Jupiter 9 or....?

[dazedgonebye]

Looking around for something short-tele for a Zorki 1. My first thought is a Jupiter 9, for economy sake. My problem is that I owned a Jupiter 9 in m42 mount for a short period of time and was not impressed. Besides being very stiff (which I guess could be addressed) it simply wasn’t sharp till f4.
I have a few test shots here: http://www.pbase.com/dazedgonebye/jupiter_9

Did I just get a lemon, or is that the expected performance?
What other options do I have…faster than f4 and sharper than that Jupiter 9 I had?

Thanks for your input.

 

[Pherdinand]

are you sure it's correctly focusing?
If everything is at the same distance, you can't tell if something closer or further would be in focvus, instead of the wall you focused on.

 

[santino]

your J9 must be a lemon.
here's mine open:

camera was the so ugly Fed 5B

 

[dazedgonebye]

are you sure it's correctly focusing?
If everything is at the same distance, you can't tell if something closer or further would be in focvus, instead of the wall you focused on.

Certainly something 3D would have been better. Unfortunately, I no longer have that lens to re-test.
I've owned and focused dozens of manual lenses on my DSLR though, I'm pretty certain it was focused correctly.

I compared the J9 directly to a Vivitar 85mm f1.8 I had at the time and the Vivitar just blew it away...so off the J9 went.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I'm afraid at this size Santino, I can't tell much about that image.
I'll take your word though that I should expect something sharper than what I experienced.

 

[santino]

well, I wouldn't compare it to modern lenses wide open but it has a nice vintage look and isn't bad at all. My J9 was pretty stiff but I managed to relube it myself and it works like a charm. one of my fav lenses. (btw. you're going to shoot with a FSU cam so you can't expect super sharp stuff wide open, camera working distance is probably not exact on all models so you can't go wrong with a J9).

 

[dazedgonebye]

Sharp one stop down would make me happy.

 

[netzspannung]

Nah, that was the m42 version you had? It sucks compared to m39, plain and simple.. My m39 J-9 is great even wide open, sharpness is good, contrast not soo good unless stopped down, too bad I rarely need teles...

 

[Nickfed]

Nah, that was the m42 version you had? It sucks compared to m39, plain and simple.. My m39 J-9 is great even wide open, sharpness is good, contrast not soo good unless stopped down, too bad I rarely need teles...

Surely that merely reflects an isolated experience of quality control. What is there in the lens mount that makes the M42s bad and the M39s good? One thing is for sure: putting a J-9 in an M42 mount solves that various rangefinder problems we keep hearing about, quite elegantly.

 

[Bryce]

I've got a J-9 in M42 and have used it on both film and digital gear. Mine is quite stiff to focus, HEAVY, and the iris control is most irritating. So it doesn't see much use. The images seem soft and very low contrast wide open, and I'd agree that it doesn't sharpen up 'til F/4 or so. What do you want for 36 dollars? It is intended as a portrait lens, you know, so you don't need to stretch old pantyhose over the front element to soften facial features.
I can't comment on the M39 version.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I've got a J-9 in M42 and have used it on both film and digital gear. Mine is quite stiff to focus, HEAVY, and the iris control is most irritating. So it doesn't see much use. The images seem soft and very low contrast wide open, and I'd agree that it doesn't sharpen up 'til F/4 or so. What do you want for 36 dollars? It is intended as a portrait lens, you know, so you don't need to stretch old pantyhose over the front element to soften facial features.
I can't comment on the M39 version.

Well, I haven't seen them often for that cheap. What I want, no matter what I pay, is something better than you are describing....which is why I've asked here what I can expect. 😀

I'm leaning toward thinking I'll have to pay for something better.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

My problem is that I owned a Jupiter 9 in m42 mount for a short period of time and was not impressed.

That would have been your problem right there, if you mounted an M42 mount lens on an LTM mount camera. Different flange or whatever you call it, distance.

Get an LTM Jupiter 9.

Otherwise, the Canon 85/2 is really nice; heavy, but nice. If you can find the Sonnar 85 f/2 in LTM, get it. Unfortunately, they're higher-priced due to collectors. I own one in Contax mount; I love it. Really really love it.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I used the j9 in m42 on my 300D.

That canon looks pretty hefty too. Maybe the CV 75mm...as long as I'm not being cheap anymore.

 

[reagan]

Though I use it rarely, I really like my Elmar 9cm, f.4, uncoated. They're not hard to find and not pricey at all. Some folks don't care for them, but it might be one to check into for an alternative. Just a thought.

(Attached sample is an old test shot, isn't shot wide open, but close probably.)

 

[Richard Black]

I must be lucky. The 42mm mount J-9 I have, a black one, is sharp and the oof area is fantastic. The best photo I have of my grandson was taken with the 42mm J9.

 

[ed1k]

Difficult question. J9 is a very nice lens, if you're lucky to get good one. I bought J9 in Kiev mount, and tested 3 lenses the seller provided. Here are results:
1) good lens and sharp wide open. low contrast wide open which is good for portrait lens;
2) good lens and sharp wide open. unusually for J9 high contrast wide open; since I'm not often do portraits I bought this one;
3) a lemon. unsharp till f/4.
So, for LTM your chances should be lower and it also greatly depends on seller. I paid $65 for lens and ability to test, plus expenses for testing, of course.
Here is scan and 100% fragment (film scanned @3200 K-M Dual IV), RFF meet up in Toronto, J9 # f/2 + Kiev4 (focus slightly off) It may be not sharpest lens, but I like bokeh.

Eduard.

 

[dazedgonebye]

If you are considering the CV 75, it is a great lens. You will need an external finder
anyways, and the CV 1:1 finder is phantastic. Plus you can get it
used for below US 250 or so. Gor for that one, you won't look back (unless f2.5 is too slow).

You have to be real lucky to find a good LTM J9. Check with Kim. 2 out of 3 are not fixable.

Roland.

f2.5 would be great. From what I've seen of shots from that lens, it doesn't need a lot of stopping down to be good. I just have to decide to spend that money.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Difficult question. J9 is a very nice lens, if you're lucky to get good one. I bought J9 in Kiev mount, and tested 3 lenses the seller provided. Here are results:
1) good lens and sharp wide open. low contrast wide open which is good for portrait lens;
2) good lens and sharp wide open. unusually for J9 high contrast wide open; since I'm not often do portraits I bought this one;
3) a lemon. unsharp till f/4.
So, for LTM your chances should be lower and it also greatly depends on seller. I paid $65 for lens and ability to test, plus expenses for testing, of course.
Here is scan and 100% fragment (film scanned @3200 K-M Dual IV), RFF meet up in Toronto, J9 # f/2 + Kiev4 (focus slightly off) It may be not sharpest lens, but I like bokeh.

Eduard.

"If you're lucky to get a good one..."
I'm so tired of being cheap with myself and having to weed through the crap to find a lucky gem! Arghhhh!

I think I'll sell a kid...or two.

 

[ed1k]

I'm so tired of being cheap with myself and having to weed through the crap to find a lucky gem! Arghhhh!

You may consider this other way around - not being cheap. I didn't pay cheap (I didn't mention I bought my J9 locally in Ukraine), I could find J9 much cheaper there, or buy a lot of lenses and throw away lemons (I can't sell them anyway), but I preferred to pay more and be able to replace (or in this case pre-test).
Eduard