David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
If it is new then it should be in a box with a black plastic case and rear and front caps and a passport and some of that funny brown glossy wrapping paper. I think they had an instruction leaflet too,wrapped round it all in the black plastic tub.
So idle curiosity makes me wonder if it came like NOS or does it just look new?
Trouble is, there's so much nonsense on the internet that encourages people to do things that are beyond them, so it may not be the factory's fault.
Regards, David
If it is new then it should be in a box with a black plastic case and rear and front caps and a passport and some of that funny brown glossy wrapping paper. I think they had an instruction leaflet too,wrapped round it all in the black plastic tub.
So idle curiosity makes me wonder if it came like NOS or does it just look new?
Trouble is, there's so much nonsense on the internet that encourages people to do things that are beyond them, so it may not be the factory's fault.
Regards, David
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It is NiB, then. 
Looking at the pictures provided I could see what the lens was worked on. Aluminium exterior was recently polished.
Looking at the pictures provided I could see what the lens was worked on. Aluminium exterior was recently polished.
Huss
Veteran
It was advertised as NOS not NIB.
But it definitely should have been classified as NAB
(New Already Broken)
But it definitely should have been classified as NAB
(New Already Broken)
f16sunshine
Moderator
Don't give up on these Huss.
I ended up getting a late back one.
It's uglier than the silver 1950's lens(es) but works great.
It's a unique lens. A less modern Biogon if you will.
Great for Black and white and adds a vintage lo-fi feel to color negative film.
FWIW, I think my black one was $70 here on the forum.
Worth the extra cost to have a trusted member already having tested the lens and can confirm it's viability.
I'm looking for a Helios 103 with the same prior usage.
A few extra bucks going to a field tester is worth it in my opinion
I ended up getting a late back one.
It's uglier than the silver 1950's lens(es) but works great.
It's a unique lens. A less modern Biogon if you will.
Great for Black and white and adds a vintage lo-fi feel to color negative film.
FWIW, I think my black one was $70 here on the forum.
Worth the extra cost to have a trusted member already having tested the lens and can confirm it's viability.
I'm looking for a Helios 103 with the same prior usage.
A few extra bucks going to a field tester is worth it in my opinion
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
Huss
Veteran
Nice shots. The J-12 definitely is a great lens as long as it is not broken like mine!
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
It is NiB, then.
Looking at the pictures provided I could see what the lens was worked on. Aluminium exterior was recently polished.
Yeah, I was thinking exactly the same thing. MUCH too shiny, even if it was NOS.
I understand the difficulty in giving up on a lens-in-hand. Especially when it just looks so nice on the outside. I have several of these lenses. I have to make it a point not to look at them.... or I just end up frustrated
I really should get rid of them, but see my point above: they just look so nice they just should work well. They must... and I go round and round.
Now, I looked in my "Barnack bag" this morning. There's a Leica IIIa and 1977 vintage J-12 in there, loaded up with Foma classic 100. I'm going to take that thing out and about this weekend.
David Murphy
Veteran
I had one J-12 LTM version literally fall apart in my hands. It was a newer one.
I've had somewhat better luck with the Contax mount version.
Most of the ex-FSU stuff is like that - it's hit or miss on quality.
I've had somewhat better luck with the Contax mount version.
Most of the ex-FSU stuff is like that - it's hit or miss on quality.
Huss
Veteran
Yeah, I was thinking exactly the same thing. MUCH too shiny, even if it was NOS.
I understand the difficulty in giving up on a lens-in-hand. Especially when it just looks so nice on the outside. I have several of these lenses. I have to make it a point not to look at them.... or I just end up frustrated
I really should get rid of them, but see my point above: they just look so nice they just should work well. They must... and I go round and round.
Now, I looked in my "Barnack bag" this morning. There's a Leica IIIa and 1977 vintage J-12 in there, loaded up with Foma classic 100. I'm going to take that thing out and about this weekend.
It's a case of cutting my losses. I paid $40 for a shiny trinket. Worse things have happened.
I don't have much desire in paying more money than this thing is worth to fix it, I have plenty of 35mm lenses that work perfectly! If it was an easy, cheap fix then sure. But I can't see how it would not be a lot more than $40 to fix this nugget.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Iv'e got two J-12 LTM's, and they both have something the matter with them, though the second one functions correctly.
The first one I got from a former RFF member along with a Zorki-6 he buggered up. The J-12 was in about the same condition, with some looseness in the construction.
