"Santafecino" stated that if you get a good J-12, it is a good performer. I agree with that remark. I just have not bought enough of them to sort through. Some FSU lenses, the "pick of the litter", are equal to their Zeiss counterparts. Look for ones used by the military. The green J-11 that I have is probably one of these. It is a notch above the rest. Same with a certain J-3 that I bought and sold. It was made for a Lab, and had a coating formulated for IR work. It was as good as any Zeiss Sonnar. Same with my 1953 J-3's, but they have German glass in them. So look for early lenses in good condition, early meaning the 1950s.
My 5cm f1.5 ZK Sonnar is as good as any Wartime Zeiss Sonnar, but it is LTM.
My 5cm f1.5 ZK Sonnar is as good as any Wartime Zeiss Sonnar, but it is LTM.
Last edited:
40oz
...
All I can say is people come out of the woodwork to slam FSU lenses. Would they do that for any other brand? What would you think of someone who consistently knocks Canon lenses as being "cheap Jap crap"? Or describing Nikkors as being "Nippon knock-offs given to them so they didn't starve"? Would that be offensive to anyone? Regarded as perhaps needlessly harsh when the issue is simply one of personal taste? Yet the Japanese nation didn't win any war, they just benefitted from Germany (their partner) losing.
This thread is in the Contax subforum. Yet people didn't refrain from responding even if they'd only used FSU LTM products. *Some* of us know that LTM lenses suffer from mis-alignment and poor (re-)assembly and can lead to focal errors. Contax-mount lenses don't suffer from this as the helical is in the body. It is an important distinction. The same lens design might suffer from mislignment in an LTM mount but would never see such issue in a Contax mount. They are fixed units that unless molested would not change from production to ultimate catastrophic demise.
And let's not forget the issue of focal shift with fast 50mm's. Much has been made of Zeiss's current Sonnar offering having a close-focus issue that seemed like news until you read about numerous people in the interest of fairness making the same claim about pretty much any fast 50mm lenses. It would take an attentive reader who actually researched the issue to notice that focus shift was not limited to a 50mm Sonnar released recently by Zeiss. It's not hard to imagine a person buying a J-3 LTM instead of a Summilux and experiencing focus shift and deciding it's a flaw in the FSU lens, but since they couldn't afford faster than f/2 from Leitz, never knowing it's endemic to the breed. An issue of affordibility causing bad press. If they bought the Summilux, the same issue probably would have appeared, but instead of being "ugly" would have been an induction to a brotherhood of "those who paid so much" and tolerated. (Notice I wrote "so much" instead of "too much." It's not "too much" if you like it.)
There's only a few 35mm lenses to pick from in the entire world if you own a Contax-mount body.
You have what? One Nikon, one C-V, one Kiev, and either a Jena Zeiss or a West German version (as far as I can tell). And every source I can find says that the Jena lenses typically were lighter due to an AL body vs. West German chrome, optically they are peers, but to pick the chrome barrel for durability. The Kiev J-12's were chrome mounts not copied but won, as in "won the war against an aggressor."
And they all pretty much use the same Biogon formula (no info on the C-V lens, I'm ignorant). In fact, it appears that the Biogon forumula is the "de rigeur" for 35mm lenses, and given the fact that the Kiev factories had access to the best glass the industrial giant the CCCP was (being the premier cameraworks in the FSU, as we know from the stories of Kiev's being awarded as high praise to party officials and highly desired by photojournalists and photographers), it stretches imagination to think they didn't have access to East German Schott galssworks where the formula was derived.
I don't care what your politics are, the Ukrainian people didn't start a war to steal lens designs. I'm not saying to lie to appease history, I'm saying speak the truth to respect reality. And to respect the people who these lenses, both Zeiss employees who helped set up the factories, and the workers who built the things. Abhor "commmunism" if you will, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are no longer subject ot cold war politics, exercise your own mind instead of your bygone political leaders.
The much-vaunted Leitz lenses from the 50's and prior suffer from fogging. Nobody else's lenses suffer from that fate. How is it that the backwards Soviets managed to produce coated lenses (unlike Zeiss Jena and West German Zeiss of the same period) that never seem to be fogged but get no respect and in fact incite vitriol, yet the hero of all deep-pocket camera enthusiasts gets a free pass despite being the prime funder of aftermarket camera and lens servicing? Is it perhaps because after having spent thousands on a basic kit, people are reluctant to accept they didn't *actually* get the best of what's out there? They spent the most money, how is it that the most expensive *isn't* the best?
I'm not suggesting Leitz doesn't produce superlative optics that take very nice pictures, just that the cost of goods strongly influences the perception of quality, often well beyond reason.
