Jupiter 8 ?

[Coldkennels]

Here's a quick comparison shot I did on HP5+ a while back:



I've used a bunch of Jupiter 8s and Jupiter 8Ms - although nothing like as many as Brian, obviously! - and this 1974 one is the best I've found across both mounts. The Helios is still sharper from edge to edge, with slightly higher contrast, and more jittery/interesting OOF areas than any Jupiter 8 I've played with. Testing on digital via adapter, it's sharper and has higher resolution than an undamaged and uncoated pre-war Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar at f/2, but I've yet to try it against a coated post-war version of the same.

The trade-off is that it's slightly longer than the J8M, and build quality of the barrel is noticeably not as refined or pleasant as earlier Jupiter 8s - but optically, it's a fantastic lens.

 

[rfaspen]

Brian is cruel showing us his LTM J8M. I'd sure like that. My J8M is a great* lens on film...but I've never had a chance to try it on digital... that's why I need it converted 😎. I love and enjoy using my M cameras, but have come to hate using the Kiev or older Contax. I just...can't...do...that convoluted and unnatural method of holding the camera. It's not right 😮

 

[Coldkennels]

I love and enjoy using my M cameras, but have come to hate using the Kiev or older Contax. I just...can't...do...that convoluted and unnatural method of holding the camera. It's not right 😮

I keep going back to Kievs and Contaxes. I've tried most models, and honestly, the "Contax Grip" is the least of my concerns. Everything about those things drives me insane; film loading, changing lenses, selecting shutter speeds, rewinding, general maintenance... it all just makes me appreciate the Barnack design a whole lot more.

I see Amedeo is making Contax-to-LTM adapters again. I'm not going to lie: I'm tempted. The big question is whether I want the 50mm-only version or the internal-and-external one so I can use the Jupiter 9 too. It's a lot of extra money just to use the occasional portrait and tele lens!

 

[boojum]

I keep going back to Kievs and Contaxes. I've tried most models, and honestly, the "Contax Grip" is the least of my concerns. Everything about those things drives me insane; film loading, changing lenses, selecting shutter speeds, rewinding, general maintenance... it all just makes me appreciate the Barnack design a whole lot more.

I see Amedeo is making Contax-to-LTM adapters again. I'm not going to lie: I'm tempted. The big question is whether I want the 50mm-only version or the internal-and-external one so I can use the Jupiter 9 too. It's a lot of extra money just to use the occasional portrait and tele lens!

I'm on board for accepting a little discomfort or some quirks as stepping stones to a better image. The reverse, I do not care how comfy, cute, trick-packed it is, if the images are not good I am not interested. As always, YMMV. Luckily the cameras today are designed with comfort and hand feel in mind even though I wonder about my Pentax Q-S1. ;o) Leicas are great bling and I have been told more than once by a bystander that they wish they had one. I tell them that I wish they had one, too. Now mine are taped so that the name and red dot are covered, just for safety's sake. I am going to insure these cameras and the last thing I want is to file a claim for loss after having a camera stolen.

But to the topic of Jupiter 8's, I just got back my '51 KMZ from an overhaul and correction from what a local camera shop had done to it. Here are a couple of shots of the Sentinel, a bulk carrier when she is just in the Columbia, headed upstream after crossing the Columbia Bar and then as she passes by my porch. These are SOOC JPG's. I used GIMP to resize them for posting. IIRC they are both at f/5.6. Who does the work on a lens makes a world of difference.

These are taken at -1/3 exposure compensation and I think I am not doing that anymore. These are too dark compared to what is real.

​

 

[boojum]

OK, here goes another completely unscientific seat-of-the-pants lens test. I have the SB CLA'ed '51 KMZ Jupiter 8, a '57 KMZ Jupiter 8 and the Cooke Amotal. I am tied up at home today so I could just shoot three quick ones off the porch. All three were shot on the same Leica M9, ISO 160, f/5.6 distance set manually to infinity. No filters on the lenses. All clocked in at 1/2000. Exposure compensation is at 0. In order: Cooke, '51 Jupiter 8, '57 Jupiter 8.

This does not mean you will be spared another more complete test down the line. Hah!

​

 

[Coldkennels]

@boojum, the first thing I'm taking from that last post is that you need to clean your sensor; you've got a couple of nasty spots in the sky.

Also, I'm never sure how much you can really tell with long-distance photos like that, especially in colour and without filters. Atmospheric haze becomes a major factor.

That said, there's a pronounced colour difference between the first one and the latter two; I'm assuming the first one, being the odd one out, is the Amotal? I think I prefer its rendering of colours to the latter two, but again, I never really trust digital images with auto-anything to tell me anything about colour rendering. There's too much going on in-camera - too much attempted correction, too much software trying to decide what looks "right".

As much as I love my X-Pro 2 and Fuji's handling of colour in general, I've noticed that it's wildly unpredictable with any adapted/non-Fuji lenses at times. Slap an XF 35/2 on it and you'll get the same colour response every time, but mount something a bit more oddball on it - especially something uncoated - and two images shot in sequence can look wildly different.

Same thing, to a certain degree, with C41 film; you're stuck with the scanner's interpretation of the colour, not what actually made it through the glass in the first place. Slides may be expensive and a ballache to expose for, but at least there's no interference or interpretation - what you see is exactly what you got when you tripped the shutter.

(Assuming your processing wasn't at the wrong temperature and the chems weren't old, anyway...)

 

[boojum]

Please re-read the accompanying text. The order of lenses is specified.

I am not sure what detritus you see on my sensor. I am looking at a very enlarged image and what I surmise you are speaking of above the furthest buildings, white ones, are clouds. Tell me if that is what you are speaking of.

Inasmuch as "I never really trust digital images with auto-anything to tell me anything about colour rendering." your comments on color are pretty pointless.

I think I also said that this was just a quick test. Yesterday I was unable to get out, as I said. I will do another test later. The next test will be of a colorful local home, close in so that detail and color will be more clear.

I think I have covered what you have brought up but let me know if I have missed anything, please. Thank you.

 

[Coldkennels]

You've got three very obvious dirt/dust marks in the sky at the top; there may be more higher up but the JPG compression is making it a bit hard to discern what's actually on the file and what's just compression-related banding:

There's no need to get defensive, though. I'm just pointing out that there's sometimes inherent problems with trying to discern or critique colour rendering and performance in certain mediums/formats/setups. For instance, I do a lot of product photography and made the mistake of doing a batch with auto white balance using a TTArtisan 23/1.4 in X mount instead of Fuji's 18/2 XF I usually use; god, that was a headache to deal with. I think I ended up just reshooting half of that lot - the colour balance was all over the place.

Then you've got the problems with making sure your display is even rendering the colours properly... urgh. Give me black and white darkroom prints any day. Much simpler!

 

[boojum]

Funny how the eye can pick up some things and miss others. I did an f/22 at infinity shot of a white wall while moving the camera and found those specks. It took some doing. Ran the red gel stick over the sensor and now it is as pristine as a maiden. Thanks for catching those motes.