jupiter 8 bokeh silver vs black?

[lubitel]

Is it possible that black Jupiter 8 bokeh is different from the silver one?

I recently got a J-8 black and the first thing I noticed, is a different "look" wide open than I had with my silver one. I am not sure if this is considered a "good bokeh" or a "bad bokeh", but I think I like it better. It seems very creamy.

look at these examples. (they are both J-8 black at 2.0)

 

[rolleistef]

mostly depends on the year the lens was made in.
Also, (and it's partly linked with the year) the lens qualiy fluctuates a lot from a batch to another, for there was no quality control...
The glass also changed. If you can see flurorescent spots on the photos, then it was Ukrainian glass from around April 1986 after a well know power plant has blown up... 😛 😛
Silver Jupiters are usualy older than black ones, so it's normal the bokeh might appear different. Remember they have been being made since 1946.... you can't possibly get two identical items on such a long period. take the exemple of the Kiev :
1.8 millions cameras made from 1946 to 1988! still look the same, not two identical cameras!
what serial numbers are they?
i'd say the second one is older cause it looks like my 1957 Kiev-mount J8. ist das richtig?
bis bald, viel spass!

 

[lubitel]

Both shots are from the same lens. It looks like an '84 version.

I was just surprised by the different look. I thought since the design of the lens is the same, it shouldn't make that much of a difference.

 

[Paul T.]

I believe the design changed with the Jupiter 8-M; which gained click stops and a modified - simplified? - optical formula.

Classically speaking, some people would criticise your bokeh (the cheek!) and say it looks swirly but I agree, it looks great.

EDit: just noticed Daniel's post - so the Jupiter formula only changedf on the Kiev mount lens? Or was it just that the model designation changed only on the Kiev model? I didn't know that, it seems illogical that they would change the optical formula on one mount, and leave it the same on the other, but I guess many things were illogical about the Soviet system in the 70s...

 

[DaveP]

I dont have the book directly in front of me ,but Maizenberg states that the Jupiter 8 lens block in Kiev mount is identical to the LTM. No difference other than mounts. The J-8m though, is the same formula,but two of the elements are ground as a single element. I cant say any more than this with out the book in front of me.............

 

[jonasv]

The optical formula may be the same, there are definitely differences that will affect bokeh, such as the diaphragm shape: my black, late production LTM J-8 has an as-good-as-circular aperture when stopped down, while my earlier chrome J-8 in Kiev/Contax-mount has a starshaped aperture when stopped down (as seen in postwar contax sonnar 1.5's, as well as the new zeiss sonnar 1.5). The number, size and positioning of glass elements may have stayed the same, that doesn't mean the lenses were identical.

However I'm not sure that explains lubitel's question, since I believe both his J-8's are in LTM...?

 

[rolleistef]

daniel,
it was not a matter of lens formula (which is still basically a sonnar), but rather of the glass as a material. I's true it was ambiguous, though, as "glass" both means "lens" and the glass material
There can't possiby be exactly the same glass type in 1984 and in the 1950s

I didn't know about that starshaped aperture....when did it change? Does it really looks like a star?
My '57 kiev J8 mount has an octogonal aperture... a third aperture shape?

 

[jonasv]

I didn't know about that starshaped aperture....when did it change? Does it really looks like a star?
My '57 kiev J8 mount has an octogonal aperture... a third aperture shape?

(apologies for the horrendous quality of the image)

Jupiter-8M, no 7619427

 

[rolleistef]

ok I see...

 

[dll927]

I have J-8's of both silver and black persuasions, and both Zorki and Kiev mounts. I think, without going to look, there are a couple of J-8M's, too.

It might take nit-picking, but I've seen on some websites that the later black versions are supposed to be somewhat better. But better by what yardstick? The general feeling about most FSU equipment is that it depends on what day they made them! (Meaning, how much vodka they had the night before.)

In case someone not into FSU stuff is reading this, FSU means "former Soviet Union". That refers to the Kruschev, Kosygin, Brezhnev era. The last one was also known as "Eyebrows".

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hmm, interesting. In the first picture I see the background blur has that Sonnar signature for this focal length. The second one, though, I think it's because of the actual background that you see a difference, but the main subject is softened like I'd expect with this lens. I suggest shooting both of your lenses side by side. I'm betting the main difference you'll see is contrast, and maybe, just maybe a focusing difference.

I would do this wide open.

 

[trinchetto1]

I own several russian lens and I can assure you that the better lens I have is a Jupiter 3 1,5/50.
The jupiter 8 is said to have the same image quality as the jupiter 3 but on my opinion this is simply not true.
The Industar are 4 lens Tessar design and they are definitely worst.
I have also to say that the quality control in russia was not good, one lens can be good and another similar terrible.
You have to try them every time.
Regards
Andrea

 

[ed1k]

lubitel,
shape of aperture blades and formula of glass contribute significantly to bokeh, as well as the optical formula does. I think J-8 were produced in Kiev (z-d Arsenal, but probably Kiev mount only) and KMZ and Lytkarino and probably somewhere else. Different plants used different glass, different coating and slightly different mechanical design. Take a look at manufacturer symbol placed on your two lenses, they probably different. Or difference in their age explains that. It's good to have two different J-8, isn't it? 😱)
eduard.