Kiev with Jupiter-3

[john341]

I have been considering purchasing a J-3 for my Kiev. I have read much about this lens, but the impression is that it is rubbish. Anyone have experience with this lens? I had a Sonnar Opton 1.5 some time ago and I didn't like it .. negs too soft. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks from Oz

 

[Keith]

A J-3 is pretty much the only lens I have for my Kiev II ... it's very good and when I had my Nikon S2 I did a comparison between the J-3 and the 50mm f1.4 Nikkor that was on the S2. To me the J-3 was a better lens, especially wide open!

Apparently quality can be a bit random though ... I was obviously lucky when I bought mine from a member here several years ago.

 

[Keith]

Here's a couple of pics from my J-3:

 

[xayraa33]

You stand a better chance of getting a good J-3 in the Kiev/Contax mount than a J-3 in LTM.

 

[dexdog]

Sounds like you got a bad Opton Sonnar- these are normally viewed as the "best" of the various Sonnars, and should work equally well on a Kiev or a Contax. I have had several very good J-3s in Contax/Kiev mount, all made by KMZ in the 1950s, and worked great on my Contax cameras.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If you Sonnar Opton was a good copy and you didn't like its "softness", you won't like the Jupiter-3 either, as the optical formula is virtually the same. The assembly and quality are a different issue.

The Soviets were not keen on such bourgeois concepts like "sharpness", "quality premium", and least of all, "customer satisfaction". Except, of course, if you were a top official.

I suggest you get the Helios for the Kiev; very cheap, and at f/1.7, only about a third (or fourth, depending on your math) of a stop slower than f/1.5. Hey! With those odd apertures, they could be early you're-not-the-boss-of-me VC lenses! 😀

 

[dexdog]

I suggest you get the Helios for the Kiev; very cheap, and at f/1.7, only about a third (or fourth, depending on your math) of a stop slower than f/1.5.

Helios made in Kiev mount is 1.8. Still, not that much slower than the 1.5, as you point out. The Helios is a decent lens, too.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Helios made in Kiev mount is 1.8. Still, not that much slower than the 1.5, as you point out. The Helios is a decent lens, too.

I evidently misunderemembered, thanks for the correction. The Helios, while uncoated (I've never seen or heard of a coated run), is a very decent lens. I think the only reason it isn't as popular is because it's dirt cheap.

 

[dexdog]

I evidently misunderemembered, thanks for the correction. The Helios, while uncoated (I've never seen or heard of a coated run), is a very decent lens.

Maybe you are thinking of a different lens altogether- the Helios lenses are coated, and all are post WW2 manufacture to the best of my knowledge.

 

[stevebrot]

I evidently misunderemembered, thanks for the correction. The Helios, while uncoated (I've never seen or heard of a coated run), is a very decent lens. I think the only reason it isn't as popular is because it's dirt cheap.

The Helios-103 53/1.8, as with most (all?) post-war FSU camera lenses, is definitely coated (not multi-coated though). The lens is a fairly modern design (early-1980s) and is considered to be one of the better normal lenses in FSU land. It is a little longer and heavier than my J-8M.

Here is a link with a note regarding the design origins of the Helios-103:

http://www.ragarecords.com/photo/helios103images.html

...Summicron? Not too shabby!


Steve

 

[raid]

I have been considering purchasing a J-3 for my Kiev. I have read much about this lens, but the impression is that it is rubbish. Anyone have experience with this lens? I had a Sonnar Opton 1.5 some time ago and I didn't like it .. negs too soft. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks from Oz

John: Most older lenses from FSU require some adjusting/shimming to be tack sharp. The J-3 is a very sharp lens if correctly shimmed for your camera. So would be the Sonnar 1.5 if you had it adjusted for your camera.

Ask Brian if he would consider shimming the lenses for you.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I must have a "rare" Helios, then. Mine is not coated, and others I looked at (three or four) were the same.

 

[wolves3012]

I must have a "rare" Helios, then. Mine is not coated, and others I looked at (three or four) were the same.

Have a closer look. My Helios has a very pale coating, so pale it could easily be confused for uncoated. Brian Sweeney would likely know more, see if he chips in with a more definitive answer as to whether there were uncoated ones. It does seem unlikely, an uncoated six-element lens would not perform very well.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hmm. Alright, when I find it (it's in storage right now, since I moved relatively recently) I'll check again.

I wonder if my Jupiter-3, which I actually got from Brian Sweeney, has this "very pale" coating, too. It really looks like it has no coating, but performs like it does.

 

[ray*j*gun]

When I bought my Helios 103 in Nikon S mount from Brian, we had this conversation and if I recall he told me then that all Helios primes were single coated. Mine does look uncoated at certain angles but when held just so you can see the coloration.

 

[rxmd]

Is there a way to distinguish between a single- and multi-coated lens just by looking at it?

 

[ZeissFan]

The f/1.5 5cm/50mm is a very sharp lens -- and that applies to the prewar and postwar versions.

I've used both, and I've always been pleased with the photos. However, these work best with lens hoods because that large front element sits right up front.

Perhaps your lens had some surface scratches or haze or simply needed to be cleaned.

Here's a shot from 2006, at some stables. Can't recall the film. Something slow. This is with the postwar lens.

 

[wolves3012]

Is there a way to distinguish between a single- and multi-coated lens just by looking at it?

I'm not sure if it's a definitive "method" but multi-coated lenses tend to give a reflected colour that changes with the angle, single coated don't. I suspect that it's more complicated to give a definite answer from examination but that works with reasonable confidence.