Leica IIIa - which lens to buy? Jupiter-8?

[lxmike]

Get a Summar or a collapsable Elmar, vintage glass, low contrast, flare etc but hey thats good as it give your images plenty of character. Good luck in your quest for a lens.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Minolta 5cm F2 is very good, and very close to the Summitar. Hard coated glass, rigid body, and about 1/2 the price of Summitars.

 

[David Hughes]

I have found just four USSR publications with J-3 and J-8 lens diagrams in them. Looking at the flat and curved surfaces of the front compound lens this is what I got:-

1957 J-3 and J-8 have flat surfaces; no mention of the J-8M but the listings show that FEDs had FED lenses (including the Industar-10 called FED), Zorkis had Industar lenses and the Kiev had Jupiter lenses.

1959 The J-3 had the curved surfaces at the join and the J-8 was still flat; no mention of the 8M but the book had just under 700 pages in Russian and I may have missed it.

1963 Both curved and still no mention of the 8M.

1970 The J 3 shown in two versions flat for the Kiev but curved with (presumably) the M39 thread. The J8 now flat again and no mention of the 8m.

The main problem is that there's obviously no consistency because they came from four different sources.

It would be great to look at ebay etc every day and search for J-3's and J-8(M)'s. Then make a note of the mount, serial number and hence year and the makers' logo. That might yield some interesting data; I just wish I had the time to get all the info together.

Regards, David

 

[Sonnar Brian]

David- Thankyou for this. I think that "dissecting" some parts lenses may be required to resolve this. The dates break it down.

I found some Zeiss patents for various lenses that indicate Bertele was reducing coma with the curved surface.

For doing repair, or making the "best of a lens out of parts" it is important. The front element can be exchanged between most 5cm F1.5 Sonnars. The J-8- need to get the correct diameter.

 

[Coldkennels]

Sovietcams has a pretty good breakdown of Jupiter 8 variations in both mounts; they don't really have technical drawings, but they do show the external variations well.

Kiev: https://www.mikeeckman.com/sovietca...o=middle&tmpl_id=472&_m_e_id=5&_menu_i_id=460

Zorki: https://www.mikeeckman.com/sovietca...o=middle&tmpl_id=471&_m_e_id=5&_menu_i_id=459

They put the transition to Jupiter 8M between 1957 and 1967 based on serial numbers of lenses they've found.

They also have a Jupiter 8M in a Helios 103 body on the Kiev section. That's an oddity. I wonder if it is still a Sonnar design, or just a relabelled Helios (which was double gauss, if I remember right)?

 

[jcb4718]

I have four sonnar lenses: a Zeiss Opton f/1.5, a Canon copy, also f/1.5, and early Zeiss f/2 and a J-8, the last two bought from Skyllaney. All 50mm of course and all LTM (the Opton is fitted with an Amadeo adapter). Of course I could not resist comparing them and here are my thoughts:

The Opton is best. It's difficult to find fault. The Amadeo cam is sloped and compensates for focus shit so even that 'fault' is not apparent.
The Canon is very like the Opton except that you can find the focus shift if you look. Whether you will ever see its effect in a photo is another matter...
The Zeiss f/2 is uncoated. This seems to result in a dense but saturated colours when used with colour print film. It is quite unlike any other lens I have owned.
The J-8 if you look at it analytically is the worst lens. The focus shift is more pronounced and it is not particularly sharp anyway. However, the lens takes the most marvellous photos! The colours with colour print film are appealing and it seems sharp enough. The lens coating is a bright blue so maybe this is the origin of the colour rendition? If you line up photos of the same subject: Opton, Canon and J-8 (and the Canon f/1.8 LTM lens for that matter), the J-8 stands out.

In fact I found the adjustment needed in Photoshop Elements to bring the colour balance all the lenses into line with the J-8. It is my 'benchmark' in that respect. The adjustments are pretty simple.

 

[David Hughes]

I found this on the internet years ago but have lost the website address. It is the best source I know, really great.



Needless-to-say, I had a bookmark for the RFF thread where I showed it and gave the www ref...

As you can see it's the Industar-50, the Russian is fairly formulaic and once you've sorted out the important bits you can understand all the lenses shown. There's sometimes 2 and sometimes 4 pages about each lens.

Does anyone have the address for this pdf? I'd like to get it again and will write it in pencil on the back of a used envelope for safer storage.

Regards, David

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Marco Cavina posted this on his site, and shows the original design of the 5cm F2 Sonnar having the middle triplet as a curved surface. His site has more information on the Sonnar than any other that I know of.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Sonnar_heritage/00_pag.htm

Many different formulations of the 5cm F2 Sonnar are shown. So- the question is When were they in production, which was selected for the J-8.

This may have been changed. The middle triplet of the CZJ Sonnar 5cm F2 is stamped into metal.

I know for a fact that the 1970 J8M uses a curved surface - because I split them.

 

[boojum]

This CZJ 5 cm f/2.0 from the 30's is kind of the B57 of the lens world. It works, it works very well and while a lot of bombers have been made since the B57 still is flying as a reliable, front-line device. The B57 is a rugged workhorse. So, too, is the Sonnar. The Sonnar is almost a century old and lives on capturing great images. It and its copies/clones. I really like my '57 KMZ J8. Sharp and great color. But not exceedingly sharp or bright. A Goldilocks, just right.

The J8 and the Amotal suit my needs and would be good on any IIIa. The Canon 50 mm f/1.8 is a good one, too. And somehow, that old CZJ Sonnar often becomes the topic of discussion. A lot of us love that old lens and those modeled after it.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

This CZJ 5 cm f/2.0 from the 30's is kind of the B57 of the lens world. It works, it works very well and while a lot of bombers have been made since the B57 still is flying as a reliable, front-line device. The B57 is a rugged workhorse. .

There are three WB-57F Canberra aircraft still in service with NASA, amazingly. I worked on an airborne experiment that went up on one some 35 years ago. Traces development back to the British Canberra of the 1940s. Flies high, straight, and slow.

The Sonnar is more of an F104. Built for nothing but speed.

Going through my parts bin, lots of middle triplets: the triplet from a later 1970s KMZ J-3 is different from the 1955 middle triplet. Things were changed. The 1957 J-3 having a flat surface: something I'll look for. I have some early ZOMZ lenses, the right age. The additional problem with lens diagrams: knowing which designs were prototypes and which actually made it into production. Some 5cm f1.5 Sonnars are "just different" from taking them apart, but was able to find a diagram on Marco Cavina's website that matched it.

The Bertele Patent for the 1930s 3.5cm f2.8 Biogon shows a flat surface between the 2nd and 3rd element of the middle triplet. The radius is shown as "infinity", meaning flat.

 

[dexdog]

I kinda assumed he meant B-52. 🙂

 

[boojum]

There are three WB-57F Canberra aircraft still in service with NASA, amazingly. I worked on an airborne experiment that went up on one some 35 years ago. Traces development back to the British Canberra of the 1940s. Flies high, straight, and slow.

The Sonnar is more of an F104. Built for nothing but speed.

Dueling in lens metaphors. How many lenses inspire this kind of talk? The list is short.

I must admit error on my part. I meant the B52. However, the Canberra has been an aircraft I have admired from when it was new in Britain, not recently, and have admired its versatility and beauty since. And I am happy to learn it is still flying. Gorgeous plane. Both the B52 and the B57 are great designs which they prove by their continued service. Despite all that has been designed and is being flown these trusty designs continue to prove themselves. Likewise that 5 cm CZJ f/2.0. The finest propeller heads and computer programmers have not yet come out with a better all around lens than that 30's gem and its descendants. My '57 KMZ J8 continues to amaze me with how it handles color. Like a great portrait artist it presents a very real picture that looks just a little bit better than reality, just a little bit. The magic of the design. Currently on the M9, the Amotal on the M240 just to see how it works on that camera.

Electro-mechnical gadgets are just wonderful toys, er, tools. ;o)

 

[raydm6]

I worked on a special component of the B-52H during the 2010’s. Yes, they are scheduled to be in service till 2045. About 90 years. Quite extraordinary.

 

[boojum]

I worked on a special component of the B-52H during the 2010’s. Yes, they are scheduled to be in service till 2045. About 90 years. Quite extraordinary.

The B52 design team had to have been something else. No mere mortals. Good designs stand the test of time, in airplanes, cars, cameras and lenses. Getting it right the first time is just so damned important.

 

[David Hughes]

Aircraft designers seem very good at getting it right first time; I've seen fighters from The Great War (1914-18) flying and they look and handle like fighters. That's according to people who have flown them and today's stuff. The SE5 seems to fit that description... And there's the Dakota, Hurricane and the AVRO Vulcan (sigh).

OK, back to lenses; I've some 30's CZ brochures etc but there's just one page of lens pictures and they are just too small to use and are the "cut-away" style to boot. The 30's magazines I have might have something but are probably the same drawings.

Regards, David

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Looking at the Patents- some show a very large radius for the Sonnar F2 designs, and I believe this was simplified into a line on some of the brochures and manuals that I have.
The Biogon- definitely a flat surface used in the triplet, as per the patent.

 

[flavio81]

Marco Cavina posted this on his site, and shows the original design of the 5cm F2 Sonnar having the middle triplet as a curved surface. His site has more information on the Sonnar than any other that I know of.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_...age/00_pag.htm

Many different formulations of the 5cm F2 Sonnar are shown. So- the question is When were they in production, which was selected for the J-8.

This may have been changed. The middle triplet of the CZJ Sonnar 5cm F2 is stamped into metal.

I know for a fact that the 1970 J8M uses a curved surface - because I split them.

This graphic also shows how the Nikkor is almost an exact copy of the Sonnar in terms of glasses used, while the Jupiter-8 is a different lens. And then they say the soviets were copycats...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

This graphic also shows how the Nikkor is almost an exact copy of the Sonnar in terms of glasses used, while the Jupiter-8 is a different lens. And then they say the soviets were copycats...

The Nikkor is 51.6mm, rather than 52.4mm. This design is from 1946- Nikon had a small amount of glass acquired before the war, also used for the 5cm F1.5. When that was depleted, new glass had to be made and the formula changed- as per the Nikkor Tales. The Nikkor 5cm F1.5 was formulated in 1937, and is very close to the pre-war Sonnars, except made to the Leica standard.

Most classic normal lenses can trace their roots back to the Zeiss Tessar, Zeiss Planar, and Zeiss Sonnar. The modern Summicron is a 6 element in 4 group design, going back to Zeiss.

I just picked up an early 1952 J-8 in Contax mount, should be here this week. I'll give it a CLA and make sure it is shimmed appropriately. Will compare with my other two 1952 J-8's. Early J-8's are made with Zeiss cut glass, sometime in 1952 switches over to Russian cut German glass. After the supply of German glass was used up, Russian glass was used. Production of both Russian glass and German glass Jupiters occurred in parallel for about 1 to 2 years, based on taking apart KMZ j-3's.

 

[flavio81]

The Nikkor is 51.6mm, rather than 52.4mm.

But this doesn't mean too much, you know that this spec has tolerances, and that FL can be altered by the position of the rear group on the sonnar... There's a truly excellent PDF that explains how, by Bryan Sweeny... maybe that's you?

Said Brian mentions that the Jupiter-3 has a focal length is given as 52.4 +/- 1%. "That gives a range of about 51.9mm to 52.9mm", says Brian.

I wouldn't expect a 1940s Nikkor lens to have better tolerances than 1% or perhaps 0.5% for its focal length. So many Nikkors out there are probably 52mm or so, or 51mm...

I just picked up an early 1952 J-8 in Contax mount, should be here this week. I'll give it a CLA and make sure it is shimmed appropriately. Will compare with my other two 1952 J-8's. Early J-8's are made with Zeiss cut glass, sometime in 1952 switches over to Russian cut German glass. After the supply of German glass was used up, Russian glass was used. Production of both Russian glass and German glass Jupiters occurred in parallel for about 1 to 2 years, based on taking apart KMZ j-3's.

My suggestion is -- don't forget to adjust focal length. Last J-8 i had, a 1964 model, did not have correct focal length (for my Contax IIa) and thus will require adjusting its focal length. But you probably already know that. I've had only about 4 kiev-mount soviet lenses and 3 of them required at least an infinity position, at least one of them also required FL correction. While my Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50/2 (postwar, late) was perfect from the get go.

I know early SK (sonnar krasnogorsk) lenses and very early j-8 lenses use german glass, but this shouldn't be a major advantage really. To get quality you need careful measurements to get everything into optical and mechanical tolerances, the glass itself doesn't matter much. Probably all russian J-8 and J-3 until the late 50s are equally fine lenses, particularly if they're made by KMZ.

 

[flavio81]

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,.

This is very interesting info!! This would suggest an optical improvement!!

Often, lenses are "simplified" by replacing some surfaces with flat surface, this reduces manufacturing steps and yes, makes cemented groups easier.