boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Thanks for the camera info. Ro-Ro's are "roll-on roll-off" car carriers.
Leica IIIa - which lens to buy? Jupiter-8?
- Thread starter 6x7
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 117
- Views 9K
Thanks for the camera info. Ro-Ro's are "roll-on roll-off" car carriers.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Coldkennels mentioned the Leningrad being set up for Leica lenses or the lenses with it being set that way. I have A Ostapenko's English version of the Leningrad manual and it says "The 39 mm Leica thread mount was preserved so the Leningrad is fully compatible with the LTM lenses".
OTOH I'd expect a lenses for the Leningrad - if they are different - to be identified in some way like "Jupiter-8L" or similar and they are not*. Needless to say, my Leningrad has the non-standard issue Jupiter-3 on it and there the matter ends for me.
Regards, David
* Suggested by the Jupiter-8M suffix...
OTOH I'd expect a lenses for the Leningrad - if they are different - to be identified in some way like "Jupiter-8L" or similar and they are not*. Needless to say, my Leningrad has the non-standard issue Jupiter-3 on it and there the matter ends for me.
Regards, David
* Suggested by the Jupiter-8M suffix...
The Jupiter-8M is a different optically from the Jupiter-8. The J8M uses evenly spaced F-Stops and has click stops for them. The optical formula is different, the diameter of the optics is larger than the J-8. The J-8M has two versions, changed somewhere around 1970. The elements of the middle triplet of the first version must have been hard to center, a flat surface was used between the second and third element. This changed to more traditional curved surfaces, easier to center. I found the earlier J-8M to be awful, one of the worst lenses used. I suspect the middle triplet was decentered. The newer version- one of the best Sonnars I've ever used.
This J8M is the second version, and is very, very good. Bought this for $50 off Ebay from a US Seller that converted it. I could not buy the parts for that much. I sent him a Bonus after receiving and testing this lens.
The J-8M above, wide-open on the Leica M9.
I've used a couple of J-8M's, the Second Version made after ~1970 have all been good.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
You had me cruising eBay. Then I remembered that I really do not need another 50 mm lens. The Amotal and that sweet '57 KMZ J8 do it for me with the Canon f/1.8 as good backup. I'm set. But I do enjoy your posts.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I think the J8M brings enough improvements over the J8 that with the right adapters I'd probably use it a lot more. It's very compact, the click stops are a welcome addition, and optically it's very good. Plus the fact it's Contax mount means, of course, that it's far more likely to work on a Leica without adjustment (assuming you have a good adapter, of course)!
filedata/fetch?filedataid=117744
(Taken on a Kiev 4 and HP5+)
I think I give the later Helios-103 the edge in sharpness across the frame, but the out of focus areas on the Helios are considerably more jarring.
filedata/fetch?filedataid=117745
(The Helios-103 is on the right, if you couldn't tell.)
I think anyone who questions the performance of Soviet optics should really just grab a Contax and try out the various lenses on that platform instead - they are stunning. It's just a shame that a) the Leica mount ones aren't really for the Leica mount, and b) so many of the LTM ones have been butchered over the years.
1952 Jupiter-8, LTM, focal length and shim both adjusted for Leica. I moved the rear group.
I'll be comparing this one with the Bertele Sonnar. Glass is perfect on it, and spent a long time working on the mount to make it really smooth.
DOF on the J-8 is much greater than the J-3.
Doing this as a DIY Hobby can be fun, paying someone else to spend 8 hours working on a $40 lens- not practical. This one was a mess. I have another 1952 J-8, also cleaned up we'', and a 3rd that had great glass but could not be brought into agreement with a Leica. I gave it away to someone using Mirrorless cameras only.
I'll be comparing this one with the Bertele Sonnar. Glass is perfect on it, and spent a long time working on the mount to make it really smooth.
DOF on the J-8 is much greater than the J-3.
Doing this as a DIY Hobby can be fun, paying someone else to spend 8 hours working on a $40 lens- not practical. This one was a mess. I have another 1952 J-8, also cleaned up we'', and a 3rd that had great glass but could not be brought into agreement with a Leica. I gave it away to someone using Mirrorless cameras only.
dexdog
Veteran
I have a J-8 that Sonnar Brian gave me or 8 years ago and it is a beauty! Of course, any lens that has been sweeneyized is gonna be a good performer. Don't know for for sure, but I may be the infamous "Mirrorless cameras only" person
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
That has to be the most famous fence post in all of creation. ;o)
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
From what I have just found I can get a Contaz RF to LTM adapter and then slap the LTM to M39 onto the back of that. Is this the standard path? Fotofox seems the Contax to Leica adapter, is this the one?
dexdog
Veteran
Yeah, you can get a Contax RF to LTM adapter from Fotofox and put a M39 to M adapter on the back. You will prolly have to check focusing accuracy on your M9 given the variation/vagaries of the adapters. I think that Sonnar B has a thread about tweaking the cheap Contax to M39 adapters.
David Hughes
David Hughes
As the Jupiter-8 is based - shall I say - on the Sonnar I am now wondering if it was a CZ idea to change the middle compound lens or a Soviet one? And, as the Jupiter-3 is also Sonnar based was that ever changed?
The 70's suggests it was a Soviet idea but you never know with these things...
Regards, David
On the J8M with the flat surface between the 2nd and 3rd element:EDITED! this is how the original 1932 CZJ 5cm F2 middle triplet appears in a reference I found. The 5cm F1.5 Sonnar always had curved surfaces for the middle triplet. At some point, the 5cm F2 Sonnar went to a curved surface, which is how it is shown in Neblette Photographic lenses. The flat surface makes the optics easier to polish, On the 5cm F2 Sonnar and Jupiter-8, the diameter of the 2nd and 3rd elements are the same, making centering an easier task. On the J-8M, the diameter of the third element is smaller than the first 2. You must have a really good method of centering the elements while cementing them. I'd guess that the original ones where well centered, but after years the machinery probably wore. The late 1960s J8Ms that I used were very bad. The formula was changed, back to a traditional curved surface- results were really good. The KMZ J8 was also revised sometime in the 1960s, the diameter of the front element was increased. I tried repairing a mid-50s J8 with the front element of a later one: did not fit.
The J3- The story goes that the supply of German glass was depleted, and the formula was recomputed for Soviet produced glass. The shape of the rear triplet changed. Sometime around 1954 two versions of the KMZ Jupiter-3 were in production, German glass and Soviet glass. This went on through early 1956.. I have perfect-glass examples of each. The v1 KMZ lens has optics and the rear fixture is completely interchangeable with Wartime CZJ Sonnars. The v2 lens looks like the early ZOMZ Jupiter-3, but the fixtures are different. I've never seen this documented, all learned from taking these apart and measuring with calipers.
The J3- The story goes that the supply of German glass was depleted, and the formula was recomputed for Soviet produced glass. The shape of the rear triplet changed. Sometime around 1954 two versions of the KMZ Jupiter-3 were in production, German glass and Soviet glass. This went on through early 1956.. I have perfect-glass examples of each. The v1 KMZ lens has optics and the rear fixture is completely interchangeable with Wartime CZJ Sonnars. The v2 lens looks like the early ZOMZ Jupiter-3, but the fixtures are different. I've never seen this documented, all learned from taking these apart and measuring with calipers.
Fixtures for the v1 KMZ Jupiter-3, including this one-off on the left. It works great, These fit a wartime Sonnar perfectly.
Fixture from the 1956 ZOMZ on left and 1956 KMZ v2 on the right.
The thickness of the metal is different.
Note the alignment ring on the later version- a really good idea of the Soviets.
The Jupiter-3 focus mount is much better than the Zeiss LTM mount, Soviet design.
Fixture from the 1956 ZOMZ on left and 1956 KMZ v2 on the right.
The thickness of the metal is different.
Note the alignment ring on the later version- a really good idea of the Soviets.
The Jupiter-3 focus mount is much better than the Zeiss LTM mount, Soviet design.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Thanks; I usually find that the Soviets have things well documented but you have to search for it. They were also very good at making sensible changes to designs; I'm thinking of small things like cable releases being standard ones and 3mm coaxial flash sockets put on the front of the camera body and so on.
Anyway, I'll dig into the heap of papers I have and see what I see. It might have to be tomorrow or later as my current eye trouble means I ration things except typos...
Regards, David
Anyway, I'll dig into the heap of papers I have and see what I see. It might have to be tomorrow or later as my current eye trouble means I ration things except typos...
Regards, David
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Brian, what do you think of this one?
Erik.
https://www.ebay.de/itm/265828725064?hash=item3de4a07148:g:yz0AAOSwFLRi97Mj
Erik.
https://www.ebay.de/itm/265828725064?hash=item3de4a07148:g:yz0AAOSwFLRi97Mj
https://www.ebay.com/itm/265828725064
It looks real. It has the extra screw in the focus mount that is used for the Stop for close and infinity focus. The J-3 focus mount uses an internal stop screw. The single screw that holds the helical into the mount is visible, and not under the focus ring. The KMZ J-3 mounts use a single screw, but it is under the focus ring on everyone I have worked on. The ZOMZ and Valdai use 3 set screws, all under the focus ring.
I have a 1949 ZK 5cm F1.5- you find German serial numbers on the internal components of the helical. That one cost me $200.
Prices on CZJ Sonnars and Jupiter-3s are way up. Glad I bought mine when I did.
It looks real. It has the extra screw in the focus mount that is used for the Stop for close and infinity focus. The J-3 focus mount uses an internal stop screw. The single screw that holds the helical into the mount is visible, and not under the focus ring. The KMZ J-3 mounts use a single screw, but it is under the focus ring on everyone I have worked on. The ZOMZ and Valdai use 3 set screws, all under the focus ring.
I have a 1949 ZK 5cm F1.5- you find German serial numbers on the internal components of the helical. That one cost me $200.
Prices on CZJ Sonnars and Jupiter-3s are way up. Glad I bought mine when I did.
dexdog
Veteran
I think that the lens is legit, too. I have 4 ZKs in LTM, including one made in 1948 . I dont know how collectible the camera is, but I imagine that the seller could easily get $500 to $600 for the lens alone.
I've been going through Sonnar diagrams from 1932 and J-8M diagrams on the web. The Sonnar 5cm F2 of 1932 did have a flat surface between elements 2 and 3. The diameter of the elements were all the same, making it fairly easy to align. At some point the design was revised to a curved surface, at least according to Neblette in Photographic Lenses. The J-8 is also shown with a flat surface, elements all the same diameter. The original design of the J-8M has the flat surface, but the third element of the triplet has a smaller diameter than the first two. You need a really precise jig to hold it precisely in place on a flat surface exactly centered. ANYWAY! That's my observation. By 1970 or so, the J-8M was revised to use a curved surface. I heated one up and dropped into cold water to split them apart. I do not suggest repeating this experiment,.
J8 left, J-8M right.
J8 left, J-8M right.
Similar threads
