Jupiter 9 focusing on Leica M4 vs Digital (XE-1)

[Wupjak]

Hi everyone, first post here after lurking and learning for quite awhile.

I know that the FSU spec is different than the Leica spec. This isn't one of those posts, I don't think. Maybe it is and I'm not seeing the signs.

Here's what's happening for me:

I own a Leica M4 that is known to be in calibration.
I own a 35mm Summicron that is known to be in calibration.
I own an XE-1
I own a Jupiter 9 (Russian) Leica thread mount, 85mm f2 lens that is new to me and unknown.
I own a Rayqual LTM to M adapter and an M mount to Fuji adapter

With the understanding that FSU lenses have a reputation for being either junk, cantankerous, fiddly, promising or brilliant, I'd say mine is between fiddly and promising at the moment.

On mirrorless, there's no question that the lens is excellent.


j9 by Denis Lincoln, on Flickr

Now to the issue:

I'm trying to test the focus distance using the markings on the lens barrel as compared with actual, measured distance to see whether the lens will focus correctly on the Leica. To do that I:

Set up the XE-1 on tripod with the sensor plane 1.5 meters from target.
Mount Leica lens on XE-1
Set barrel markings to 1.5 meters and shoot.
Image is in focus.

Mount Jupiter lens on XE-1
Set barrel markings to 1.5 meters and shoot.
Image is in focus.

At the infinity stop on the lens, images show the lens is in focus at f2.

So far so good.

Now here is where it gets odd.

Set up Leica on tripod with film plane 1.5 meters from target
Mount Leica lens on Leica
Set barrel markings to 1.5 meters and check rangefinder patch
Patch is aligned.

Mount Jupiter lens on Leica
Set barrel markings to 1.5 meters and check rangefinder patch
Patch is not aligned.

Move lens barrel to ~1.6-1.65 meters, patch is aligned.

At infinity (~200 meters), the rangefinder patch looks to be aligned at f2.

To me the lens isn't out of spec, but the rangefinder cam-to-lens bit of the equation is off somewhere. Does that sound right?

So from here, I'm not sure how to proceed. Sure, I can use it on the Fuji with no problem. If I knew the distance to each subject, I could shoot the thing on the Leica without issue. Getting the rangefinder to agree with the actual distance is going to be the trick.

The lens needs to press the cam further back away from the front of the camera to get the rangefinder patch to agree with where the lens is focused. Can I accomplish that without disassembling the lens or is this a job for a competent technician?

I guess my reason for writing this is to get some ideas about what might be going on here. I'm looking forward to getting this lens sorted out on film so that it's more than a mirrorless lens.

Thanks in advance for reading.

Denis

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

FWIW, I think the main problem with that Jupiter is that idiots take them to pieces and then screw up the re-assembly; it's not straight forward. Then they sell them and a few more owners down the line the lens & its makers gets a poor reputation. It's best not to believe what you read on the internet, especially about how easy it is to repair cameras and lenses without the experience, manual and proper tools.

Anyway, most competent technicians can clean them and reassemble them correctly and, if necessary, set them up for the Leica's registration. It doesn't cost much; it probably cost as much as doing the same to a Leica lens that has suffered in the same way, and there's a lot of those too.

Regards, David

 

[Wupjak]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, David. I appreciate your thoughts.

This one I bought from an ebay seller in Russia. It appears to be original as it is a 1959 aluminum version and the lube is stiff as all get out. Who knows, though. 🙂

You're right. Reading on the internet is a good exercise in critical thinking.

Brian Sweeney has a handle on these and on Jupiter 3s and so I tend to follow along with his thoughts, hence the 1.5m focus distance for starters as that seems to be the closest that they can be expected to focus and still have the rangefinder agree with the lens throughout the rest of the focusing range. I've read through Kim Coxon's thoughts, service notes and collimation information on these lenses, as well.

I've got a couple of emails out to techs to see if I can have one of them have a look.

Hi,

FWIW, I think the main problem with that Jupiter is that idiots take them to pieces and then screw up the re-assembly; it's not straight forward. Then they sell them and a few more owners down the line the lens & its makers gets a poor reputation. It's best not to believe what you read on the internet, especially about how easy it is to repair cameras and lenses without the experience, manual and proper tools.

Anyway, most competent technicians can clean them and reassemble them correctly and, if necessary, set them up for the Leica's registration. It doesn't cost much; it probably cost as much as doing the same to a Leica lens that has suffered in the same way, and there's a lot of those too.

