Letting the russians in...

M

matthew J Shaw

Established
Local time
10:11 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
81
My contax using days have taken a turn today, I am a purist I guess and have only ever used Zeiss lenses with my contax II.

However, the wider lenses are difficult and very expensive here in the UK, and I recently managed to get one of the russian 35mm lenses for £22 (GBP) so I thought, what the heck! Give it ago, can anyone out there give me some tips on using this (and possibly other russian lenses) as I tend to shoot with my lenses wide open or just a few stops down, and I've heard mixed reviews about how the russian lenses perform like this.

Any help and advice to get me going would be great, and as soon as I get some pics back we can all see what I get.
 
Last edited:
I have had some very good results using fsu lenses, mostly 50mm and occasionally longer, but unfortunately my experience with the 35mm was disappointing to say the least! - nothing wrong with it optically or mechanically, but dismal performance, and wide-open - forget it! but then the design age of these things has to be remembered!
Dave.
 
Like Dave, I've been underwhelmed by Soviet knock-offs of 70+ years old wide-angle designs. But I've only had half a dozen 35s, three or four 28s, and one (Leica-mount) 20, though I tried another equally bad 20.

Cheers,

R.
 
If you get a good Jupiter-12, it's a very effective wide angle. Of course, watch out for backlit situations. I have the 28mm Orion-15 in LTM, and it's okay, but I think the Kiev mount version is a collectible and too expensive.

Most people have a good experience with the 50mm f:1.8 Helios, which is not a copy of a Zeiss design but is original with the Russians. It's dirt cheap. I own one and find it an incredible value--sharp and contrasty.

I see that you already have 85mm and 135mm Zeiss lenses; the corresponding Russian lenses are very good too.

Always use a good lens shade, and the turret finder is a godsend.
 
Theoretically speaking, Russian optical engineering was very strong back in the days. The military optics they produced was one of the best in the world. On the consumer market Kiev' lenses were pretty much a copy of Zeiss, earlier ones were even made from the same glass taken away from germans after WWII. From the practical prospective, they are not as good as original Zeiss, but definitely have their own unique look (i.e. warm colors). I used FED+Jupiters for quite a while and I did like it!
 
I think it's pretty undeniable that the J-12 is not up to the standard of the J-8 or J-3. I've rarely seen a poor quality photo, in the optical sense, from the latter, but I've rarely seen a good one from the former. Even photos that people hold up as good examples often seem to be poor - soft, without anything appealing about the look.

Look thru the classified, one member here - James, in Washington DC -was selling a VC S-mount lens, I think the 28mm, which is much superior.
 
George9 said:
There's too much bull talked about soviet lenses, mostly by snobs.

I use a 50mm f1.8 Helios. Great results.
And a 35mm Jupiter 12. Great results too, and very compact.
Click to expand...
Dear George,

Sometimes by snobs, it's true; but also, quite often, by people who have actually compared different lenses, and found that there is often a good reason for price differences. How many lenses have you compared with the Jupiter 12? I'd rather have a Jupiter 12 than a 35/3,5 Elmar, but among RF lenses, pretty much anything designed since 1960 (and most lenses designed since 1950) will be better than either.

Often those who sing the praises of the newer, more expensive lenses are profoundly grateful that they no longer have to use some of the junk they tried when they were younger and poorer.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, Mr. Hicks, how many 35mm lenses have you actually tried that were designed since 1960 AND fit on a Contax II?

Because I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to know which they were.
 
I have a lot of Soviet lenses, all carefully shimmed, some modified. Six J-3's, three each in LTM and Contax mount, J-8's, J-9's, J-11's, Helios-103, Menopta 53/1.8. I took apart all of my Helios-103's and Menopta 53/1.8's and blackened the aperture blades to reduce reflections. It was very effective. I shoot a lot with these lenses.

The J-12 is my least favorite of the Jupiter lenses. I had a good Black one that required filing and shimming to mount and focus properly. It was decent for a cheap lens, but not as good as my Canon 35/2.8. I currently have a 1960 J-12, and have used it on the Contax II. Again, not on par with my 1955 KMZ J-3, but for $20 a good cheap wide-angle. Better than a Schneider Retina-Curtagon 28/4, not as good as the Retina-Curtagon 35/2.8.

The Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 and 3.5cm F1.8 are my wide-angle lenses that will fit the Contax II, both are better than the J-12. The Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5 is not as good as the J-12.
 
Last edited:
The important point to keep in mind here is we are talking about CONTAX-mount lenses.

You've got Zeiss, Nikon, Kiev, and that's it in 35mm focal length. And as far as I know, only the Kiev has a chance at not being 40 years old.

It's all fine and dandy that some of you can think of a better lens THAT DOESN'T FIT THE CAMERA :) Pat yourselves on the back and post in another thread.
 
My Nikkor S-Mount lenses do fit the Contax II. And the J-12 will fit on the S2 and S3. The Nikkor lenses are better, and at least 10x the cost.

For $20, I'm quite happy to stop the J-12 down to F5.6 or F8 and deal with it. My kick-around combo is a Nikon S2 that looks like it was used as a hammer with the J-12.
 
I shoot quite a bit with my Jupiters on the Contax.

picture.php


And Zeiss on my Zorki.

picture.php
 
AHH, THERE'S THE 35/2.5. I LOOKED FOR THAT BEFORE POSTING AND DIDN'T FIND IT :D

Probably because it's sold out and discontinued. Like all the rest, of course.

So we have one example of a 35mm Contax-mount lens designed since 1960. Any others?
 
The problem with the J-12 is it's more of a 1930s design. Zeiss dropped that formula with the Contax IIa and IIIa. The Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 is a 1959 design, and is quite good. The 3.5cm F2.5 is a ~1950 design, and is also far better than the J-12.
 
40oz said:
AHH, THERE'S THE 35/2.5. I LOOKED FOR THAT BEFORE POSTING AND DIDN'T FIND IT :D

Probably because it's sold out and discontinued. Like all the rest, of course.

So we have one example of a 35mm Contax-mount lens designed since 1960. Any others?
Click to expand...

The OP asked about using SOviet lenses - he has the Jupiter 12 already!

We responded by saying most of the SOviet lenses are great, the wide angles not so much, and gave him alternatives for other WA lenses, including the Nikkors, and the VC28/2.5, one of which is (possibly) for sale on this board, as well as a host of other WA lenses readily available from cameraquest. You apparently disbelieved Roger when he said that some modern lenses were better than the Jupiter 12; and they are. What's your point?

If you have great photos to show from a J-12 to prove us wrong, please post them, I love to live in hope.
 
I too have in the past spent time 'tweaking' some of these fsu lenses - shim adjustment, etc. and experimented by machining different mounts and adaptors. I came to the conclusion that the benefits were not really worth the efforts, and my time could be used better on other things - the words 'silk purse' and 'sow's ear' come to mind. Before anyone rushes to 'shoot me down in flames' - yes - we all do what we like with our time, money and talent! - just my point of view, and I have one or two that I DO like and use.(fsu lenses-that is!)
Dave.
 
Last edited:
40oz said:
The important point to keep in mind here is we are talking about CONTAX-mount lenses.

You've got Zeiss, Nikon, Kiev, and that's it in 35mm focal length. And as far as I know, only the Kiev has a chance at not being 40 years old.

It's all fine and dandy that some of you can think of a better lens THAT DOESN'T FIT THE CAMERA :) Pat yourselves on the back and post in another thread.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question. The OP wanted to now what the J-12 was like, and quite a few people tried to answer his question -- which you do not seem to have done, despite your urging us all to go and post in another thread.

The simple point is this: the J-12 isn't very good, regardless of what mount it's in. Pretty much everyone agrees, except, it seems, George9 and Santafecino.

My second post was aimed at him and his attack on 'bull' and 'snobs'. It is neither bull nor snobbish to point out that the J-12 isn't very good.

He later wanted to know why I had had half a dozen over the years, and the simple answer is that they used to be cheap (for a very good reason), and sometimes they came in 'deals', so I kept buying them, mostly in screw mount but one in Kiev mount, in the hope they weren't all bad. The last screw-mount I had was new, old stock, box, inspection certificate, the lot. It was bad too. So I gave up, except for one more I bought in the early 80s to complete a Kiev kit I was going to sell in the USA (where they were much rarer than in the UK at that tme). Guess what? It was bad too.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom