nation_of_pomation
Established
Hi all,
I see a lot of really tentative-sounding reviews when people talk about the Jupiter-3, but I've not seen anyone say online they were delighted or mortified by their results with it. Does anyone have a testimonial (preferably with examples) for or against the J-3, in LTM/M39 or Contax mount?
I see a lot of really tentative-sounding reviews when people talk about the Jupiter-3, but I've not seen anyone say online they were delighted or mortified by their results with it. Does anyone have a testimonial (preferably with examples) for or against the J-3, in LTM/M39 or Contax mount?
Boris Stupak
Well-known
I have numerous Sweeney calibrated J-3's and one Sweeney-modified 1949 ZK Sonnar which is one of the best lenses I have ever used.
I use them on my Leica M9 with an M-adapter, and I also use an Amedeo adapter for Contax mount J-3's.
The problem is that almost all of them need shimming and/or other repairs. Some of the ones you get from Ukraine or Russia are real basket cases, all scratched or have been assembled from parts, or butchered by "repairmen".
You cannot stick them on your camera "as-is" and expect good results, in the vast majority of examples.
I use them on my Leica M9 with an M-adapter, and I also use an Amedeo adapter for Contax mount J-3's.
The problem is that almost all of them need shimming and/or other repairs. Some of the ones you get from Ukraine or Russia are real basket cases, all scratched or have been assembled from parts, or butchered by "repairmen".
You cannot stick them on your camera "as-is" and expect good results, in the vast majority of examples.
brainwood
Registered Film User
I have a Jupiter 3 and its one of my favourite lenses the way it renders is very attractive to my eye. The only downsides from my point of view is the poor build quality in some examples which make finding a good one a task .
There is a thread already for examples of photos
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123588
There is a thread already for examples of photos
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123588
nation_of_pomation
Established
I am going to ask 2 silly questions but 1.) who is Sweeney? 2.) can someone explain exactly what shimming is?
And thanks for the link!
Boris Stupak
Well-known
Brian Sweeney is a former RFF member who is an expert on Jupiter-3 lenses. He used to repair and align them for other RFF members. He is no longer here (but he is on other forums). I don't know if he is still working on lenses for other people.
"Shimming" is adjusting the focus point of the lens by applying very thin foil washers to the optical block and lens mount until focus is corrected.
Try Googling "jupiter-3 lens shimming" and "jupiter-3 lens sweeney" for starters.
"Shimming" is adjusting the focus point of the lens by applying very thin foil washers to the optical block and lens mount until focus is corrected.
Try Googling "jupiter-3 lens shimming" and "jupiter-3 lens sweeney" for starters.
nation_of_pomation
Established
So, essentially, shimming is necessary because of the fraction of a millimeter difference that sometimes exists between Soviet-made lenses and Leica/Canon/most 3rd party lenses in the same mount? Is the internal distance that is sometimes off worse for those using the lenses on bodies that aren't FSU cameras, or is it a universally-needed correction if the sample isn't "perfect"?
Boris Stupak
Well-known
If you are going to use the lens on a camera with live view, like a Sony Nex, then focus shimming is not critical, you can see when it is in focus on the screen. (unless the lens has other gross problems like elements being installed backwards)
If you are going to use them on a rangefinder Leica, then you must shim them, 99% of the time.
In the FSU, it was common to take a camera and lens directly to a repairman after purchase. The Jupiter-3 lens would then be shimmed for that specific camera and would be OK only for that camera. But it was usually not Leica-standard.
If you are going to use them on a rangefinder Leica, then you must shim them, 99% of the time.
In the FSU, it was common to take a camera and lens directly to a repairman after purchase. The Jupiter-3 lens would then be shimmed for that specific camera and would be OK only for that camera. But it was usually not Leica-standard.
nation_of_pomation
Established
Does the same go for Canon rangefinders, since they're made to Leica specs?
Boris Stupak
Well-known
Isn't that obvious?
nation_of_pomation
Established
Yes, sorry, I just wanted to clarify. I've seen a lot of people argue about whether certain cameras are really truly the same mount, even though they have technically have a 39mm thread, so sometimes I get facts mixed up with misinformation.
ferider
Veteran
Leica, Nikon (and Canon) rangefinder use 51.6mm as their standard focal length. Contax uses 52.3mm.
Very early Jupiter lenses (up to 1952/53 or so) used the Leica standard and then switched to the Contax standard. Which means that a younger good Jupiter lens is either (1) out of focus at close focus (around 6 inches at 1m) and accurate at infinity, or (2) accurate at close focus and soft at infinity, or (3) somewhere in between. Brian used to adjust later Jupiter lenses via shims to (2).
If you want to use a Jupiter 3 on your Canon P, you can either live with (2), or buy an LTM copy from 1952 or older (typically they have Zeiss glass, and/or are marked as ZK), or buy a Contax mount lens with a Contax Helicoid adapter as sold by Amadeo.
Note that there is an additional problem of large manufacturing tolerance, basket cases, etc., as Boris stated above.
I had several copies. The one that performed best was a ZK copy. It was spot on from 1m to infinity.
That being said they are not so cheap anymore, and even a well adjusted lens is still cheaply built out of aluminum, etc. If you like the signature, you might consider looking for other lenses with similar design, as for example Canon 50/1.5 or Nikkor 50/1.4, both the same Sonnar design, but heavily brass and chrome built and all around fun to use. Like this:
Good luck,
Roland.
Very early Jupiter lenses (up to 1952/53 or so) used the Leica standard and then switched to the Contax standard. Which means that a younger good Jupiter lens is either (1) out of focus at close focus (around 6 inches at 1m) and accurate at infinity, or (2) accurate at close focus and soft at infinity, or (3) somewhere in between. Brian used to adjust later Jupiter lenses via shims to (2).
If you want to use a Jupiter 3 on your Canon P, you can either live with (2), or buy an LTM copy from 1952 or older (typically they have Zeiss glass, and/or are marked as ZK), or buy a Contax mount lens with a Contax Helicoid adapter as sold by Amadeo.
Note that there is an additional problem of large manufacturing tolerance, basket cases, etc., as Boris stated above.
I had several copies. The one that performed best was a ZK copy. It was spot on from 1m to infinity.
That being said they are not so cheap anymore, and even a well adjusted lens is still cheaply built out of aluminum, etc. If you like the signature, you might consider looking for other lenses with similar design, as for example Canon 50/1.5 or Nikkor 50/1.4, both the same Sonnar design, but heavily brass and chrome built and all around fun to use. Like this:
Good luck,
Roland.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Last year, I temporarily left the world of rangefinders. Sold all my gear. With the exception of my J-3, a 1953 model worked on by Brian. He told me it was one of the best he'd come across.
I kept it because I think it's an awesome lens, worth more than I could ever sell it for. And I also knew I'd have trouble finding one just as good when the day came that I would buy another rangefinder.
It may not be the sharpest lens - not by today's standards. But it is plenty sharp for portrait work.
I kept it because I think it's an awesome lens, worth more than I could ever sell it for. And I also knew I'd have trouble finding one just as good when the day came that I would buy another rangefinder.
It may not be the sharpest lens - not by today's standards. But it is plenty sharp for portrait work.
alphonse2501
Established
Leica, Nikon (and Canon) rangefinder use 51.6mm as their standard focal length. Contax uses 52.3mm.
Very early Jupiter lenses (up to 1952/53 or so) used the Leica standard and then switched to the Contax standard. Which means that a younger good Jupiter lens is either (1) out of focus at close focus (around 6 inches at 1m) and accurate at infinity, or (2) accurate at close focus and soft at infinity, or (3) somewhere in between. Brian used to adjust later Jupiter lenses via shims to (2).
If you want to use a Jupiter 3 on your Canon P, you can either live with (2), or buy an LTM copy from 1952 or older (typically they have Zeiss glass, and/or are marked as ZK), or buy a Contax mount lens with a Contax Helicoid adapter as sold by Amadeo.
Note that there is an additional problem of large manufacturing tolerance, basket cases, etc., as Boris stated above.
I had several copies. The one that performed best was a ZK copy.
That being said they are not so cheap anymore, and even a well adjusted lens is still cheaply built out of aluminum, etc. If you like the signature, you might consider looking for other lenses with similar design, as for example Canon 50/1.5 or Nikkor 50/1.4, both the same Sonnar design, biut heavily brass and chrome built and all around fun to use. Like this:
Good luck,
Roland.
Amedeo Contax adapter's price is $269. You may just buy Kiev 4 or later Kiev body to use Jupiter-3. Mr. Yuri on fedka.com can answer your question about Kiev.
After I bought Jupiter-3 for my Kiev 4, Jupiter-8M become less to use recently.
Boris Stupak
Well-known
I get more pleasure using my correctly adjusted J-3 lenses than with most of my more modern lenses. I have a new 50mm f1.5 Zeiss (Cosina) ZK Sonnar, but I like using my 1949 version much better.
Part of it is just using such an historic item with a digital camera.
PS: I don't feel my Sweeney adjusted lenses are particularly soft at infinity. They are perfectly usable.
Part of it is just using such an historic item with a digital camera.
PS: I don't feel my Sweeney adjusted lenses are particularly soft at infinity. They are perfectly usable.
nation_of_pomation
Established
The sad thing about my Canon is I've had to have it serviced and a month later I still haven't gotten to use it. And you're right that it seems like they're more expensive than they have been in the past, but a good Canon 50mm 1.4 can run upwards of $450, a Nikkor version in the thousands, and even the Voigtlander Cosina 50mm 1.5 is aroun $600+. As a broke college student, I think I'd be satisfied getting a Jupiter-3 at $200ish when I can afford it and only shoot it on my Zorkis or Fed if the accuracy is that off.
Boris Stupak
Well-known
Have some patience. Sweeny-modified lenses sometimes turn up in the RFF classifieds or on eBay. You can sometimes get a bargain.
Also keep your eye out for a Canon 50mm f1.5 lens. They sometimes come with Canon RF cameras and if you know what you're looking for on eBay they are sleepers. The Canon f1.5 is a direct Sonnar copy.
Also keep your eye out for a Canon 50mm f1.5 lens. They sometimes come with Canon RF cameras and if you know what you're looking for on eBay they are sleepers. The Canon f1.5 is a direct Sonnar copy.
nation_of_pomation
Established
Thanks for the tip! I'll definitely keep my eye out. You have all been a great help.
ferider
Veteran
Understood. It's just very frustrating to try several lenses that don't work properly in the end (at least it was for me). Remember that your time and experiments are worth something, too.
I bought a mint Canon 50/1.5 with original box, caps, etc., for US 350 last Nov, from KEH. A Nikkor is a bit more expensive, but should not run more than US 400 in user condition, if you are patient.
The queen of affordable, good 50mm lenses for your Canon P is the Canon 50/1.8 though. If you are patient you can buy it below US 200. Not a Sonnar, but a great performer and very well built.
Roland.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Most importantly is to get one with good glass. Sometime ago I sold a very nice example with mint glass to a fellow member. Mind you, I'm not in the 'Sweeney class', since I don't want to drill holes in the barrel of lenses; I want to keep them original so they can work on a Leica as well as on my Zorki's and FEDs!. I still have 5 very nice samples of the J-3 with perfect glass and they all are tack sharp on my Leica's. I think that is because they all are of later make, i.e. after 1958. Somehow in or shortly after that year the barrel design was changed and it seems to me that only lenses from before 1959 have to be adjusted to work correctly on a Leica. My only lens that needed some adjustment was the one from 1956. I just changed the shim and it worked out perfect.
Don't buy cheap lenses from exotical Ebay resourses, they come with scratched up lenses.
My most favored J3 is the one of the latest production year 1987 since it has beautiful amber coatings and a black barrel which looks much better IMHO than the ones made with the bare aluminium lens barrels: it provides also more contrast than early lenses.
Don't buy cheap lenses from exotical Ebay resourses, they come with scratched up lenses.
My most favored J3 is the one of the latest production year 1987 since it has beautiful amber coatings and a black barrel which looks much better IMHO than the ones made with the bare aluminium lens barrels: it provides also more contrast than early lenses.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Another myth in the making: the modification that Brian did required no 'drilling holes in the barrels of lenses'.
The early models of Jupiters had several screws in the barrel from the factory, most significantly two screws with different diameter heads, seated in line. Later on, they changed them to smaller screws, exactly like the lens that you yourself are showing in the post above. The bigger screw then was omitted.
The early models of Jupiters had several screws in the barrel from the factory, most significantly two screws with different diameter heads, seated in line. Later on, they changed them to smaller screws, exactly like the lens that you yourself are showing in the post above. The bigger screw then was omitted.