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

Ooops, I never said "Welcome aboard". Sorry about that.

If it will cheer you up I have the same problem nowadays with my Jupiter 9, meaning the lubrication has finally died in action but it worked fine on the M2. I like it as a portrait lens as it's not too sharp for the youg(-ish) ladies in my circle.

One of these years I'll get it sorted out but the CL is in for repairs at present and the model II needs to follow it and then there's the ...well, never mind but it's an expensive line up in all senses of the word.

In your shoes I'd buy a 24exp. supermarket film and use the lens, then get it developed and scanned cheaply. That's all that's needed for a focus test and would cost a tenth or less of the price of a Leica estimate here...

Regards, David

 

[DNG]

1st welcome

I own a J9 is a KIEV mount and sent to recommended by RF member repair guy. They said they could give it a CLA. I got the lens back, and it was worse.
I sent it to MY repair guy (Bob at www.camerarepairs.com in Avon IN) and Bob redid the CLA and told me that the rear block was never worked on,
and that the front block was alined wrong. Bob, did fix it, and adjusted the focusing to my X-E2 by taking out 2 of 3 spacers. It is works perfect now.

But, for use on two different mount cameras, you may to decide to have it adjusted for the Leica. With the Fuji (or any Mirrorless) you can focus through the lens, so the focus adjustment is less critical.

 

[xayraa33]

Hi,

FWIW, I think the main problem with that Jupiter is that idiots take them to pieces and then screw up the re-assembly; it's not straight forward. Then they sell them and a few more owners down the line the lens & its makers gets a poor reputation. It's best not to believe what you read on the internet, especially about how easy it is to repair cameras and lenses without the experience, manual and proper tools.

Anyway, most competent technicians can clean them and reassemble them correctly and, if necessary, set them up for the Leica's registration. It doesn't cost much; it probably cost as much as doing the same to a Leica lens that has suffered in the same way, and there's a lot of those too.

Regards, David

I had a very late made black LTM J-9 lens that was pretty much new, that would not focus properly on a Zorki 4, Fed 5 and Canon 7 and needed shimming.

So some these lenses did come from the factory improperly set-up.

 

[Mike Fish]

I'm no expert

I'm no expert

I'm no expert - not by a long shot.

But should the distance scale even be considered - at least initially? It seems more critical that the RF patch and the focus at the film plane "match." Rather than setting a distance on the lens barrel and checking the patch - focus according to the patch and check focus.

Looking at the distance markings adds an extra variable (the markings) with no real benefit.

Also, because the XE-1 is not a RF camera I'm not sure it adds anything to the process either.

Use a RF camera body known to focus well - the performance of the Summicron can establish this. Make a few exposures focused (according to the patch) at an object at infinity, and then a few more of an object focused (according to the patch) at say 3 meters. Check the results for focus errors and go from there.

That would be my approach.

But again, I'm definitely no expert.

 

[Wupjak]

Hi there!

I did some test shots on the tripod as well, so when those come back we'll see what shakes out.

I agree - now that I'm not in the throes of trying to sort all of it out in my head on the fly - that the barrel markings probably confuse rather than help with what's going on.

Good points from a valid perspective. Thank you.

I'm no expert - not by a long shot.

But should the distance scale even be considered - at least initially? It seems more critical that the RF patch and the focus at the film plane "match." Rather than setting a distance on the lens barrel and checking the patch - focus according to the patch and check focus.

Looking at the distance markings adds an extra variable (the markings) with no real benefit.

Also, because the XE-1 is not a RF camera I'm not sure it adds anything to the process either.

Use a RF camera body known to focus well - the performance of the Summicron can establish this. Make a few exposures focused (according to the patch) at an object at infinity, and then a few more of an object focused (according to the patch) at say 3 meters. Check the results for focus errors and go from there.

That would be my approach.

But again, I'm definitely no expert.

 

[Wupjak]

Definitely interested in having it adjusted to fit the Leica since, as you say, we focus using the image through the lens using mirrorless. My reason for including the digital camera's results in the initial post was to illustrate that the Summicron is correct on both the film camera and when mounted to the XE-1 as I thought that that would be useful information.

Thank you for the post!

