let's talk about lenses

I've still got the J-12 (actually two of them). It's night here, but I'll see what I can come up with tomorrow. I'd have to hunt through 15-year-old negatives to find my iris images. Once I got a couple, I stopped using the lens very much. Don't need technical surprises.

At the moment, the only J-12 Iris photo I can find is the attached image of the Kuwait Towers. You can see a corner of a large pentagon down in the lower left corner. Other images have shown a full pentagon of various sizes.

Also attaching a shot last month with the W-Nikkor 28/3.5, into the sun with sun in the frame, which shows it as bad as it can possibly get with a Nikkor (and still not that bad, all considered .. some rings in the lower left).

FYI, I did always use a filter with the J-12, just to avoid dust and what not. I've recently started shooting the W-Nikkor 28/3.5 without a filter because it dawned on me that I'm treating my equipment better these days. I had slightly fewer problems with flare.

All in all, the Jupiter-12 peform better than I ever expected. I sometimes still carry a black one that Brian Sweeney traded me ... hardly weighs anything.
 

Attachments

  • jup-35-kuw-94.jpg
    jup-35-kuw-94.jpg
    90.4 KB · Views: 0
  • 28-jeffmem-jan07.jpg
    28-jeffmem-jan07.jpg
    64.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Then, of course, there are the iris reflections from the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 ... this one is a coated postwar model. Madrid, 1989, Nikon S2, Sonnar, Kodachrome.
attachment.php
 
Vince

That J12 iris image would upset me too.

And that is your kids? I can ignore flare when the subject is cute, but the bleed is ok for a worst case. But you are right there are some rings, & they are like my Hologon I only spot them after a good look, your kids distracted me.

I always use a hood and no filter out of doors, the J12 is hooded enough until I put a filter on, my J12 would die with a filter on. I screw on a 40.5 and then a 49mm step ring and then an oly wide angle hood that is real deep.

The other lenses have problems without filters but with deep hoods, the Hologon is handicapped by its centre filter.

I'm like you I dont like surprises, especially when the surprise seems to be in a otherwise good shot.

The modern Nikkors (SLR) seem unbelievable.

Noel
 
No hood, Joe. I was just learning rangefinders. Never much needed a hood with SLRs, as I could see the flare effects and adjust accordingly. The S2 was my first Nikon RF, and it came with the Sonnar. I knew nothing about the focus difference between Nikon and Contax, just snapped away.

The Nikkor 50/1.4 isn't near as bad as the Sonnar, in my opinion. But it will create reflection rings in harsh backlight. Someone on this forum called them "sonnar rings" -- so I learned to always shoot my 50s with a hood. That's why I ended up favoring a very small hood that was just always attached to the lens.
 
Vince

I'm with Joe on this, neither a similar '61 sonnar, nor sad J8, nor helious 103 does that, but Ive never used them without a hood.

noel
 
Vince

Sorry i posted on top of you.

I use a hood that get into the viewfinder, but a pukka Contax hood for the sonnar is like an girls April bonnet.

Noel
 
another lens question...from looking at the pics on kevin's cameras, it appears that the 35/2.5 has the aperture ring inside the front of the lens and the 35/1.8 has the more common on the barrel placement of the ring.
this is pretty much true of all 2.5 vs 1.8 35's?

is the 2.5 more of a pita to use because of this?

i also notice kevin has a ton of 2.5's and only a few 1.8's and that 1.8 is more expensive. bummer.
 
forgive me for rambling in public...

i'm thinking, that if i got the cv 35 then the s2 could be a dual purpose camera for me.
one lens for an 'older' look and one lens for a modern look.
my zi gear is all modern.
the contax is all 'old'
the nikon could bridge the gap.

and actually, couldn't i use the cv 35 on the contax also?

joe
 
The 3.5cm F2.5 aperture can still be adjusted with a filter in the lens. There is a rare version with the more standard aperture ring. The "common version" is not too bad, you just have to look at the lens to set the aperture. Still owe some scans. Been busy with these FSU lenses.
 
The 35/2.5 Nikkor is a little easier to work with than the J-12. If you place a filter on, it's no problem at all. The aperture ring has some easily gripped "teeth" so it's easy to adjust.
 
Nikkor 3,5cm F2.5, forget the F-Stop, but on the wide-side. I rarely stop down past F4.

Bambi popped out as I had just taken the 10.5cm off and put the 3.5cm on.

Full scan and tight crop.
 
Last edited:
Once I nearly bought the 35mm/2.5 but my pm to buy it was not acknowledged by the seller so I did not get the lens. It seems to be an excellent lens overall.
 
I did some tests a couple days ago and just got the film back. The images with the horrible internal reflectons are my chrome barrel 1960-version Jupiter-12, wide open and closed down a bit. The clear shot is with my black barrel 1987-version Jupiter-12. I didn't take notes when I took these shots, so I can't recall if I removed the filter that ordinarily resides on the 1960 lens. The 1987 lens doesn't have a filter. That may be the primary differnce, though I've never seen a filter do this on any other lens I own. The 1960 lens has blue-ish coatings while the 1987 lens has orangish coatings.
 

Attachments

  • j12-1960-28-flare.jpg
    j12-1960-28-flare.jpg
    21.7 KB · Views: 0
  • j12-1960-flare.jpg
    j12-1960-flare.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 0
  • j12-1987-flare.jpg
    j12-1987-flare.jpg
    66.7 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom