Jupiter-9, 85mm f2, thoughts please...

ruben said:
Weighting this sort of devices in the kitchen is as you say an issue of trust. On the other hand I have not been able to find a second source for the weight of this lens on LTM thread, beyond the one provide by Klomp and your kitchen.

Thus for example, the Rugfit M42 thread built in version is described as weighting 380 grams. and this is comfirmed by other sources too, but for M42 threads only. All this means that the buyer of the Jupiter will have to take care his version is LTM.

Now I have chequed the Voightklander version and here there are two different options: there is the Apo Lanthar 90mm, f3,5 (!) weighting 290 grams (which is not that far from the kitchen/Klomp version in terms of weight, but it will be of interest to know its size, since the Jupiter is also quite bulky.

But the second Voightlander option is quite seducing: The Color Heliar 75mm, very much acclaimed, with an aperture of f2,5 and a weight of 250 grams only. The size is strongly smaller too. Here the advantages become obvious. The lens is at sale for $329 and the buyer will have to add the adapter ($59) both for the Heliar as for the Jupiter.

If the buyer is able to buy its Jupiter 9 by physically going to see what he buys, and is presented with an acceptable for him mechanical version, then he could bring his adapter in his pocket - since he will need it in any case - along his M9 with film inside, ask the shop to allow him to run a few frames, rush to a 1 hour laboratory for a big enlargement and then have his judgement about the optical status too (remembering that lenses are to be judged at widest aperture and minimal distance.

Otherwise, Yanidel, you are sending him to the Soviet side of eBay, which you know is a landmine. There are jewels, no doubt, but great disappointments too.

US Fedka.com is a consistent seller of great lenses only, and great optics is his strongest side, rather than cameras. But the difference between his price for a good Jupiter 9 and the price of the Heliar 75, opens a wide field for thought.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

It seems I am going to buy M9, cause my M8 does not accept film... On the other hand, I do have two J-9 lenses. The mint black one I bought from Fedka (LTM from eighties) will not focus properly - the other one is Kiev mount (1956) bought in Croatia, and it is spot-on via Amedeo adapter...

www.ivanlozica.com
 
yanidel said:
Owned it twice and sold it.
Bad ergonomics, flare and soft wide open.
But magic ...
Next time I'll keep it for good.

j9%201%20MR.jpg


j9%202%20MR.jpg


j9%203%20MR.jpg


j9%204%20MR.jpg


j9%205%20MR.jpg
Click to expand...

Beautiful photos, yanidel. I love the one on the Champs Elysees.
 
dotur said:
Yes, the best solution is not always the cheapest one for the individual user. But the Amedeo adapter is more lens-friendly on the larger scale: it prevents further damage of FSU lenses, caused by vain attempts to adapt J-3 and J-9 for Leica...


www.ivanlozica.com
Click to expand...

Vain attempts for the J-3?

You do not know much about working on lenses, do you. Because if you did, you'd "get it". I'm tired of explaining to people that just can't get the fact that the FSU lenses are not made for the Leica, but it's just glass and metal. The Jupiter-3 is not hard to modify. The J-9 would need the internal Cam that translates the focus of an 84.5mm lens to the cam designed for a 51.6mm lens. In its "as-Built" configuration, it translates that motion to a cam designed for 52.4mm

For the J-9, my Contax Mount Jupiter-9 is quite good, after adding a 0.5mm shim for it to focus correctly. The FSU lenses were less standardized, and it was common to adjust a lens to go with a particular camera. Kind of similar to Leica, before the Leica standard came out.
 
Last edited:
Another Futile Attempt to modify a J-3 to work with a Leica. This one required a complete tear-down.

picture.php
 
And of course, futile attempts to modify pre-war Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 Contax mount lenses into a J-3 LTM Mount.

picture.php


The Futility!
 
With the J9 there are some things to say.

is soft at F/2 and a bit less at F/2,8 ? Yes.

Distractive bokeh with strong lights or shine sun at background ? Yes.

Is it far from to be a light lens ? Yes.

yellowish images ? Yes.

Is it ugly (subjective) ? Yes.

Magic images, with an unique touch; a really sonnar ? Yes.

Because the last answer, it´s my prefer portrait lens. This lens catch me in spite of me.

Rino.
 
Well I already decided :) I bought elmar that is m-mount for the same price of jupiter. It looks gorgeous yet I need to check the focusing accuracy.

Thanks Ruben for the remarks. The posts that warned me already rang the bells for me then I gave up the adventure for jupiter...maybe some other time. If I decide to get an amadeo adaptor one day then I can look to get a jupiter. I will post the results from my elmar later on.

Thanks guys!
 
Brian, dont worry I trust your remarks and I already understood the concept. You are the expert. Thanks for your help. You always helped people who are interested in jupiters, that must be appreciated.
 
I understood that. What got my attention was the remark regarding adjusting the J-3 for the Leica. I've done at least 50 of them now, just finished another this morning. It needed some set screws tightened to keep the helical in place, and then a quarter turn of the optics module in the focus mount. A very interesting one- probably the last of the two-piece construction for the optics fixture with the threaded aperture ring. Sometime in '62 the J-3 moved to a one piece optical fixture which is not as flexible for adjusting focus.
 
No offence, Brian... I do highly appreciate your personal skills and patience. But many (including myself) do not have those skills and patience, and that happens to be the reason for the global maltreatment, maladjustment and genocide of relatively cheap - but otherwise excellent - former GDR and FSU RF lenses.

www.ivanlozica.com

P1010777.78105958.jpg
 
The J-3 is not hard to set for a Leica, the worst of it is working with those little set screws. Some require a complete teardown.

The J-9: I'll probably dedicate a Zorki 3M to it. The optics are too nice not to use.
 