Look at raid's (member here) lens compilations. He shoots pretty much the same scene on numerous different lenses, same film, same body, and the Jupiter variations always do well. Middle of the pack or better, pretty consistently to my eyes. Some of his have been breathed on by Mr. Sweeney, some are "as delivered." I'm convinced that the Ukrainian lenses Mr. Sweeney is asked to work on are no different than the lenses people send off to Wetzlar, except for brand name - the pictures convince the owners to spend the dime to get them back to spec. Argue at your peril, and at Mr. Sweeney's peril
I have several Kiev lenses, and they all take pictures I like enough to figure out what lens took them when I look at the shots years later. I had a 40mm Rokkor that makes me do the same, while all the other lenses I own are merely lenses for a camera.
The lens (or rather the lenses *not* on it) on my Canonet makes me wish it was interchangeable, not that it's bad, but that it isn't as good as my Kiev's and my Rokkor. I like the camera, but the Kiev lenses and then the Rokkor showed me that lenses are an integral part of the picture rather than just the focusing piece.
I ask you, How the *hell* did I come to that conclusion using Kiev lenses if they are sub-par?
If you've ever had a lens that made you wonder how it was that it took better pictures than anything else, you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, it's a moot point. In that case, stop commenting about lenses and start buying lenses. There is a reason people own more than one 50mm besides mental illness or "too much money." Find that reason.
This thread is in the Contax subforum. Yet people didn't refrain from responding even if they'd only used FSU LTM products. *Some* of us know that LTM lenses suffer from mis-alignment and poor (re-)assembly and can lead to focal errors. Contax-mount lenses don't suffer from this as the helical is in the body. It is an important distinction. The same lens design might suffer from mislignment in an LTM mount but would never see such issue in a Contax mount. They are fixed units that unless molested would not change from production to ultimate catastrophic demise.
And let's not forget the issue of focal shift with fast 50mm's. Much has been made of Zeiss's current Sonnar offering having a close-focus issue that seemed like news until you read about numerous people in the interest of fairness making the same claim about pretty much any fast 50mm lenses. It would take an attentive reader who actually researched the issue to notice that focus shift was not limited to a 50mm Sonnar released recently by Zeiss. It's not hard to imagine a person buying a J-3 LTM instead of a Summilux and experiencing focus shift and deciding it's a flaw in the FSU lens, but since they couldn't afford faster than f/2 from Leitz, never knowing it's endemic to the breed. An issue of affordibility causing bad press. If they bought the Summilux, the same issue probably would have appeared, but instead of being "ugly" would have been an induction to a brotherhood of "those who paid so much" and tolerated. (Notice I wrote "so much" instead of "too much." It's not "too much" if you like it.)
There's only a few 35mm lenses to pick from in the entire world if you own a Contax-mount body.
You have what? One Nikon, one C-V, one Kiev, and either a Jena Zeiss or a West German version (as far as I can tell). And every source I can find says that the Jena lenses typically were lighter due to an AL body vs. West German chrome, optically they are peers, but to pick the chrome barrel for durability. The Kiev J-12's were chrome mounts not copied but won, as in "won the war against an aggressor."
And they all pretty much use the same Biogon formula (no info on the C-V lens, I'm ignorant). In fact, it appears that the Biogon forumula is the "de rigeur" for 35mm lenses, and given the fact that the Kiev factories had access to the best glass the industrial giant the CCCP was (being the premier cameraworks in the FSU, as we know from the stories of Kiev's being awarded as high praise to party officials and highly desired by photojournalists and photographers), it stretches imagination to think they didn't have access to East German Schott galssworks where the formula was derived.
I don't care what your politics are, the Ukrainian people didn't start a war to steal lens designs. I'm not saying to lie to appease history, I'm saying speak the truth to respect reality. And to respect the people who these lenses, both Zeiss employees who helped set up the factories, and the workers who built the things. Abhor "commmunism" if you will, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are no longer subject ot cold war politics, exercise your own mind instead of your bygone political leaders.
The much-vaunted Leitz lenses from the 50's and prior suffer from fogging. Nobody else's lenses suffer from that fate. How is it that the backwards Soviets managed to produce coated lenses (unlike Zeiss Jena and West German Zeiss of the same period) that never seem to be fogged but get no respect and in fact incite vitriol, yet the hero of all deep-pocket camera enthusiasts gets a free pass despite being the prime funder of aftermarket camera and lens servicing? Is it perhaps because after having spent thousands on a basic kit, people are reluctant to accept they didn't *actually* get the best of what's out there? They spent the most money, how is it that the most expensive *isn't* the best?
