My Jupiter-3 DIYs

[k__43]

So here is the story ..
I was avoiding the J3 for years, knowing that problem with the non-standard focal length and often misaligned copies. Since I got my M9 I had a more immediate way of checking focus than doing that with matte screens, loupes and film. So I got one from a guy that said he adjusted close focus for his M8, well he was right, but it was pretty off in any other aspect.

I wanted to change close focus so I "went in"... the adjustment is fairly easy to be honest. The problematic part was that I marked the inner cam module with permanent marker but I cleaned everything with isopropanol so my marking was gone. With 2 or 3 tries I found the correct starting angle (I already thought I fu¢ked up).
I was lucky to get a copy where the whole focus module was done right, I haven't had to drill new holes like described in that manual by Brian Sweeney.

Important tip here is I guess, you do not have to unscrew the inner cam anyway. It's a three part assembly and after you remove the two guide screws and the stop screw, you can just get off the outer part and there is the bit that needs some filing. When putting it back together the thread (on my copy at least) catches approx. where the stop screw hole aligns with the 1m stop.

All I had to do now was to file down a good bit on the M39 mount thread at the RF roller position, so that the roller can actually follow that far.

Easy job actually all in all!!
Btw, if you want to figure out how much to file away on the close focus stop, there is an easy solution! I tried to calculate it and found out later that it's actually just that easy: Unscrew the stop screw but leave the assembly together, put it back in the mount, mount it on your camera, focus to the closest point you want to achieve, unscrew it from the mount part without changing the focus and then mark where the stop screw hole is, this is how much you need to remove.

So that other thing I'm struggling a bit with is the lens module. What I noticed was that the rear triplet was slightly unscrewed, the shim is pretty thick and the fine adjustment stand off was on its far out side. I though that can't be right! .. check:
http://ussrphoto.com/Wiki/Content/files/1570/Jupiter_focal_length_adjustment.pdf
I screwed the rear triplet all the way back in and the stand off ring as far in as I could. I still can't reach infinity at f/1.5 (I couldn't before either) and the lens has some front focus that starts showing at 1.5m already and is quite heavy at around 3m (20 cm maybe). Well the closest focus seems to be okish (see pic --> 70cm f/1.5, focused at the butterfly wing)

I'm not sure if I have to reduce the shim thickness or if the focal length is still so much too long. I have the feeling that I have front focus all the way thru the focus range, so I guess i will start with thinner shims.

Also the aperture ring is stuck .. like glued on the lens module so I can't align it with the little red dot mark 🙁

MOST IMPORTANT TIP .. DO NOT LOSE THE LITTLE SCREWS (yes I'm yelling) - a magnet and a clean place is your friend

 

[k__43]

ok .. same shot a bit bigger than that attachment .. who said bokeh??
Untitled by Kay K, on Flickr

 

[Wulfthari]

I think you messed up your lens.

I never registered a Soviet lens, let alone my J-3, and they all worked fine with my Leicas and Japanese RF, these are some shots with my Canon L1:

 

[johannielscom]

That tripod shot doesn't look fine to me at all though wulfthari. It's a few centimeters close-focused, assuming you aimed for the screw head.

Per Brian Sweeney (who was here many moons ago), the J-3 when shot wide open at closest focus is front focusing several centimeters, and hardly any two lenses have a similar focus error to begin with.

Two reasons for that: the Jupiter 50mm lens effectively is a 52.4mm lens (Contax standard focal length, adapted to LTM lenses 1:1 by the Russians while using looted Contax factory machinery after WWII), Leica standard lenses are 51,6mm. This 0,8mm focal length difference also is conveyed in the focus travel, focus shifts throughout the focus range as you focus at different distances.
A second issue is the Sonnar design, even when the focus travel is perfectly Leica-linear, the lens shifts focus slightly. Later Sonnar designs greatly depend on increased coating quality to correct that shift, increased contrast masks the focus shift in modern Zeiss Sonnar lenses but it's still there. But the older J-3 and J-8 lenses didn't have that coating so they suffered from focus shift more.

These two factors (combined with bad quality control in the factories at later production dates) contributed to the bad rep of the Jupiter 50mm and 85mm lenses. While in fact they can be good lenses, and the design is sound to begin with. Zeiss made it work on the Contax bodies, right!?

At bigger distances, the increased DOF often makes up for the focus error. The J-3s and J-8s mostly were optimised for infinity focus only. Meaning that the focus shift got worse and worse towards the closer focused distances.

Brian did the math and found out that if the lens was optimised for close focus wide open (what Kay is working at here), the DOF would still cover any infinity focus error. Optimising the lens for close focus wide open is done easiest when you slightly increase shim thickness on the J-3. The optical block (I love that term 😉 ) needs to be screwed out, the shim thickness increased with ~0.3mm (aluminium tape that plumbers etc use is very good to use for that) and presto! a J-3 that is spot on close up, wide open and still covers its distance towards infinity.

But it requires a lens that is within certain tolerances to begin with and some lenses were really hacked together to meet required production quantities. In which case, more drastic measures are required...
Kay, good luck at getting the lens on the mark! Close focused at least it nails it now!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't think anyone would file Summilux to get it focusing before 1M. So, I never did for Jupiters. Shimming for M of J-3 and J-8 wasn't something very complicated. But every time I did, those micro-screws ended up falling on the floor. 🙂

This is real world pictures at 1.5. Scans of darkroom prints:

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Fascinating but " ...the Russians while using looted Contax factory machinery after WWII" worries me. Where did you get that from?

Regards, David

 

[johannielscom]

Hi,

Fascinating but " ...the Russians while using looted Contax factory machinery after WWII" worries me. Where did you get that from?

Regards, David

The Kiev rangefinder camera is a near carbon copy of the pre-war German Contax II camera. The Soviets seized The Zeiss Ikon plants in Dresden and Jena totally intact at the end of the war. Some of the Zeiss manufacturing equipment was shipped to the Soviet Union -- some was later returned to East Germany. Production of the Kiev II began in 1947. Many of the early Kievs contained a lot of "liberated" German parts.

Found on http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-1887505578.

It's common knowledge the Russians in 1945 relocated German plants and engineers to Kiev, to compensate for the Russian camera manufacture being destroyed by the Germans in 1942.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Looted is wrong word. Relocation was done officially.
But Arsenal in Kiev has nothing to do with KMZ in Moscow, where Jupiters were designed and some earlier copies were manufactured with German glass.

 

[johannielscom]

Looted is wrong word. Relocation was done officially.
But Arsenal in Kiev has nothing to do with KMZ in Moscow, where Jupiters were designed and some earlier copies were manufactured with German glass.

The Jupiter 50's were not designed in Moscow.
They were designed in Dresden as Carl Zeiss Sonnar lenses, the exact same 2.0/50mm and 1.5/50mm lenses that later became Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-3. The original ones were being designed for the Contax rangefinder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_Sonnar tells you all about it.
At the beginning or WWII, the former Carl Zeiss employee who oversaw the production of cameras and lenses for the Nazi military forces made sure that the ordered Leicas were fitted with Carl Zeiss LTM lenses so his former employer would at least make a profit on the lenses.

The relocation was made official long time after it was carried out. The relocation was started before the negotiations with the German on repair payments were concluded and as such it was a war loot. The US got away with rocket science technology from Berlin (and Werner von Braun), also looted.

On the extensive Soviet operation to relocate materials and people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim and on the Allied operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsos_Mission

 

[k__43]

History session is ON
LOL


Wulfthari .. I don't know where your focus was aimed there but I agree with Johan, it seems your lens is front focusing a good bit at close focus. If it catches up till infinity chances are you focal length is too long and the lens is shimmed towards infinity. It would be nice to see if you can hit an eye at closest focus or if you get the nose tip instead. My lens gets somewhere between the eyebrows and the eye. Well it is more visible on a sensor shot than on film anyway.
Just read that pdf I linked to. My lens did not reach infinity when i got it so I messed up nothing, also what I did to the lens cell so far is reversible.

Kostja, nice examples - your J3 is definitely less blurry than mine. I can't believe that power pole base is shot at f/1.5.
The difference between a Summilux and a Jupiter-3 is the price! If a v2 summilux would cost as much as the J3 I wouldn't bother with that crappy aluminum piece of garbage. AND I would still try to change close focus if it would be as easy! Trust me, there are many other nice lenses out there I'd love to own but the 1m often is a deal breaker to me.

 

[k__43]

OK .. just checked again .. I am almost spot on at 0,7m and have ca. 1cm front focus at a 1m. I'd love someone to comment on my initial thought.
Is this just because the shim is a bit too thick (I mean the front focus error seems to be linearly growing with the distance) or is the focal length too long?

 

[David Hughes]

Hmmm, so I guess the Yalta conference was an internet myth and FDR and Churchill and Stalin never got together, and so on. History is fascinating isn't it? especially after the event.

But I often wonder if the Zeiss stuff and staff taken to the US zone was 'looted' or what? Probably 'rescued' knowing politics...

Regards, David

 

[ForestCap]

I have five J-8s and one J-3. The two black J-8s I have behave the same on both Zorki-6 and Canon LTM mount bodies, spot on focus 1m f/2, never needed shimming.

My J-3 is another story, it didn't even focus to infinity on either soviet nor Leica standard bodies, I had to reassemble and adjust a lot of things to fix that, for instance there are two holes to fit the focus restriction bolt inside the lens! Apparently some factory worker or previews owner had fun with this lens. I had to move it to the other hole to make it focus properly, together with some other fiddling. But in the end I made it have spot on focus at 1m f/2, on both my Zorki-6 and Canon LTM bodies.

It will be interesting to test these "problematic lenses" on calibrated Soviet bodies before shim them for Leica standard bodies. I bet they would more or less have focus problem on Soviet bodies too.

 

[k__43]

Oh, right. I guess I'm lucky that will never get a Russian LTM camera ever again 🙂

 

[johannielscom]

Hmmm, so I guess the Yalta conference was an internet myth and FDR and Churchill and Stalin never got together, and so on. History is fascinating isn't it? especially after the event.

But I often wonder if the Zeiss stuff and staff taken to the US zone was 'looted' or what? Probably 'rescued' knowing politics...

Regards, David

David,

Yalta was a conference on how to govern Europe after the war. Reparation payments were not discussed in full.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations briefly tells about the war reparations discussed at Potsdam Conference, which concluded August 2nd 1945.

By that time, the US, UK, France and Soviets had already seized many assets, technology, machinery, etc. Which technically makes it looting from all allied forces. Anything taken after the Potsdam Conference that also was agreed upon during the conference is reparation payments, anything taken before is simple war loot.


/History mode OFF 😉

 

[Wulfthari]

Hi,

Fascinating but " ...the Russians while using looted Contax factory machinery after WWII" worries me. Where did you get that from?

Regards, David

It is well known as all these lenses were taken from Carl Zeiss Jena.

However the difference is negligible, Leica 50mm are in reality 51.9 (at least my Summicron DR is engraved as such) and the difference is negligible.

Focus shift is another story and it's inherent to the Sonnar design.

Looted is wrong word. Relocation was done officially.
But Arsenal in Kiev has nothing to do with KMZ in Moscow, where Jupiters were designed and some earlier copies were manufactured with German glass.

Ko.Fe is right on this the J-3 was recalculated by GOI probably to compensate the different material and the coating.

http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-1123596578

Original Sonnar:

Jupiter 3:

Note the slightly concave fifth element of the J3.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Well, I can't argue with the internet but, FWIW, I was objecting to the word "looted" and the way it is only applied to the USSR forces.

I often wonder what the USSR would have done in the optics line if they had been left alone in 1941 and gone on to develop things their way but that's a big "what if?" isn't it? And that would have led to them not being cold shouldered later and, perhaps, having access to the latest technology...

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

It is well known as all these lenses were taken from Carl Zeiss Jena.

However the difference is negligible, Leica 50mm are in reality 51.9 (at least my Summicron DR is engraved as such) and the difference is negligible.

Focus shift is another story and it's inherent to the Sonnar design.



Ko.Fe is right on this the J-3 was recalculated by GOI probably to compensate the different material and the coating.

http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-1123596578

Original Sonnar:

Jupiter 3:

Note the slightly concave fifth element of the J3.

Interesting, thanks but I thought at one time all Leica lenses were code marked to show the deviation from the nominal focal length.

Anyway, thanks for the detail about the J-3 I seem to have a decent version of it, although a little new lubricant would improve it.

Regards, David

 

[Wulfthari]

Hi,

Well, I can't argue with the internet but, FWIW, I was objecting to the word "looted" and the way it is only applied to the USSR forces.

Everybody looted Germany after the war, and the countries that were looted by them during the occupation (France,Benelux, USSR, Italy, Poland) had more right to do so.

It is very well known that CZJ was looted by the Americans and when the Soviets arrived they found very little, they had to order the German engineers to remake the drawings of the Contax because the originals were "lost".

Interesting, thanks but I thought at one time all Leica lenses were code marked to show the deviation from the nominal focal length.

Anyway, thanks for the detail about the J-3 I seem to have a decent version of it, although a little new lubricant would improve it.

Regards, David

I can't speak for other lenses, but DR Summicrons are easy to be disassembled and they are engraved because if you mix the upper part of a lens with the base of another with different focal length the focusing error will of course be pretty big.

Mine is engraved as such and it appears 51.9 was the most common focal lenght for DRs:

Regarding the pic of the tripod, I don't know if it was a focusing error on my side or perhaps a little misalignment in the rangefinder of the L1, the camera had just arrived and that's a test pic. The Vespa shot however seems ok.

This is another wild bokeh test:

[/IMG]

That's the lens at f8 or so:

 

[johannielscom]

FWIW, the Jupiter-3, Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-9 models that were made until about 1954 often had remaining Carl Zeiss stock used where possible.

I used to have a Jupiter-9 with a 1.8mtr minimal focus distance and its paperwork with it that stated the lens was 83.4mm, which is what it should be to function correctly on a Leica.
The 85mm Sonnar had a 1.8mtr minimal focus and also was 83.4mm effectively. I sold the lens to Dirk in China and wonder why I ever did that...

Currently I still own a 1954 Jupiter-8 that has blue coatings (Russian) on some elements and honey coating (Zeiss) on others. Pretty sharp lens considering the condition it's in.

There are a lot of fakes for early serial numbers on the internet by now, quite regularly I see early numbered Jupiter lenses or even Zeiss Sonnar lenses with blue coating. Must have had parts swapped out.