Jupiter-8 vs Industar-61 L/D

[Apostata]

Hello,

I currently have a Jupiter-8 and am currently happy with it (aside from a largely inconsequential aperature issue). However, I've heard a lot about the Industar-61 L/D, and I'm tempted/curious about it.

What I know: the Jupiter is a 50mm and the Industar is 55mm. The Industar L/D also has the specially coated lens (thus the L/D part).

Is it worth having both? Is there that big a difference between the two that both would have a use?

Just curious

- Matt

 

[Roman]

Well, considering the low prices for thes, and the fact that they have very different 'footprints', it is surely worth owning both.
I prefer the J-8 for portraits - it is lower contrast, has smoother bokeh, and tends to be very slightly softer used at the largest aperture (but get's really sharp stopped down). ALso, it is one stop faster than the I-61, which might be important in 'available darkness'.
The I-61L/D is much contrastier (in fact, one of the contrastiest lenses around), which makes pics look sharper (even if they aren't), bokeh is not bad, but not as good as from the J-8. I prefer this one for 'grittier' shots, urban landscape type shots, etc.

Roman

 

[Apostata]

Thanks for the info - I was actually under the impression that the J-8 was the contrasty one...but this is why I ask these potentially redundant questions

One last one - seeing as the I-61 is a 55mm lens, do you find you need to compensate in your framing because of the viewfinder being set for 50mm?

Cheers,

Matt

 

[varjag]

Maybe my recollections are wrong, but I think that in I-61 L/D lanthanium was used in glass formulation of one of the elements, not in the coating.

 

[Roman]

Frankly, I don't care about these 5mm of difference - the Russian RFs don't have framelines anyway, and even if they had (or you use the lenses on a camera with framelines), those are never exact enough to account for such a small differences.

BTW, the J-8 is also really something like 51 or 52mm, actually - very few lenses have EXACTLY the focal length written on them (lots of 35mm lenses are more like 37, etc.), those are just approximations, it is quite uncommon to try giving the exact focal length like the Russians did with the I-61 (which nominally changed from 52 to 53 to 55 - though I have never seen the latter, while the lens construction stayed probably the same)

Put shortly: Don't worry about it, if you want exact framing, get an SLR.

Roman

 

[garythegit]

The Industar 61 L/D although contrasty, is also fantastic for gritty portraits! I quite like the bokeh from it and has used it as an all rounder for a while now with very pleasing results. One thing I think that really seperated the two is that the 61 L/D has click stops for apeture while the Jupiter sometimes suffers from 'wondering apeture ring' when focusing.

Here's some Industar shots
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=34003775&size=o
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=31421441&size=l

But I do agree with peeps who say that the Industar is good for urban/landscape stuff as it's really sharp stopped down.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=35326939&size=o
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=35326940&size=o

Hmmmmm contrasty goodness

 

[darkkavenger]

I have to warn you that you can find lenses that have been disassembled and badly set back. I think that this is what might have happened to my I-61 L/D. The first film I developed (kodak gold/iso100), using my Fed3b type b body gave out appalling results, all photos being out of focus, while using the standard I-61 lens on this camera gave wonderful results. I have a second film that needs to be finished, this time I used another film (b/w, ilford pan 400) to be sure it doesn't comes from the the film. I will let you know once I have the film done and developed.

But in general I-61 lenses give great results ... here's a shot a F/5.6 - 1/125s
http://www.deviantart.com/view/20708081/

In LTM mount I prefer using the I-61, in Kiev/Contax mount (of course) I prefer the J-8

 

[kiev4a]

My problem with the I-61 l/d for most subjects is that it is too contrasty for my taste--especially when shooting color and even more so when shooting slides. It does put some snap in B&W negs -- sorta like shooting everything with an orange filter.

 

[Laika]

........ Is it worth having both? Is there that big a difference between the two that both would have a use?

Just curious

- Matt

I think so,

I love my J8's and use them the most but the Ind-61L/D gives a very different look to the images, high contrast and a perceived sharpness that I really like for architecture and gritty urban shots. I think if I could only have two soviet 50's the J8 and Ind-61L/D would be a good choice because they are quite different image wise. As mentioned the 50mm ver 55mm framing isn’t really an issue.

 

[Apostata]

Thanks for the POV's guys. I'm certainly tempted to look for a L/D to complement my small collection. That said, the most recent work I've done w/ the J-8 ain't that bad in terms of contrast/sharpness. In the example I present, the caveat is that I had the slide film pushed to 400 (vs. 200). However, I thought I'd post it as an example of what the J-8 can do in terms of street-photography.

Thanks again,

Matt

 

[RML]

Take a look at my Mongolia gallery ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=3352 ). Many of the shots were taken with the J-8.

For me the I-61 L/D is too sharp (or whateveryacallit) but I'm gonna give it a whirl on the R-D1.

Another 50mm that's nice is the collapsible I-50. Not very fast at f3.5 but a nice lens anyway. And performing rather nicely on the R-D1 as well. On the Bessa L/R/T etc it doesn't usually fully collapse, or at least you shouldn't push it down all the way. On the R-D1 it does collapse fully, as it does on my Leica M2.

 

[Apostata]

Take a look at my Mongolia gallery ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=3352 ). Many of the shots were taken with the J-8.

For me the I-61 L/D is too sharp (or whateveryacallit) but I'm gonna give it a whirl on the R-D1.

Thanks for the link. One thing I will say about the J-8 is that - while it may not be the pin-sharpest of all 50mm's - it compensates for this with a healthy natural contrast and a beautiful bokeh. I would say in the J-8's defence that it's a very 'painterly' lens, if one can say such a thing.

 

[RML]

Thanks for the link. One thing I will say about the J-8 is that - while it may not be the pin-sharpest of all 50mm's - it compensates for this with a healthy natural contrast and a beautiful bokeh. I would say in the J-8's defence that it's a very 'painterly' lens, if one can say such a thing.

Sean Reid would be proud of your use of that term.

 

[Apostata]

Sean Reid would be proud of your use of that term.

I'm not sure who Sean Reid is...but it's a way of approaching optics that I picked-up in film school - to see things as 'renderings', in the traditional artistic sense, rather than things which are 'captured', so to speak.

Just watch...it'll turn out Sean Reid is a pedantic wanker, and I'm walking into embarrassment (again)

 

[RML]

Just watch...it'll turn out Sean Reid is a pedantic wanker, and I'm walking into embarrassment (again)

He could be; I've never met him. (Sorry, Sean, no offense meant! )

Sean is a member here and has written several very nice articles and reviews. Check him out here on RFF and on http://www.still-photo.net .