The second J-12 came with a Zorki-3 along with a J-8. It's biggest problem is it wouldn't fit on the Zorki-6 (my replacement for the buggered up one that is), and on the Z-3 the rangefinder follower lever drags on the lens. It also had a couple of spots where the paint had worn off the sides of the rear elements, which I think caused some internal light reflections inside the film chamber.
I repainted the second J-12, but haven't used it again yet. When I wrote earlier about the problems with the lens I was told that the LTM versions were not really optimized for that role, and are thus more suspect as to whether you'll get a good one. Especially if someone has been inside to "fix" it.
I hope you got your J-12 issues sorted out, Huss, as when my lens wasn't flaring, or getting stuck on the rangefinder follower, it performed quite nicely.
Zorki-3, J-12, Ilford HP-5 Plus 400
Empty Service Bays by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Gravel Neck by P F McFarland, on Flickr
BBRR Headquarters by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Good luck!
PF
The first one I got from a former RFF member along with a Zorki-6 he buggered up. The J-12 was in about the same condition, with some looseness in the construction.
The second J-12 came with a Zorki-3 along with a J-8. It's biggest problem is it wouldn't fit on the Zorki-6 (my replacement for the buggered up one that is), and on the Z-3 the rangefinder follower lever drags on the lens. It also had a couple of spots where the paint had worn off the sides of the rear elements, which I think caused some internal light reflections inside the film chamber.
I repainted the second J-12, but haven't used it again yet. When I wrote earlier about the problems with the lens I was told that the LTM versions were not really optimized for that role, and are thus more suspect as to whether you'll get a good one. Especially if someone has been inside to "fix" it.
I hope you got your J-12 issues sorted out, Huss, as when my lens wasn't flaring, or getting stuck on the rangefinder follower, it performed quite nicely.
Zorki-3, J-12, Ilford HP-5 Plus 400
Empty Service Bays by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Gravel Neck by P F McFarland, on Flickr
BBRR Headquarters by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Good luck!
PF
Huss
Veteran
Nice shots PF! Stop posting this stuff, it's gonna make me spend $$ to fix this lens!
David Murphy
Veteran
The thing I hate about the J-12 are the damn nice optics it has! That makes us suffer through the miserable mechanics. PF those are great images! The others above are cool too.
The above comments seem to backup my impression that the Contax mount J-12 version has more robust mechanics. The trouble with the Contax verison is it will not work on the Contax IIa and IIIa, the significantly more reliable of the Contax bodies (the Contax II and III are so old they tend to be unreliable and Kiev bodies typically have issues).
The above comments seem to backup my impression that the Contax mount J-12 version has more robust mechanics. The trouble with the Contax verison is it will not work on the Contax IIa and IIIa, the significantly more reliable of the Contax bodies (the Contax II and III are so old they tend to be unreliable and Kiev bodies typically have issues).
David Hughes
David Hughes
I would have said incompetent idiot mechanics who like taking to pieces things they don't understand. Given the age of the lens it has probably had several owners and been attacked several times.
FWIW, I'd get it repaired and use it. As many have said they are decent lenses with a good deal of history behind them.
Regards, David
css9450
Veteran
I've got both kinds (LTM and Kiev-mount) of J-12s and coincidentally they are both 59xxxxx serial numbers less than a couple thousand apart (even though one is KMZ and the other LZOS). Great performers. Someday though I need to be brave and re-lube the Kiev-mount lens (or find someone to do it for me) since I suspect it has the usual petrified-wax FSU lube. I shoot it on my S2!
Huss
Veteran
You would pay $200 to repair a $40 lens? When others are being sold in the $50-$100 range?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I think, David belongs to the cult sect of FSU gear tovarisch. In their religion you have to pay to repair for the lens from scammer. While most of us who are not religions about gear will let eBay, PayPal to deal with scum selling not working gear.
BTW, "the others in 50-100 range" will need re-lube of focus and aperture rings parts. 99% of them.
David Hughes
David Hughes
No, I'm an engineer. I didn't state the obvious about returning it because it was obvious that it ought to be returned as not as described.
And the second blindingly obvious thing I haven't mentioned because I am being polite. Alas, plain truths go down badly on the internet.
Secondly, who on earth spends, or perhaps charges, that much to check and repair a lens? My experience with Leicas is totally different...
Thirdly, would you say the same if we were talking about CZ Sonnar or Leitz Summicron?
FWIW, it's a lens, it can produce good results and so ought to be looked after. I can't see the point in buying something and not using it and using it means getting it right.
