Fotohuis
Well-known
In the new setup, both lenses on the M7:
Summarit F/2,5
Jupiter-9 F/2,0
Summarit F/2,5
Jupiter-9 F/2,0
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
The Jupter-9 is definitely softer than the Summarit at F2.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
I have the Jupiter-9 in Contax mount. I use the Amadeo M-adapter with my M 240. Although the J-9 is good performer, sometimes it seems to have a lot of flare. I find that I always need to use a hood with this lens, otherwise the flare is a problem. I took this shot this morning, Jupiter-9 with Leica M 240. I think it was at F2. I love the out-of-focus areas, they are very smooth and liquid.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Isn't the J-9 notorious for focus difficulty when adapted to Leica? I've been put off from getting one because of that, but never checked it out for myself. Even shimming is supposed to be futile. Of course, I could always use it on a "good" FSU body exclusively.
DNG
Film Friendly
I had the middle of the 3 built in shims taken out when my lab guy did full CLA...with my Contax RF > Fuji X adapter and attached to my X-E2 as adjusted the INF for the lens.
I'd guess something similar should be done, because RF focusing can be wrong with a lens not adjusted properly..... With an live EVF.. no issues, you focus till it's sharp.
That last J9 image is rather soft at f/2.(post 21)..I think too soft.... may need to have the focus checked for a manual RF focus to see if it needs shimmed +/- a little...
Can you post a J9 f/2 image with a Leica Digital that has live view focusing? I'd bet it does better for f/2 if you focus TTL view an EVF.
micromontenegro
Well-known
I love the way my J9 renders in the M8 via Amedeo adapter. Soft, but not too soft:
L1002333 by Aguaitacaminos, on Flickr
L1002333 by Aguaitacaminos, on Flickr
Fotohuis
Well-known
Well in fact you should compare them both at F/2,8. The Summarit has the widest aperture at F/2,5 not F/2,0.
Not sure about the exact focus with LTM-M adapter on the M7. I have two excellent Z-6 bodies or put it on a digital Olympus EP.
Not sure about the exact focus with LTM-M adapter on the M7. I have two excellent Z-6 bodies or put it on a digital Olympus EP.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Leica M 240, Jupiter-9 85mm F2 in Contax mount (with Amadeo adapter). I find this lens can flare easily so I always use it with a hood. When the conditions are right the J-9 renders beautifully.
DNG
Film Friendly
For me, I find the J nine does much better on a digital camera where you can focus via Live View and possibly focus peaking or magnification if your camera supports it. I don't think it does its best rendering as far as sharpness goes on a rangefinder camera especially at the wider f stops
Send from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk
Send from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk
Fotohuis
Well-known
The picture with Grauskala #13 and the Siemens Star has been made with the Zorki-6 and J-9 and on APX-100 (new) film. Focus is pretty OK overthere. Putting on a Leica M7 (and 0,58 RF base) is already on the edge what is possible and tricky because the Leica standard is just a little bit different then Zeiss/Zorki/FED/Kiev/Contax. But I can put the lens also on my Olympus Digital EP with life view and 10x magnification possibility.
However I will use in practice this lens on my Zorki's-6 bodies and the FED-3. For my Leica M7 (0,58) I have already a Summarit 75mm, Summicron 50mm, Elmarit 28mm, Elmarit 21mm and a C.V. SWH 15mm-M with a C.V. zoom V.F. 15mm-35mm.
However I will use in practice this lens on my Zorki's-6 bodies and the FED-3. For my Leica M7 (0,58) I have already a Summarit 75mm, Summicron 50mm, Elmarit 28mm, Elmarit 21mm and a C.V. SWH 15mm-M with a C.V. zoom V.F. 15mm-35mm.
tho60
Well-known
I have J-9 in M39 and Contax mounts. I like this lens.
Huss
Veteran
Leica M 240, Jupiter-9 85mm F2 in Contax mount (with Amadeo adapter). I find this lens can flare easily so I always use it with a hood. When the conditions are right the J-9 renders beautifully.
Beautiful.
valdas
Veteran
I am going through this old thread trying to decide if I should by J9 for my Kiev. I have just found one locally in mint condition (from 1962), but the price is a bit steep (150€)...
