adapter, get Contax mount Zeiss lenses. They are cheaper. The J3 come in ltm without the need to use such an adapter. This is good.

J-3: from a very old lens comparison project

yellowish%20image-X3.jpg

yellow2-X2.jpg




I used a 1938 Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 with a M 4/3 camera here:
50_1.5_Italy-49-X4.jpg


50_1.5_Italy-37-X4.jpg
 
Thanks Raid - very interesting to hear the Swedes used counter-trade to get the ore shipments paid for.

These are lovely lenses and I'm really looking forward to getting mine. It's a LTM screwmount with M adapter but I can easily test focus on the A7 etc.
 
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but is there the same need to shim if using the lens on say a Zorki or a Fed rather than a Leica? I suspect the answer is of the how long is a piece of string type, but who knows!
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but is there the same need to shim if using the lens on say a Zorki or a Fed rather than a Leica? I suspect the answer is of the how long is a piece of string type, but who knows!
Click to expand...

Yes, it is like the" how long is a piece of string" type answer.

I go by the individual lens, some need shimming and a few that actually work fine the way you get them.

Some work great on FSU cameras and Leica the way they come.

Some need shimming to work well on Leica, or cameras with a Leica standard like Nicca/Tower or Canon LTM cameras.


Some need shimming to work well on any camera.

FSU gear can be unpredictable that way, you can never tell.

I had a very late made LTM J-9 lens in black and in new condition that was so out shimming wise from the factory, that you could never get it to focus on any FSU LTM camera or on a Leica or a Canon LTM camera the way it came.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Jupiter 12 (35mm f/2.8) mounting issues on Fed and Zorki cameras
Replies
10
Views
909
Doug
Doug
Mark240590
Lomography Jupiter 3+ Users ?
Replies
11
Views
948
santino
santino
E
Jupiter 8 m39 Rangefinder lens off horizontal alignment (the only lens)
Replies
4
Views
348
former member
F
MNS
Industar 26M with strange issue... 🤯
Replies
11
Views
942
MNS
MNS
Redseele
Fixing/shimming Jupiter 8 lens
Replies
5
Views
872
Martin in Sweden
M
Back
Top Bottom