And as an engineer I'd expect something of that age to need a little attention before it gives its best.
And as for being one of the товарищи, that brings politics into it, like calling others Nazis, and this forum is, surely, about photography and cameras and lenses?
Regards, David
PS (EDIT) It's a good looking lens and that means a lot to some people. From the engineering point of view, looks are unimportant but this is a forum and we try to cater for all tastes.
And the second blindingly obvious thing I haven't mentioned because I am being polite. Alas, plain truths go down badly on the internet.
Secondly, who on earth spends, or perhaps charges, that much to check and repair a lens? My experience with Leicas is totally different...
Thirdly, would you say the same if we were talking about CZ Sonnar or Leitz Summicron?
FWIW, it's a lens, it can produce good results and so ought to be looked after. I can't see the point in buying something and not using it and using it means getting it right.
And as an engineer I'd expect something of that age to need a little attention before it gives its best.
And as for being one of the товарищи, that brings politics into it, like calling others Nazis, and this forum is, surely, about photography and cameras and lenses?
Regards, David
PS (EDIT) It's a good looking lens and that means a lot to some people. From the engineering point of view, looks are unimportant but this is a forum and we try to cater for all tastes.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Alternatives
Alternatives
Having bought a lens and been upset there are a few choices:
1, Return it and hope you get your money and extra postage back and soon. The disadvantage is that you can't leave feedback describing the seller; or rather I couldn't with some low seller in Japan and I lost the cash etc, etc...
2, Keep it; after all a bird in the hand etc. Now your choices are;-
2 a, repair it; but few have the equipment or experience or tools;
2 b, get someone else to repair it and then have a "good as new" lens with - I hope - a guarantee;
2 c, give it away or throw it in the bin and curse the seller - an expensive option;
2 d, sell it with a truthful description. Some have made more money doing this but you have to start the bidding at a few pennies and be very lucky or
2 e, sulk.
And that's the choices as I see it, they are all either expensive (2b, 2c & 2e) or risky (2a & 2d).
Regards, David
Alternatives
Having bought a lens and been upset there are a few choices:
1, Return it and hope you get your money and extra postage back and soon. The disadvantage is that you can't leave feedback describing the seller; or rather I couldn't with some low seller in Japan and I lost the cash etc, etc...
2, Keep it; after all a bird in the hand etc. Now your choices are;-
2 a, repair it; but few have the equipment or experience or tools;
2 b, get someone else to repair it and then have a "good as new" lens with - I hope - a guarantee;
2 c, give it away or throw it in the bin and curse the seller - an expensive option;
2 d, sell it with a truthful description. Some have made more money doing this but you have to start the bidding at a few pennies and be very lucky or
2 e, sulk.
And that's the choices as I see it, they are all either expensive (2b, 2c & 2e) or risky (2a & 2d).
Regards, David
Huss
Veteran
How much do you think it costs to take a lens apart that already has issues (stripped threads) that then needs collimation to make sure it focuses correctly?
It is expensive. It's not just a lube job. Collimation is a huge deal. How much do you think rebuilding and recalibrating a lens costs?
And of course we would not have this conversation if it was a CZ Sonnar or a Summicron. Those lenses are worth so much more. You could buy 10 J-12s for one old Summicron. And there's a reason for that, the Sonnar or Summicron look like they've been crafted from the highest quality materials by experts in their fields. The Jupiter looks like someone bought metal tubing, a couple of washers and a hack saw at home depot.
I'm kinda surprised you even wrote that.
There's no sulking here, it's just a lesson learned. I would not buy a Russian lens unless I could test it out in person or there is a return policy. It's not the end of the world, it was only $40!
But reading other people's experiences here, it is obvious that you are really gambling by buying these lenses. When they work they are great, but there is a high probability that you'll get a stinker.
I have enough other lenses that this stinker doesn't matter.
If you want to buy this lens from me, make me an offer! It seems that you can fix it cheap.
Scrambler
Well-known
I suspect the stripped thread and the rear elements being too far from the film plane are features of the same issue.
I know its been implied but I would state clearly for others that the perfect appearance of uncoated aluminium means use of an abrasive. And 50 years after the lens was made it means abrasive recently. I'm not really sure i want the sanded lans. YMMV.
I know its been implied but I would state clearly for others that the perfect appearance of uncoated aluminium means use of an abrasive. And 50 years after the lens was made it means abrasive recently. I'm not really sure i want the sanded lans. YMMV.