How much do J-9 weigh?

How much do J-9 weigh?

ruben said:
Two rmarks.

This lens is extremely heavy for its focal length, near half a kilo, which for the guy who carryes other gear it becomes a liability rather than an advantage.
Click to expand...

Heavy? Half a kilo? The J-9 in its various versions don't even approach that. Jupiter-9 lenses are really light in weight for its focal length and aperture. An equivalent Japanese lens from Nikon or Canon would weigh about 600 grams. That's about how much a camera weighs.

Another kitchen scale from halfway across the world happen to agree the weights quoted by A. Klomp and Yanidel's kitchen scale. In the vicinity of 300-350 grams. Not half a kilo. Not even close to that.

The scale I used is very accurate, and has been tested with metal weights to confirm their readings.

The Jupiter 9 LTM is at 313 grams. Two versions: white aluminium from the early 1960s and a black version from the late 1970s.

J9-LTM-313g.jpg


The Jupiter-9 for Kiev/Contax surprisingly is heavier, considering that their helicoids are simpler than the Leica mount version. A 1985 black version weighs 360 grams. A white aluminium version from 1955 is lighter at 337 grams.

J9-KM-350g.jpg


The SLR (Zenit 39 and M42 'universal') versions appeared to be heavier, but are really lighter at 351-354 grams:

J9slr.jpg



yellowish images ? Yes.
Click to expand...

The earlier "blue coated" Jupiters (not just the J-9) tend to make yellow looking images. The later ones with purple make neutral coloured ones.

As for compatibility with Leica, I have two which don't appear to have been tampered with and focus on the dot. Those which don't appear to have been improperly serviced. Photographers I've talked to from the "other side" who have used these lenses in their time confirm this.
 
Last edited:
I have only shot the lens in Zenit mount for SLRs, but I think it is the same optical formulation... thought it was just ok, nothing special and lots of brightlined bokeh (see the examples in this thread)... this and the less than stellar sharpness made me sell the lens in less than a year... couldn't find a reason to keep it. for M-mount it offers a cheap alternative (when it works)... but choosing a lens cuz it is cheap isn't always the best call.

Personally, I would look at CV 75/2.5 Color-Heliar.
 
ZorkiKat said:
Heavy? Half a kilo? The J-9 in its various versions don't even approach that. Jupiter-9 lenses are really light in weight for its focal length and aperture. An equivalent Japanese lens from Nikon or Canon would weigh about 600 grams. That's about how much a camera weighs.

Another kitchen scale from halfway across the world happen to agree the weights quoted by A. Klomp and Yanidel's kitchen scale. In the vicinity of 300-350 grams. Not half a kilo. Not even close to that.

The scale I used is very accurate, and has been tested with metal weights to confirm their readings.

The Jupiter 9 LTM is at 313 grams. Two versions: white aluminium from the early 1960s and a black version from the late 1970s.



The Jupiter-9 for Kiev/Contax surprisingly is heavier, considering that their helicoids are simpler than the Leica mount version. A 1985 black version weighs 360 grams. A white aluminium version from 1955 is lighter at 337 grams.


The SLR (Zenit 39 and M42 'universal') versions appeared to be heavier, but are really lighter at 351-354 grams:



The earlier "blue coated" Jupiters (not just the J-9) tend to make yellow looking images. The later ones with purple make neutral coloured ones.

As for compatibility with Leica, I have two which don't appear to have been tampered with and focus on the dot. Those which don't appear to have been improperly serviced. Photographers I've talked to from the "other side" who have used these lenses in their time confirm this.
Click to expand...


Hi Zorkikat,

Kindly let me renew my apologies for the wrong I did to you concerning about that thread on the Kiev reliability. There was absolutely no excuse for my behaviour. People sometimes go mistaken.

As for the Jupiter 9, my version renders fantastic results. But the lens is bulky and it lacks a double f/stop scale like those you find in the later Jupiters 8 and Helios lens. This means that if you happen to focus first, to get an idea of what the image will look like, then most of the chances are that you will have to look where the f/stop scale has gone, until you reverse the whole camera.

The "half a kilo" I wrote about is not accurate, I accept the corrections. But the subjective feeling of the lens is that of a heavy, bulky, and somewhat not comfortable lens.

Nevertheless after searching in the net for some alternatives for a RF of the same focal lenght, I fully recognize that the alternatives are not so easy as well, each one for its own reason. The maximum aperture of f/2 of the Jupiter 9 is a great blessing.

I am used to carry a minimum of two bodies and several lenses (as fillm is concerned). Unwillingly many times I was compelled to leave my Jewel J9 at home. We can agree, it seems to me, that in general line up of Soviet lenses for rangefinders like the Kiev or the Leica, the J-9 stands out against all others in size and weight.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ruben said:
Nevertheless after searching in the net for some alternatives for a RF of the same focal lenght, I fully recognize that the alternatives are not so easy as well, each one for its own reason. The maximum aperture of f/2 of the Jupiter 9 is a great blessing.
Click to expand...

I think you hit the point here. A 90mm Cron pre-asph is 500gr, not mentioning the 75mm Lux or Cron that are also in the 450-600gr range.
I know in absolute terms (and compared to Dslr lenses), 500gr is not a lot, but it kind of offsets the benefits of a small and light rangefinders. To me, the 300gr - 400gr range is my upper limit for carry everywhere.
The J-9 is a bit bulky, but I found it to be a good balance between weight and capability. The aperture ring is a torture as on top of not having clicks, its rotation is reversed. Difficult to adjust settings without looking at the lens. Also add to this that it is difficult to find hoods and they make the lens even bigger.
Really, not much in favour of the J-9, except that very special look in the wider apertures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom