Jupiter 9 document !?

[JonR]

Friends;

Bought a Jupiter 9 lens with it´s original black box and included in that was the following document:




What is this - a packing document, warranty or receipt !?

By the way - I thought the Jupiter 9 was 85 mm but here it says 84,6 !? Also - what does the figures 34 and 18 and 34,86 mean...

I guess the 1960 r. means manufactured 1960 !?

Any comments !

Jon

 

[Jocko]

This is known as the Passport. Similar documents came with almost all Soviet photographic gear. It marks the point when a finished item left the factory.

It shows that the lens has been individually tested and found to have a focal length of 84.6mm (very few lenses are exactly the advertised length and this makes absolutely no difference to photography). I don't speak Russian, but I believe you will find that the other figures show that the central resolution is 34LPM (lines per millimeter) and edge resolution is 18LPM, This is better than the official specification - 30/18, but still misleading, as the Soviets used a different system to Western tests - resolution will be better than these figures imply.

And the lens was sent into the wide world on the 28th of something 1960 🙂

Cheers, Ian

 

[radiocemetery]

I think this is the "passport" that is referred to sometimes. It provides date of inspection, serial no. of the lens, some sources say that the numbers recorded refer to the resolving power of the lens, but , I don't read Russian. I have seen these document s referred to as the passport. Russian readers, what say ye?

Steve

 

[Spider67]

..sometimes you'll find a signature of the inspector who checked it....

 

[rxmd]

It shows that the lens has been individually tested and found to have a focal length of 84.6mm (very few lenses are exactly the advertised length and this makes absolutely no difference to photography). I don't speak Russian, but I believe you will find that the other figures show that the central resolution is 34LPM (lines per millimeter) and edge resolution is 18LPM, This is better than the official specification - 30/18, but still misleading, as the Soviets used a different system to Western tests - resolution will be better than these figures imply.

I am not a Russian reader, but I read the 18 lpm as an average across the field (по полю). The 34.86 is the lens working distance in millimieters, apparently we're talking about a Kiev mount lens 😉

 

[Jocko]

I read the 18 lpm as an average across the field (по полю). The 34.86 is the lens working distance in millimieters, apparently we're talking about a Kiev mount lens 😉

There I go, showing my ignerunce again! 😉

Cheers, Ian

 

[JonR]

Interesting - quality control with the individual focal length and resolution measurements of the specific lens! I am impressed!! And yes, it is Kiev mount!

Thanks /Jon

 

[ed1k]

Yes, this is a passport for lens "J-9" serial# 6017605 (check this number on your lens to see if this is an authentic one ), focus 84.6 mm, max. apperture 1:2, photographic resolution 34 lpm in center and 18 lpm elsewhere; working distance is 34,86 mm, tested by QA on 28th of July (if that is VII) 1960, two signatures: laboratory supervisor and QA person.
This is not a warranty, receipt etc. just confirmation that the lens left factory meeting technical requirements and signatures of persons who assured that fact.

 

[JonR]

Thanks "ed1k" - given all the comments about poor quality control in the Russian factories this type of Quality Inspection is more than I had expected.

And yes - the lens serian number matches the document so it is the authentic one!

/Jon

 

[sweathog]

I really need to get my Russian back to scratch. I'm seeing odd words that I can gist from, but I couldn't say any more than what has already been said.

 

[DrLeoB]

Basic translation (parentheses are implied text):


Passport

Applies to Camera Lens : U-9 (Serial) Number: 6017605
F(ocal length): 84.6 (mm) At f-Stop: 1:2
Able (to be used) for Photographic Use.

In the Central field: 34 (lines/mm)
At the Edges: 18 (lines/mm)

Working Distance: 34.86 (mm)

Laboratory (?Unknown signature)

28 M(arch/May) 1960th year Signed (?Unknown Signature)

Form 920

 

[ed1k]

Jon,
Now you have an idea how this lens performed when it was new. Today that passport may have only collectible use; the lens performance depend on its history: repairs, abuse etc.
Actually, almost everything in Soviet Union was sold with such kind of paper.
QA was not poor in Soviet Union. IMHO, worst thing was centralized planning, i.e. factory had state ordered number of units they had to manufacture no matter what, often those numbers were not realistic to the manufacturing power and quality inspection resources, as a result - if factory doesn't ship required quantity they have problems right away; if they ship but with some units poorly tested they may have problem if it becomes known to public... and it's not factory fault in general but those persons signed your passport will search for another job. So, generally speaking of production date, end of quarter is bad, end of year is even worse, because of planned unit quantities deadlines; units for export were better inspected because of great risk of scandal to be disclosed to public etc.

Ed.
P.S. If this lens does not perform as good as you expected I'd advise to search for J-9 made by Arsenal factory, they have s/n one digit shorter 🙂

 

[varjag]

There was a huge difference in QA in 1950s and 1980s. Since about mid-70s, passports with lenses were printed, and did not contain any measured data (rather tech spec numbers).

 

[fanshaw]

Jon,
Now you have an idea how this lens performed when it was new. Today that passport may have only collectible use; the lens performance depend on its history: repairs, abuse etc.
Actually, almost everything in Soviet Union was sold with such kind of paper.
QA was not poor in Soviet Union. I 🙂

I think that quality control in the case of Soviet photo equipment is often confused with precision of manufacture. I think that the Soviets were unable to make products to a precise specification because of their rather crude production methods. Cameras and lenses had to be adjusted manually by the addition of shims etc. after manufacture to achieve the specified results. That is why users were recommended to have new lenses installed at repair centres. Ever since the Japanese introduced precision manufacturing we take it for granted that any lens will fit any camera and blame 'poor quality control' for the variability of Soviet equipment.

 

[varjag]

Cameras and lenses had to be adjusted manually by the addition of shims etc. after manufacture to achieve the specified results.

That's how they still do it at Solms.

EDIT: I see now that you probably mean not at production time, but rather in service. Don't think it has to do with production methods though. They were clearly good enough to go orbital before von Braun 🙂 Just that with consumer goods, quantity was prioritized over quality, as ed1k post suggests.