I'm not suggesting Leitz doesn't produce superlative optics that take very nice pictures, just that the cost of goods strongly influences the perception of quality, often well beyond reason.
Look at raid's (member here) lens compilations. He shoots pretty much the same scene on numerous different lenses, same film, same body, and the Jupiter variations always do well. Middle of the pack or better, pretty consistently to my eyes. Some of his have been breathed on by Mr. Sweeney, some are "as delivered." I'm convinced that the Ukrainian lenses Mr. Sweeney is asked to work on are no different than the lenses people send off to Wetzlar, except for brand name - the pictures convince the owners to spend the dime to get them back to spec. Argue at your peril, and at Mr. Sweeney's peril
I have several Kiev lenses, and they all take pictures I like enough to figure out what lens took them when I look at the shots years later. I had a 40mm Rokkor that makes me do the same, while all the other lenses I own are merely lenses for a camera.
The lens (or rather the lenses *not* on it) on my Canonet makes me wish it was interchangeable, not that it's bad, but that it isn't as good as my Kiev's and my Rokkor. I like the camera, but the Kiev lenses and then the Rokkor showed me that lenses are an integral part of the picture rather than just the focusing piece.
I ask you, How the *hell* did I come to that conclusion using Kiev lenses if they are sub-par?
If you've ever had a lens that made you wonder how it was that it took better pictures than anything else, you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, it's a moot point. In that case, stop commenting about lenses and start buying lenses. There is a reason people own more than one 50mm besides mental illness or "too much money." Find that reason.
Last edited:
40oz
...
And anyone who frequents auctions or estate sales ought to know that "lots" are the crap being shoveled. A box of anything is a box of stuff with no value. You'd have to seriously deceive yourself to think buying bottom dollar goods ought to net you top quality merchandise.
Yet aparently even our esteeemed Mr. Hicks thinks "getting good deals" showed him the cream of the crop. Just goes to show you how we deceive ourselves.
And to temper my comments, I do hold Mr. hicks in high esteem. I just happen to disagree with him on the whole Ukrainian camera thing. It's not a personal indictment, just a matter of diverging opinions.
Yet aparently even our esteeemed Mr. Hicks thinks "getting good deals" showed him the cream of the crop. Just goes to show you how we deceive ourselves.
And to temper my comments, I do hold Mr. hicks in high esteem. I just happen to disagree with him on the whole Ukrainian camera thing. It's not a personal indictment, just a matter of diverging opinions.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I wasn't talking about auctions or estate sales. I was talking about the world of 30+ years ago, when a dealer would get an outfit in, and sell the bits separately, but still all cheap. Cheap, as I say, for a reason. Or for that matter, he might have just the one Russian lens. I'd buy something else -- I did a lot more buying and selling in those days -- and say, "What can you do the Russian lens for?" in the hope I'd get a decent one. Then he'd knock a bit off because I was buying several things at once. That's the sort of 'lot' I meant. 'Deals' would have been a better word than 'lots'.
You can disagree to your heart's content, but it won't make Soviet wide-angles any better. The Zeiss wide-angles of the 1930s were mediocre by the standards of even 20 years later, and Ukrainian quality control didn't make them any better.
Note too that I was not 'slamming' all Soviet lenses: I specifically referred to wide-angles. I have never had a bad 135/4 -- an astonishingly good lens -- and for its era the 85/2 was good, in my experience comparable with the later, bigger, heavier and more expensive early 90/2 Summicron, but neither was a patch on the second Summicron.
As for the 50m f/2 and f/1.5 lenses, they were Sonnar designs which sacrificed resolution to contrast in the days before lens coating: a 3-group lens has fewer glass-air surfaces to lose contrast. Contemporary (1930s) Leica lenses (the 4-group Summar and 5-group Xenon) exhibited significantly higher resolution and significantly lower contrast. Once coating came in, though, more groups made more sense -- which is why the current C-Sonnar is a 4-group lens. I have heard nothing but good reports of the 50/1.8 but I have never owned one and besides it wasn't a 1930s Zeiss design.
The original 7-glass triplet-derived 35mm Biogon was much superior to its contemporary competitor, the 35/3,5 Elmar, but again, by the standards of even 20 years later, it was pretty indifferent.
A Tessar design is wildly overstretched at 28mm for 35mm coverage, and was significantly inferior to its Leitz competitor, the 5-glass (though still triplet-derived) Hektor, and even the symmetrically derived 1950s Leitz 28mm (a great improvement over the Hektor) is very indifferent by modern standards.
So if either of us is deceiving himself, I don't think it's me. It may not be you either. I fully take your point about price being important, but equally, if something is inferior, it is inferior regardless of price.
You must also bear in mind that when I was buying this stuff in the 1970s, it was 30-40 years newer than it is now and no-one was sentimental or falsely optimistic about Soviet kit: it was cheap entertainment. Of course there were reverse snobs who maintained that their Kiev outfit was every bit as good as the current offerings from Leitz, in palpable defiance of the truth, and of course there were users of Soviet kit who produced brilliant photographs, because if you're good enough, and work within the limitations of your kit, you can make good pictures with almost anything. But you'd never find many people who had the sort of rosy optimism that seems increasingly common today.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
matthew J Shaw
Established
Thanks for the posts so far everyone...
Looks like I've started something of a debate (sorry about that!)
Some good points for me to take on board though, it appears the overall comment is if Im going to seriously use this lens, stop it down between 5.6 & 8, I can deal with that.
I understand that the image quality is going to be poorer, but as I originally said, where I am in the UK I can get Zeiss 135mm lens for my contax 2 a penny, but ANYTHING wider than a 50mm goes straight into silly money. I would love the zeiss 35 & 28, but my II is my camera for pleasure, I use it when Im not working, simply for the joy of using it. If Im shooting something very important, I would most likely use the G1 with one of the wide lenses. But the appeal of the contax is the age, going back to basics as it were, the modern lenses to fit are, I'm sure optically superior, but as I said, I'm something of a purist. I like to use lenses period to the camera if I can. And until I find a sensibly priced one, these are out of my budget.
Keep the ideas coming though, it all helps.
Thanks
Matt
Looks like I've started something of a debate (sorry about that!)
Some good points for me to take on board though, it appears the overall comment is if Im going to seriously use this lens, stop it down between 5.6 & 8, I can deal with that.
I understand that the image quality is going to be poorer, but as I originally said, where I am in the UK I can get Zeiss 135mm lens for my contax 2 a penny, but ANYTHING wider than a 50mm goes straight into silly money. I would love the zeiss 35 & 28, but my II is my camera for pleasure, I use it when Im not working, simply for the joy of using it. If Im shooting something very important, I would most likely use the G1 with one of the wide lenses. But the appeal of the contax is the age, going back to basics as it were, the modern lenses to fit are, I'm sure optically superior, but as I said, I'm something of a purist. I like to use lenses period to the camera if I can. And until I find a sensibly priced one, these are out of my budget.
Keep the ideas coming though, it all helps.
Thanks
Matt
kievman
Kievman
Recent J-12 Lens
Recent J-12 Lens
I have owned and used 2 1980's vintage kiev/contax mount J-12's, both bought recently, within the last 2 years. Both of these lens perform fine from F5.6 down, actually quite sharp, not as sharp as my G series 35mm F2.0. but I am sure I could make fine 11x14 in. enlargements from these lens. At F2.8, these lens are on the soft side wide open, at F4 they improve quite a bit, By F5.6 they are sharp to the corners. These lens do suffer from flare and ghosting in extreme Backlit situations, But in most photographic situations that is not a problem, There are many fine examples of images produced by the J-12 on the FSU forum if you want to see examples, just search the threads. One thing many folks failed to mentioned is the soviets did improve the coatings and quality of their glass over the years even though they often didn't improve their lens designs. And my 1980 versions are quite contrasty and sharp stopped down. The separate viewfinder is quite good and for the price you really cant beat it. I paid 85 usd for a 80"s J-12 and viewfinder - M
Recent J-12 Lens
I have owned and used 2 1980's vintage kiev/contax mount J-12's, both bought recently, within the last 2 years. Both of these lens perform fine from F5.6 down, actually quite sharp, not as sharp as my G series 35mm F2.0. but I am sure I could make fine 11x14 in. enlargements from these lens. At F2.8, these lens are on the soft side wide open, at F4 they improve quite a bit, By F5.6 they are sharp to the corners. These lens do suffer from flare and ghosting in extreme Backlit situations, But in most photographic situations that is not a problem, There are many fine examples of images produced by the J-12 on the FSU forum if you want to see examples, just search the threads. One thing many folks failed to mentioned is the soviets did improve the coatings and quality of their glass over the years even though they often didn't improve their lens designs. And my 1980 versions are quite contrasty and sharp stopped down. The separate viewfinder is quite good and for the price you really cant beat it. I paid 85 usd for a 80"s J-12 and viewfinder - M
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Matt,
And the reason they're silly money is because they are (a) a lot rarer than FSU; (b) a lot better; (c) a lot more sought after by collectors and (d, trailing a long way behind) have more snob appeal.
As I said in my most recent post, you can take great pictures with them. There's even a sort of vintage charm wide open, at least in black and white. It's just that you shouldn't have the kind of false expectations that you might get from some of their more enthusiastic boosters. Kievman is absolutely realistic though I'd go for f/8 rather than f/5.6 as the optimum aperture.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
I'll look for my J-12 shots. I have a roll from a late black J-12 that I custom shimmed for the Nikon, and later traded for an ever-ready case. It was probably off on a Kiev/Contax as well, but I did not have a Contax II at the time. I have a 1960 chrome J-12 that worked well enough on the Nikon and the Contax II, so I did not need to shim it. As stated, stopped down is good enough for use and a $20 bargain. I rarely use it, as I have the Nikkor wide-angle lenses.
The Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 should be considered as a lower cost alternative to the Zeiss Biogon for use on a Contax and a Nikon. It will work with the Contax IIIa and IIa. Cost is ~$200. Again, more than my $20 J-12 but not much more than some Ebay sellers seem to think a J-12 is worth. I keep a 1955 KMZ J-3 5cm F1.5 on my Contax II, a 1953 KMZ J-3 in LTM on a Canon P, and a 1956 KMZ J-3 in LTM on my Bessa R2. I am a KMZ J-3 snob.
The Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 should be considered as a lower cost alternative to the Zeiss Biogon for use on a Contax and a Nikon. It will work with the Contax IIIa and IIa. Cost is ~$200. Again, more than my $20 J-12 but not much more than some Ebay sellers seem to think a J-12 is worth. I keep a 1955 KMZ J-3 5cm F1.5 on my Contax II, a 1953 KMZ J-3 in LTM on a Canon P, and a 1956 KMZ J-3 in LTM on my Bessa R2. I am a KMZ J-3 snob.
Last edited:
Paul T.
Veteran
I had a 1950 Zorkii Sonnar 50/1.5 which looked nice, but not quite as good as my 50s Opton. THen I sold both, in a fit of downsizing, and later darkavenger on this boar found me a 51 or 52 KMZ Sonnar. It is fantastic; I like it better than my 50 Summicron.
dexdog
Veteran
I used to have a 1951 J-9 in Contax/Kiev mount that performed every bit as well as my Zeiss-Opton 85/2 Sonnar. Sold the J-9 because I didn't need two of the same lens, and the fit and finish of the Opton was nicer, and the focusing was smoother, too. Of course, it is likely that that J-9 was made with Zeiss lens elements, although I never took it apart to check (mostly because I doubted my ability to reassemble it properly). If the guy I sold it too ever wants to get rid of it, I would probably buy it back!
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Soviet camera equipment can be frustrating, but I can at least agree that the Helios-103 is excellent. A very nice surprise.
Brian, have you ever tried sticking a Helios-103 into some kind of LTM housing? I use it with an Amedeo adapter...
Brian, have you ever tried sticking a Helios-103 into some kind of LTM housing? I use it with an Amedeo adapter...
Yes. One. And Only One...
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=158
Nina asked "Why are you doing this" as the dremel drummed on. "Because no one else has".
and yes, it was RF Coupled. So I'm not a complete KMZ J-3 Snob. And I did the aperture blades in black on the Helios-103.
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=158
Nina asked "Why are you doing this" as the dremel drummed on. "Because no one else has".
and yes, it was RF Coupled. So I'm not a complete KMZ J-3 Snob. And I did the aperture blades in black on the Helios-103.
Last edited:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Ha ha!, I knew it!! Brilliant.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
The Dremel is certainly a handy little tool, but a small lathe is better - and with a little practice you could even turn three or four-start helicoids - that gets really interesting!Yes. One. And Only One...
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=158
Nina asked "Why are you doing this" as the dremel drummed on. "Because no one else has".
and yes, it was RF Coupled. So I'm not a complete KMZ J-3 Snob. And I did the aperture blades in black on the Helios-103.
Dave.
The Dremel is certainly a handy little tool, but a small lathe is better - and with a little practice you could even turn three or four-start helicoids - that gets really interesting!
Dave.
Someday, maybe when I retire. I bought a Milltronics VM-17 CNC for work. And hired a Mechanical Engineer for CAD/CAM and to run it. Also bought a 3-D solid printer for him to prototype with. That stuff is getting cheaper, but takes an investment in time. I always joked with him that I had some camera parts I wanted done, like new top plates for the Nikon Rangefinders. But that would not have been work-related. And we do have a lathe. He used it for the quick stuff.