Jupiter 8 CLA question

[Disaster_Area]

I recently used the pentax-manuals.com DIY instructions to take apart and clean my jupiter 8. Everything went fine and I'd like to thank the author for putting that doc together. I just have one question... when I unscrewed the lens unit from the body I noticed that there was only one shim on the lens unit, not two as it showed in the pictures... is this because all jupiters wheren't created equal, and some versions have one shim instead of two.. or has someone CLA'd this before me and lost one? I realize I could just shoot a roll and find out if it's in focus.. but I'd like to cut down the variables on why it MAY be out of focus.. I could have screwed up somewhere else in my CLA, or it could be a dud to begin with and still turn out of focus shim or no shim 🙂

 

[wolves3012]

Mine have one shim too, I think it's just the shims that were needed and available. Actually, I think mine may have two that are kind-of compressed together, not sure without looking. Kim Coxon is the man to answer this, he wrote the articles. If he doesn't reply to this, PM him...

 

[ZorkiKat]

The shims were put there to space the lens block properly on the lens barrel, relative to the film plane. Sometimes one shim would do, sometimes two. Or if only thin shims were available, you'd find two where one thick one would normally be. Or maybe even a thick one and a thin one, as needed by the spacing requirement of the lens block. The barrels and lens blocks slightly differed in specs so shims evened out these variables.

Do not readily assume that something in your lens is missing or got lost if you only found one shim. One shim is probably all that the lens needed.

One quick indicator that it's still intact is how the aperture scale and index dot line up. If they line up properly it would likely indicate that the lens is still complete with the shims installed in it at the factory. It's often difficult to line up the aperture scale numbers and index dot if there is a shim missing, or if a shim of the wrong thickness is placed instead.

Jay