1st welcome

I own a J9 is a KIEV mount and sent to recommended by RF member repair guy. They said they could give it a CLA. I got the lens back, and it was worse.
I sent it to MY repair guy (Bob at www.camerarepairs.com in Avon IN) and Bob redid the CLA and told me that the rear block was never worked on,
and that the front block was alined wrong. Bob, did fix it, and adjusted the focusing to my X-E2 by taking out 2 of 3 spacers. It is works perfect now.

But, for use on two different mount cameras, you may to decide to have it adjusted for the Leica. With the Fuji (or any Mirrorless) you can focus through the lens, so the focus adjustment is less critical.

 

[David Hughes]

I had a very late made black LTM J-9 lens that was pretty much new, that would not focus properly on a Zorki 4, Fed 5 and Canon 7 and needed shimming.

So some these lenses did come from the factory improperly set-up.

Hi,

Thanks but I expect some did. What I'd dearly like to have are some accurate percentages. Soviet stuff was turned out by the thousand, or tens of thousands or more. So I figure the percentage will tell us the truth.

For example, I had a Leica and the sensor failed rather dramatically and I got a new one fitted for little less than a few months' wait but that fact alone tells us little. Hence my above comment.

Regards, David

 

[goamules]

I'm assuming you are checking the M-4 focus by opening up the back door on the camera, and using some scotch tape or other focusing screen? That's what I'd do anyway, I'd focus based on the rangefinder, open the back, hold up a cardboard with a cutout with some scotch tape, exactly where the film plane would be, and see if it's sharp. If it is, it's working. No need to use film. Try it at a few ranges, wide open.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I just checked our FED-2 documentation. Camera doesn't have it, but lens has specific number 28.78 instead of standard 28.8mm.
And if you ever CLA'd FSU LTM camera, you'll know what shims they used for camera ain't something very accurate and lasting overtime.
So, as I wrote many times, it is not uncommon situation to shim the LTM lens for specific camera. The longer lens is, the more obvious focusing error is going to be.

Plus, as David mentioned, in any FSU mass production the БРАК is common. Lenses aren't exception from this fact. And one of the reasons why lens was never in use is because it came from factory wrong, was tested, set aside and forgotten. And now after several decades it ends up on hands of re-seller who doesn't bother to test the lens before putting it on sale.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...hold up a cardboard with a cutout with some scotch tape, exactly where the film plane would be, and see if it's sharp....

And after it the story how lens is only sharp after f8 comes. 😎

Ever heard of ground glass and masking tape?

 

[goamules]

Since I shoot large format and wetplate, and have about 9 different cameras from 4x5 to 18x20, yes. But I didn't think small format guys would know ground glass from.....scotch tape (which works and is in every household).

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

You can get focus checkers for a few lenses, this is - obviously - for the Leica screw thread. They turn up on ebay from time to time.

Regards, David

 

[mcfingon]

Hello Wupjak, I thought I saw Brian Sweeney say that the J9 could not be shimmed to work properly at all distances on a Leica. I can't remember why, but it was enough for me to decide not to buy one.

 

[Wupjak]

Hello Wupjak, I thought I saw Brian Sweeney say that the J9 could not be shimmed to work properly at all distances on a Leica. I can't remember why, but it was enough for me to decide not to buy one.

I recall reading the same thing. From what I recall it has to do with the non-linear way that the lens focuses. If I remember right, he was able to get Jupiter 9s to focus correctly from 1.5 meters to infinity. That would be good enough for me. 🙂

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

More to the point, who needs to focus at infinity? Most of the things I photograph are fairly nearby and the DoF usually takes care of infinity.

Equally I use 85/90mm as portrait lenses and about 9 to 10 ft away is about the nearest I get.

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

.... Plus, as David mentioned, in any FSU mass production the БРАК is common. Lenses aren't exception from this fact. And one of the reasons why lens was never in use is because it came from factory wrong, was tested, set aside and forgotten. And now after several decades it ends up on hands of re-seller who doesn't bother to test the lens before putting it on sale.

Hi,

That's why I'd like the percentages. I don't know if the rejects are common or what. And if they made, f'instance, 20,000 J-9's then 1% faulty would be 200 lenses and I've not seen that many comments about them. Also they are getting old and anything could have happened to them, without the factory being involved.

Regards, David

 

[ForestCap]

https://www.flickr.com/search/?group_id=791245@N22&view_all=1&text=leica

Had a quick search on flickr, seems there are many people who get nice results with J-9 on Leica/Canon (a.k.a. "the real LTM bodies") and even Leica M.