LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I am considering this lens for my M6. Anyone has that lens, I would like to hear your experiences and would be very good to see some images.
Thanks.
Aykut
Thanks.
Aykut
Krosya
Konicaze
I used to have one in black. After I had it re-adjusted it was a good lens - sharp with great bokeh. Sold it only because I got a Nikkor 10.5cm/2.5 LTM, but still miss it and may get another one one day. Here are a few pics I took with J9:
Gotta love the Sonnars !
Gotta love the Sonnars !
I tried adjusting/modifying three of them for LTM, and gave up. I could not make them maintain good focus throughout the range.
I use a black one on my Contax II with very good results. The LTM lens could be adjusted to work between 2m to 20m for reasonable results.
I use a black one on my Contax II with very good results. The LTM lens could be adjusted to work between 2m to 20m for reasonable results.
This thread pretty much sums up my experience:
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79337
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79337
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
So If I understood correctly, if I buy a J-9 M39, I have to hack it before I use it for good focusing. Is that right? Can I do it by myself?
So do you suggest the black ones then as they have shim at back?
So do you suggest the black ones then as they have shim at back?
You might get lucky, it might work out of the box. It is made to the Zeiss standard, not the Leica. Some are adjusted already, some just hit it right, some cannot be used with a Leica.
As to whether you can do it yourself: easier if you have a Digital RF camera, some shims, and some basic skill. The black ones are easier to work on, you have the secondary shim.
I'm done with J-9's in LTM.
As to whether you can do it yourself: easier if you have a Digital RF camera, some shims, and some basic skill. The black ones are easier to work on, you have the secondary shim.
I'm done with J-9's in LTM.
ethics_gradient
Well-known
I'm happy with mine, went through two basket cases (didn't even need to run a roll through the camera with them, they were both obviously no good) before I got it. If I was in your place I'd go with the Canon 85mm f/1.9 or 2.0, not as cheap (still probably under $200) but a lot less guesswork.
DNG
Film Friendly
That's what I did... It's in the mail, but I got the 85/2 Canon. for $175.00. I'll post a few images under a new thread for under Canon RFs. Unless I find a already existing thread first.
dotur
od karnevala
The best solution for FSU RF lenses on M cameras (if you wish to focus properly) is to use Kiev (Contax) mount lenses from the fifties, via Amedeo Musceli Contax-Leica adapter.
www.ivanlozica.com
www.ivanlozica.com
The Amedeo adapter cost more than the Canon 85/2. The Jupiter-9 is an inexpensive lens, and that will put the total cost at more than a Nikkor 8.5cm F2 in LTM.
yanidel
Well-known
Owned it twice and sold it.
Bad ergonomics, flare and soft wide open.
But magic ...
Next time I'll keep it for good.
Bad ergonomics, flare and soft wide open.
But magic ...
Next time I'll keep it for good.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I have one which I use only with the FED-2 body whose R/F I mal-adjusted for the purpose. Pictures have been posted on RFF already.
[edit] You have fine stuff there, yanidel.
[edit] You have fine stuff there, yanidel.
Last edited:
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
By the way I bought an elmar 9cm f4 from an RFF member it is M-mount! I bought it for 150$ including shipment!
it is M-mount! I bought it for 150$ including shipment!
dotur
od karnevala
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
R
ruben
Guest
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.
Lastly it will be very rare if you get a version that works well just out of the box. Most of them perform very good from the optical view point, although you may also find superb samples, like mine, purchased at Fedka.com. I do expect thousands and thousand of of champions who will tell you their first version they bought was superb right out of the box, as you will find thousand and thousand of RFF folks ready to put their hand on the Bible to testify they paid 10 bucks (or less !) for their garage working version of the yashica G camera (follow this story - it is amazing by itself)
But mechaniically, most of the chances are that you will get a very stiff version, or in my case, a too soft one, which is not good too as the f/stops and distance adjustments move unintentionally too easy.
True you can easilty clean the mechanical part just by turning leftwards the outer lens side, and then the whole lens compound will be out. Assuming that optically everything is ok then you will have to go to the store and buy and organize yourself the cleaning facilities and lubricate it with new and good grease - synthetic versions - the most expensive.
It can be funny or challenging, according to your persoality, but it can be a headache if you are not used to.
There are Japanese Nikkor versions of the same lens, more expensinve and probably free of the mechanical issues - I hope, I have no experience with them. But the weight problem still remains.
Since I am not a Leica acquinted folk I do not know what other alternatives you have, but I just imagine that Cosina Voightlander must have an alternative for you, whose more expensive price, I guarantee you will be highly compensated the moment you open the box and start rotating the the rings, or mounting it to the camera.
At RFF there are a lot of fellows knowledgeable abuot how to bring an old Jupiter to shape. The problem is that if you yourself are not used to, most of the chances are you will end paying more than the higher price of the Voightlander lens.
Unless you also purchased your M6 at a garage sale for a ridiculous price, make yourself a favour and honour your camera.
Cheers,
Ruben
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.
Lastly it will be very rare if you get a version that works well just out of the box. Most of them perform very good from the optical view point, although you may also find superb samples, like mine, purchased at Fedka.com. I do expect thousands and thousand of of champions who will tell you their first version they bought was superb right out of the box, as you will find thousand and thousand of RFF folks ready to put their hand on the Bible to testify they paid 10 bucks (or less !) for their garage working version of the yashica G camera (follow this story - it is amazing by itself)
But mechaniically, most of the chances are that you will get a very stiff version, or in my case, a too soft one, which is not good too as the f/stops and distance adjustments move unintentionally too easy.
True you can easilty clean the mechanical part just by turning leftwards the outer lens side, and then the whole lens compound will be out. Assuming that optically everything is ok then you will have to go to the store and buy and organize yourself the cleaning facilities and lubricate it with new and good grease - synthetic versions - the most expensive.
It can be funny or challenging, according to your persoality, but it can be a headache if you are not used to.
There are Japanese Nikkor versions of the same lens, more expensinve and probably free of the mechanical issues - I hope, I have no experience with them. But the weight problem still remains.
Since I am not a Leica acquinted folk I do not know what other alternatives you have, but I just imagine that Cosina Voightlander must have an alternative for you, whose more expensive price, I guarantee you will be highly compensated the moment you open the box and start rotating the the rings, or mounting it to the camera.
At RFF there are a lot of fellows knowledgeable abuot how to bring an old Jupiter to shape. The problem is that if you yourself are not used to, most of the chances are you will end paying more than the higher price of the Voightlander lens.
Unless you also purchased your M6 at a garage sale for a ridiculous price, make yourself a favour and honour your camera.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
yanidel
Well-known
Do you refer to the chrome one ? Is there a difference with the black ? I had weighted my black Jupiter 9 at the time and it came to about 350 grams.
R
ruben
Guest
If you hapenned to separate the lens compount from the alumiium body you will easily find that the absolutely high weight of the lens comes from the lens compound itself, not from the body.
As for weight, check the internet. Personally I hvve own both versions.
Cheers,
Ruben
yanidel
Well-known
335 grams according to that link
http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/jupiter9/
And I do have entire trust in the calibration of the cooking scale of my girlfriend
dotur
od karnevala
R
ruben
Guest
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.
===============
Finally, let me warn you, Aykut, that exceptional technically nice pictures above portrayed and further to portray, hide much more than reveal in the same spirit of the 10 bucks Yashica. The submitters have not detailed the mechanical status of their lens,
-nor if they have corrected or sent to correct their optics
-nor you see here the unlucky folks with stiff Jupiters
-nor the posters are revealing if the have been using tripods
-nor the f/stop number they used (a critical data)
-nor the film
-nor the scanner
-nor if they have used photoshop
-nor how many Jupiter 9 have their purchased until they found their Jewel.
-Finally, images with appealing subjects instead of boring subjects, confuse more than help. Add to this that no detailed data is attached and what you get is a classical abuse of a technical thread to personal picture gallery.
By implication you are requested to get astonished. By analysis keep your distance from these kinds of posts.
Cheers,
Ruben
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.
===============
Finally, let me warn you, Aykut, that exceptional technically nice pictures above portrayed and further to portray, hide much more than reveal in the same spirit of the 10 bucks Yashica. The submitters have not detailed the mechanical status of their lens,
-nor if they have corrected or sent to correct their optics
-nor you see here the unlucky folks with stiff Jupiters
-nor the posters are revealing if the have been using tripods
-nor the f/stop number they used (a critical data)
-nor the film
-nor the scanner
-nor if they have used photoshop
-nor how many Jupiter 9 have their purchased until they found their Jewel.
-Finally, images with appealing subjects instead of boring subjects, confuse more than help. Add to this that no detailed data is attached and what you get is a classical abuse of a technical thread to personal picture gallery.
By implication you are requested to get astonished. By analysis keep your distance from these kinds of posts.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator: