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

It is not the cheapest alternative. I bought this elmar 9cm for 150$...Look at the results...J-9 can be preferred for its signature, that is right...
4450792774_f9ae628a9b_o.jpg


4450020319_e1daf3b8c2_o.jpg
 
I really like the J9... its 15 blade iris, and I even like the delimiter ring. It's great for manual cameras. It's a well-made, relatively inexpensive, fast, compact portrait lens that renders sometimes striking images, esp. portraits (obvs)... nice smooth bokeh. My sample has a stiff but usable focus ring. That said, I have it in M42, Pentax screw mount. Based on what I've read I wouldn't touch it in LTM. Too many self-repair issues.
 
LeicaFoReVer said:
It is not the cheapest alternative. I bought this elmar 9cm for 150$...Look at the results...J-9 can be preferred for its signature, that is right...
4450792774_f9ae628a9b_o.jpg


4450020319_e1daf3b8c2_o.jpg
Click to expand...
Good shots, congratulations. Is your Elmar a rigid one, four elements? It is an excellent and compact lens with classic character. Looks a bit old-fashioned and skinny for contemorary standards. The price is OK - the only limitation is f4... usable outdoors, a bit limited indoors, and too slow for shallow DOF portraits. But it is a genuine Leitz lens, the real thing!

www.ivanlozica.com
 
It is not a limitation for me. f4 is good enough. I tend to miss the focus at lower apertures at that focal lens so f4 gives me confidence...

I have the chrome version I dont know which one is rigid. This one is not collapsible. It is thin and long.
 
LeicaFoReVer said:
It is not a limitation for me. f4 is good enough. I tend to miss the focus at lower apertures at that focal lens so f4 gives me confidence...

I have the chrome version I dont know which one is rigid. This one is not collapsible. It is thin and long.
Click to expand...

That should be the lens. My first M tele, bought in 1986 - and I still have it. Thin and long, easy to carry. Good choice!

www.ivanlozica.com

P1010781.79234903.jpg
 
dotur said:
Mmmm... nice... possibly made of seasoned Schott glass pillaged from Zeiss...
Click to expand...
No, that glass ran out by 1954.

And not pillaged. Zeiss willingly shared, even provided the experts to set up production in USSR. Of course their only other option was to shut down completely, as they were deemed by allies to be major part of Nazi war machine, and were known for using labor resources from Buchenwald. But it's not like they didn't have a choice.
 
On the cross-over point with the Schott Glass: I currently have a 1949 ZK Sonnar 5cm F1.5, two 1953 KMZ J-3's, a 1955 KMZ J-3, and a 1956 KMZ J-3. I also picked up an early 1956 (in the first few hundred) ZOMZ J-3. My "feeling" is when comparing the performance, is that the switch-over occurred when moving the production. Also, the focus mechanism on the '56 ZOMZ has a lot of slop, required vacuum pump grease to stop a wobble. I don't know if KMZ ran enough elements for the '55 and '56, or if there was more glass than thought. The ZOMZ is "just different'. I also have a second 1956 ZOMZ that had to be parted out, front element used to reapir another lens. The glass was clean, the image formed was "just not right". All elements were seated properly, it was like the optical fixture was not within spec and the spacing was wrong.
 
Last edited:
I've seen the pictures of the reformulated 1954 J-3's. I figure that you always need adequate lead-time to get the new product into the production line. I can rationalize that the production pipeline of turning raw glass into lens elements also pushed the actual change-over out a bit for the last completed lenses using German glass. Then factor in the KMZ to ZOMZ switch-over, and the relative performance of the lenses. Again- speculation on my part. But there is bound to be overlap between completed lenses made with Russian glass and completed lenses made with German glass.
 
varjag said:
No, that glass ran out by 1954.

And not pillaged. Zeiss willingly shared, even provided the experts to set up production in USSR. Of course their only other option was to shut down completely, as they were deemed by allies to be major part of Nazi war machine, and were known for using labor resources from Buchenwald. But it's not like they didn't have a choice.
Click to expand...

OK, not pillaged. Let's call it a "friendly persuasion"!

www.ivanlozica.com
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I've seen the pictures of the reformulated 1954 J-3's. I figure that you always need adequate lead-time to get the new product into the production line. I can rationalize that the production pipeline of turning raw glass into lens elements also pushed the actual change-over out a bit for the last completed lenses using German glass. Then factor in the KMZ to ZOMZ switch-over, and the relative performance of the lenses. Again- speculation on my part. But there is bound to be overlap between completed lenses made with Russian glass and completed lenses made with German glass.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable. Anyhow, my KMZ J-3 from 1952 is optically better than my ZOMZ J-3 from 1962, and it is also of better quality mechanically - but my KMZ J-3 is in Kiev mount.

www.ivanlozica.com
 
ruben said:
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.




Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...


Ruben, all in the past, best left and forgotten. :)

Speaking of medium focal length lenses, and you being a fan of Kiev and Contax, wouldn't it have been wonderful if the Soviets made a copy of the compact Triotar? Well not so compact perhaps, but really light.
 
I hope nobody minds me butting in here - just to say how interesting I am finding this thread...:)

I've been considering a decent, inexpensive portrait lens in M39 so all this info is very useful.
 
Ooooops !

Ooooops !

It has came just now to my knowledge that Fedka technician performs FSU lens repairs, including collimation, and this is a deal maker. The prices are very moderate.

As for the quality of the job I have a single independent indication for good.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
ruben said:
It has came just now to my knowledge that Fedka technician performs FSU lens repairs, including collimation, and this is a deal maker. The prices are very moderate.

As for the quality of the job I have a single independent indication for good.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

When I first got my J-9, the focusing ring was very stiff, the aperture ring was not align, the glass had some fungus in it.
I sent it to Fedka.

They cleaned the glass very well. Although Yuri said that the helicas are already worn, the focusing is now useable.

A sample shot below using a Canon P.

Frozen_Pop_Break.jpg
 
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.
Click to expand...

I rarely post here, but I think that your skateboarder pic is a good enough reason even for a bit OT. I think it's really good. There is some magic there and not just the lens!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom