Jupiter lenses

[gelmir]

Hello everyone,

I'm freshly new to rangefinder cameras and I don't event have a lens for my Bessa R2 yet (I've ordered one, still waiting for the delivery though...).

By reading the forum, I learned about Jupiter lenses' existence. Some of you seem to appreciate these lenses. So apparently these lenses were manufactured in different plants in the USSR (KMZ, MMZ, Arsenal/Kiev, ...)

My main concern was if these lenses were still produced ? If not, when did the production stop ?
Does one lens' quality may vary whether it has been produced by KMZ or by another secondary plant ? Does the plants and companies still exist ?

And will they fit in my Bessa R2 ? I heard some of them might hurt the shutter.

Anyway, I find the history of thoses lenses is quite interesting as it is tightly related to USSR history ^^

 

[FrankS]

Hello Gelmir and welcome! I can answer some of your questions. I have a 2 Jupiter lenses for my LTM cameras. The J8 is a 50mm f2 lens and the J12 is a 35mm f2.8 lens. The J12 is the lens that will not fit on a Bessa R or R2 because its deep protruding rear element contacts either the front shutter blades or a light baffel in the camera. It would also block the light meter cell. There are other Jupiter lenses with different numbers. There is a J3 which is 50mm f1.5 lens. Some of the jupiter lenses have numbers that identify them as being in Contax mount instead of LTM. Now I'll let others more knowledgeable than I take over.

 

[RML]

The J8 is a 50/2, and a great performer. It comes in (afaik) 4 different version: 2 "silver" and 2 black. General thought has it that the earlier models (before 1970) are better built than later models (after 1970). Right now I'm not so sure about that generalisation. IMO any well-treated J8 will give good results.

The J3 is a 50/1.5. I got one only very recently and haven't had time to scan the negs I shot with it. I'll have to get back to you on that.

The J12 is a 35/2.8. Its rear end is enormous. J-Lo wish she had a behind like that. 🙂 You take a big risk if you screw it on a Bessa but it'll find nicely on FEs and Zorki's, and on Leica M's. You will need a hood as it tends to flare badly without one. Using a hood on every lens is a good idea any time.

The J9 is an 85/2. It's big and heavy, and my specimen flares badly. A hood solved that problem. The results are very nice: very nice colour rendition and smooth OOF, similar to the creamy smooth OOF of the J8.

The J11 is a 135/4. This is another new lens for me, and again I haven't had time yet to scan the negs. It's very light and slim; much more gentle than the big J9. Using this lens on a Bessa might be a problem because of the Bessa's short base length. I use it on my M2, which has a much longer base length.

Right now I'd recommend the J8, in any version as long as the specimen is clean and clear. It's great for portraits. It gives very smooth bokeh, has nice colour rendition and gives a slightly soft image.
I'd also recommend the J9, for the same reasons as I gave for the J8.

All these lenses come in LTM mount, so you'll need an adapter to mount them on the R2 or a Leica. These adapters can be bought on eBay for about $30 each. Merklecamera is one buyer I can recommend.

 

[Azinko]

Hi 'RML',....

"......... You will need a hood as it tends to flare badly...."

I'm just about to try a J12 in contax/Kiev fit for the first time. this lens has a reasonably good built in hood already,....are you saying it needs an even deeper hood to escape any flare?

 

[Roman]

I never experienced any flare with my J-12 (got two in LTM and two in Kiev-mount, all of them black versions); and I never used them with a hood - the front element is recessed really far back in the mount anyway...
Here's a picture I took with my J-12, without hood - you can see in the top right corner that the sun was just a few millimeters outside the frame - yet, no flare...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/3626/sort/1/cat/500/page/3

The J-9 really attracts flare, on the other hand, and the J-8 should also be used with a hood.

Roman

 

[Bruce A]

What everyone else said about the j 8 is correct. The J 9 can be a great lens, but be very careful buying one.The focus helical on these are notorious for being out of whack from poor repairs. Lots of them won't focus properly. Buy one from someone who will take it back if it is bad.
Other russian/ukranian 50' are worth considering also. The rigid i-22 has to be the ugliest lens ever made, but is very good if slow. The i26 that came on my fed 2 is a great lens. I think that any of the 50's can be very good if you get a good sample.

 

[newspaperguy]

Have J-12s in LTM and Kiev/Contax mounts.
No shade/hoods, no problems.
Most 50s (& 53s) benefit from hoods. I have
five and all are fine after 5.6.

Rick

 

[Pherdinand]

Getting focus helicals "back into whack" 😀 should not represent a serious problem, as long as you have a camera body so you can test it.
Point is, the two components of the helical fit into each other in a multitude of ways, since it's not one simple screw thread but something like 5-7 threads intermixed. If a "repair" begins with NOT taking notes of where the outer component of the helical screwed off the inner part, one really has to try hard to get it back correctly - try and test, not just try once and be happy. The difference/mistake in reassembly will not be easy to see until you take your first pictures wide-open and see that they all are out of focus.

There's another trick what i've just learned on RML's jupiter-8: do not remove the outer focus ring (the one w the distance scale on it) from the inner helical. It is possible to get access to the helical without doing it, on the J-8, (-but not on the Industar-61 although they are very similar constructed). This way, if you screw them back starting from a wrong position, the distance scale will show over-infinity focusing possibilities which is obvious indication of the mistake - or, it won't fit back at all, if you make the mistake in the opposite direction.

 

[Pherdinand]

A 35mm is intrinsically less prone to flare than a 50mm or a tele, just because it's a wide angle lens. Flare comes from rays entering the lens that are NOT image forming, and in the case of a wide angle lens, there are much less of these rays that eventually reach the film plane and not get absorbed before.
If you check the light paths drawn inside lenses in textbooks or product sheets, you will see how most rays entering a WA lens are curved to form the image. With tele lenses however, there are lots of slightly off-axis unwanted rays that can enter the lens and disturb the image, after lots of bouncing around.

 

[pshinkaw]

Gelmir:

Most of those companies still exist in some form. In fact KMZ has a very interesting website with some historical photos and old instruction manuals. However, they have changed as circumstances change and some no longer make cameras or lenses. Fed for example now makes components for jet engines.

Since you will using a Bessa R2, you will want only LTM (39mm screw mount for the Leica) lenses and not the Contax/Kiev/lenses. The Kiev plant (Arsenal) made lenses for the Kiev. They mostly use the same name as the LTM lenses, e.g. Jupiter-8, Jupiter-11, Jupiter-12, etc. However, there are also a Jupiter-8M and a Helios-103 which were only made in Kiev mount. Stay away from those unless you want to get hooked on Kiev cameras.

-Paul

 

[peter_n]

Also you need to be careful about lens descriptions on eBay (if that's where you will be buying). I was buying a Jupiter-11 last year and there are two types as described above; one is FED/Zorki/Leica/Bessa, the other is Contax/Kiev.

Some sellers incorrectly listed a lens as FED/Leica when it really was a Contax/Kiev mount, so you have to know what the lens looks like to make sure that it will mount on your camera.

 

[wlewisiii]

I got my Jupiter-11 for pennies as it was described as a "Russian 135 with a sunken mount". By looking at the pictures I could tell it was a Kiev lens such as I needed. Just be sure you can recognise a LTM and you should be fine.

William

 

[doubs43]

Also you need to be careful about lens descriptions on eBay (if that's where you will be buying). I was buying a Jupiter-11 last year and there are two types as described above; one is FED/Zorki/Leica/Bessa, the other is Contax/Kiev.

Be aware that the Jupiter-9 & Jupiter-11 are also made in a 39mm thread mount for SLR's. They do not have a rangefinder coupling and will not work properly on your LTM body. They were intended for the Zenit SLR and other SLR's with a 39mm thread mount.

The Helios-40 is another lens of this type. All will fit the 42mm thread mount cameras such as the Pentax and later Zenits when used with an adapter.

Walker

 

[pshinkaw]

This site has a good summary of Russian camera/lens history.In addition it has photos of the various lenses so that you can become familar with what they look like. Descriptions on e-Bay are sometimes wrong, and knowing what your intended purchase looks like can be a big help.

http://www.rus-camera.com/index.php

-Paul

 

[Stanton]

I have the Jupiter 8 in both Contax and LTM mount, the Jupiter 3 (f1.5, 50mm) in LTM, the 12, the 9 and the 135mm, all in LTM. I have had no problems with them and like them very much. For what it is worth, I buy versions which are well used but with good glass. Given the uneven quality control of this Soviet, my thinking is that 20 plus year old lenses which are not used were probably bad from the beginning. Those that appear used, but not abused, were probably good since the owner obviously liked to use them. Besides, inexpensive as they are, these are even cheaper.

 

[peter_n]

This site has a good summary of Russian camera/lens history.In addition it has photos of the various lenses so that you can become familar with what they look like. Descriptions on e-Bay are sometimes wrong, and knowing what your intended purchase looks like can be a big help.

http://www.rus-camera.com/index.php

-Paul

Thanks for this link, Paul. The Jupiter-11 on this site has a serial number less than 100 from my "new" one, and I have a similar passport with mine too! Got to fish that stuff out and put it in the Camera & Coffee thread tomorrow!

 

[gelmir]

Thanks for all your replies, everything is quite more clear to me ! Now I'm ready to hunt one of those lenses ^^

 

[gelmir]

The J3 is a 50/1.5. I got one only very recently and haven't had time to scan the negs I shot with it. I'll have to get back to you on that.

So, RML, how's the J3 doing ? Following that test http://www.pbase.com/dingolee/nokton_vs_jupiter3_testi it shouldn't be bad at all !

As for me, I finally got myself a black J8. Serial number is beginning by 74, so according to what I've read here and there, the lens should have been made in 1974. Can't wait to try it, it looks so nice ! I only have to find an adapter, believe it or not, but I could'nt find one in Paris.

 

[kiev4a]

The black J8 is different than the white in that the entire front portion of the lens rotates when focusing. My black J8 may be a little more contrasty than the white ones.

Production stopped, at least on the LTM Jupiters, by the end of the '80s, I think. The primary reason, is because people quite buying cameras with the old Leica shutter.

There may be some difference in quality from the various plants but the biggest quality factor seems to be whether lenses or cameras were produced early or late in a given month. Early in the month workers usualy worked at a slower pace. Later in the month, when they were trying to hit the government-set quota, things got frantic and the main goal was to get the product out the door. Trouble is, there's no way of telling exactly when a lens or camera was produced (other than the year). Same quality problems apply to just about anything produced in the FSU. Some Soviet collectors claim that if a 40-year-old camera or lens offered for sale is truly "mint" It probably means it has been in the back of someone's closet because it didn't work properly when they first took it out of the box.

 

[peter_n]

There may be some difference in quality from the various plants but the biggest quality factor seems to be whether lenses or cameras were produced early or late in a given month. Early in the month workers usualy worked at a slower pace. Later in the month, when they were trying to hit the government-set quota, things got frantic and the main goal was to get the product out the door. Trouble is, there's no way of telling exactly when a lens or camera was produced (other than the year).

My Jupiter-11 came with its original passport (certificate) with the serial number and the date of manufacture handwritten on it and an official stamp (of course 😉 ). Russian dates are in day/month/year format and my J-11 was made on the 10th day of the month. 🙂