Leicabimmer
Newbie
Hello everyone. I recently acquired a beautiful 85mm f2 Jupiter 9 that someone disassembled to modify the mount for dslr/mirrorless use. The mount is Contax/Kiev. I have all of the missing pieces but haven’t been able reconstruct how it comes together. Is there a diagram out there on the web or does someone on the forum have experience with this mount? The large washer,brass rangefinder coupling as well as the retaining spring is in hand and appear undamaged. Any insights would be greatly appreciated.Thanks
jc031699
Established
Adding a bit to this old discussion. I got a nearly mint silver Jupiter-9 in Kiev/Contax mount from KEH. The focus mount was very stiff, and required a total overhaul including replacing the felt strips with film cartridge felt. It is still a bit wobbly but I am guessing this is addressed by the "depth of focus" at the film plane of an 85mm lens. I am using a Contax to LTM adapter which is from Japan (but not one of the high quality adapters from the distant past), likely a machined Kiev mount. This did require changing the main shim between the optical assembly and the focus unit. It now seems to be good from nearest focus to infinity at f2.Leica M 240, Jupiter-9 85mm F2 in Contax mount (with Amadeo adapter). I find this lens can flare easily so I always use it with a hood. When the conditions are right the J-9 renders beautifully.
I am specifically commenting on the intense "flare" which I have obtained even with no light source anywhere near the image area. Examining the lens + adapter system, I see that even though I have blacked out the internal reflective surfaces of both with India ink, it still seems to reflect light from the primary image circle off the sides of the lens + mount toward the film plane. This has led me to place adhesive flocking material on the inner surfaces of the long tele hood, the focus mount, and the adapter. On initial examination, this seems to help.
I am wondering whether this "flare" which seems to be internal reflections from the image circle, is a result of this lens having a larger image circle as I seem to remember reading that longer focal length lenses have. These are at f5.6 - f8 ish, but I have seen similar internal reflections using f2 with the lens alone and viewing from the rear of the lens. The camera was a M2, which had no light leaks evident when using my old prewar Sonnar 50 1.5 with beautiful oxidation on the glass elements during the exact same trip.
On the attached examples, the flare seems to be a reflection of the image circle of the sky in an area that is beyond the film borders.
I'd love some input.
Attachments
Last edited:
jc031699
Established
I bought an inexpensive Chinese Adapter which caused flare with some lenses, the CZJ 8.5cm F4 Triotar in Contax mount being the worst.
The inner portion of the adapter was not pained, was shiny. I blackened it, and flare was gone.
rangefinderforum.com
The inner portion of the adapter was not pained, was shiny. I blackened it, and flare was gone.
Inexpensive Chinese Contax Mount to LTM- Maybe a little work required.
The Kiev external mount lenses should work with no problem. The rotation of the focus is the same as the Zeiss Contax. I used the adapter with an early black/nickel 13.5cm F4 and the Triotar 8.5cm F4. The Internal mount lenses- will be slightly off, just like the internal mount Zeiss Sonnars...
rangefinderforum.com
jc031699
Established
For some reason that was not sufficient here. Weird and surprising!I bought an inexpensive Chinese Adapter which caused flare with some lenses, the CZJ 8.5cm F4 Triotar in Contax mount being the worst.
The inner portion of the adapter was not pained, was shiny. I blackened it, and flare was gone.
Inexpensive Chinese Contax Mount to LTM- Maybe a little work required.
The Kiev external mount lenses should work with no problem. The rotation of the focus is the same as the Zeiss Contax. I used the adapter with an early black/nickel 13.5cm F4 and the Triotar 8.5cm F4. The Internal mount lenses- will be slightly off, just like the internal mount Zeiss Sonnars...
Brambling
Well-known
A few of my points to the respected community -
Jupiter 9 often has flare with loss of contrast, this is mainly due to poor blackening of the inside of the housing at the back of the lens (or the paint has simply peeled off over time)
By changing (increasing or decreasing) the distance between the last lens and the penultimate one, you can increase the sharpness in the near field (up to 3-5 meters) of focusing.
Jupiter 9 often has flare with loss of contrast, this is mainly due to poor blackening of the inside of the housing at the back of the lens (or the paint has simply peeled off over time)
By changing (increasing or decreasing) the distance between the last lens and the penultimate one, you can increase the sharpness in the near field (up to 3-5 meters) of focusing.
TenEleven
Well-known
Just wanted to add that the original (pre-war and war-time) Sonnar 85/2 has similar flare. I found that one of the differences between the versions that flared a lot and those that flared a little was the presence (less flare) or absence (more flare) of a rifling like texture in the rear barrel that engages with the Contax bayonet.
It seems to me that the image circle of both the Jupiter-9 and the Sonnar 85 is much larger than required - causing a lot of extra light to bounce around inside the camera and optical system. For example both lenses can be used on the Fuji GFX (close to 645) with no vignette
To further reduce the flare you could consider gluing in some soft light-absorbent material such as blackened linen or similar. I've done this and had decent results.
It seems to me that the image circle of both the Jupiter-9 and the Sonnar 85 is much larger than required - causing a lot of extra light to bounce around inside the camera and optical system. For example both lenses can be used on the Fuji GFX (close to 645) with no vignette
To further reduce the flare you could consider gluing in some soft light-absorbent material such as blackened linen or similar. I've done this and had decent results.