pippy
Established
Hello, everyone.
Newbie to these pages so please make allowances...
Has anyone ever owned/seen/read about/heard about/'other' a Jupiter 11 with a focal length of 11.5cm/115mm?
I only ask because a search for the same lens in 135/135 f/l gets 175,000 hits in 0.56 seconds but the 11.5/115 gets not one return.
Here's the reason behind my enquiry and thanks for any info offered;
Newbie to these pages so please make allowances...
Has anyone ever owned/seen/read about/heard about/'other' a Jupiter 11 with a focal length of 11.5cm/115mm?
I only ask because a search for the same lens in 135/135 f/l gets 175,000 hits in 0.56 seconds but the 11.5/115 gets not one return.
Here's the reason behind my enquiry and thanks for any info offered;
Attachments
seany65
Well-known
Hello, pippy and welcome to the forum.
I have very limited knowledge about jupiter lenses, hopefully someone else will be able to help.
If not, I'll ask on the 'ussrphoto' forum. It can be a fairly quiet place, but they may be able to help, with them being 'specialists' as it were, in the field of iron curtain cameras.
I have very limited knowledge about jupiter lenses, hopefully someone else will be able to help.
If not, I'll ask on the 'ussrphoto' forum. It can be a fairly quiet place, but they may be able to help, with them being 'specialists' as it were, in the field of iron curtain cameras.
wolves3012
Veteran
I don't claim to be an expert but I've never heard of it. Just wondering if it could be a mistake in the markings? Can you verify it really is 115mm?
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Seems like a regular 13,5cm Jupiter-11 with an engraving error, but it is hard to tell without a few shots more from the side etc. I've never heard of a Jupiter-11 in 11,5cm myself and I've been around for a while.
Nice find! If you find that 11,5cm Jupiter-11 gets you no hits at all, you still have something very rare and collectable I'd say!
Nice find! If you find that 11,5cm Jupiter-11 gets you no hits at all, you still have something very rare and collectable I'd say!
pippy
Established
Thank you for the welcome and the replies.
As far as the authenticity aspect is concerned there is absolutely no possibility of the lock-ring/name ring having been doctored to 11.5 from 13.5. It IS possible the lens numbering could have been a mistake if lenses from this time (1960) were numbered/engraved on an individual basis one digit at a time? After all; the serial numbers all have to be different from one example to the next so perhaps the engraver responsible cut two 1s instead of a 1 and a 3?.
To make absolutely sure it is the same / different from a 'true' 13.5 I must do a back-to-back test with such a lens. Happily I have a 13.5 but, sadly (I'm embarrassed to admit) at the moment I have no rolls of film....
Thanks again and I look forward to any new theories which may be put forward!
Philip.
As far as the authenticity aspect is concerned there is absolutely no possibility of the lock-ring/name ring having been doctored to 11.5 from 13.5. It IS possible the lens numbering could have been a mistake if lenses from this time (1960) were numbered/engraved on an individual basis one digit at a time? After all; the serial numbers all have to be different from one example to the next so perhaps the engraver responsible cut two 1s instead of a 1 and a 3?.
To make absolutely sure it is the same / different from a 'true' 13.5 I must do a back-to-back test with such a lens. Happily I have a 13.5 but, sadly (I'm embarrassed to admit) at the moment I have no rolls of film....
Thanks again and I look forward to any new theories which may be put forward!
Philip.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Must be an engraving error. Just missing to switch the template between letters would create that double 1 rather than 13, so that is among the most trivial and frequent errors they make.
Besides, any significant focus difference like this needs a different helical, as the Contax mount is angle coupled - there is no way they could tweak a 13.5cm lens to 11.5 just by changes to the glass, spacing and a changed curve of the cam (as might be possible in LTM). Such a lens would have to be a complete redesign with its own set of tools, and if they went to that effort, they would have given it a extra number within the Jupiter series (and have made far more than one)...
Besides, any significant focus difference like this needs a different helical, as the Contax mount is angle coupled - there is no way they could tweak a 13.5cm lens to 11.5 just by changes to the glass, spacing and a changed curve of the cam (as might be possible in LTM). Such a lens would have to be a complete redesign with its own set of tools, and if they went to that effort, they would have given it a extra number within the Jupiter series (and have made far more than one)...
zuikologist
.........................
Pippy please let us know how you get on, given there are no hits for a J11 115mm lens the engraving error cannot be common. Possibly a prototype lens?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Welcome aboard; that's an interesting start to your posts...
If you've a 13.5cm and the 11.5cm lenses then putting them on the kitchen scales might give you the answer as I doubt if they would both weigh the same (and it saves you buying film FTTB).
Regards, David
Welcome aboard; that's an interesting start to your posts...
If you've a 13.5cm and the 11.5cm lenses then putting them on the kitchen scales might give you the answer as I doubt if they would both weigh the same (and it saves you buying film FTTB).
Regards, David
seany65
Well-known
pippy, I hope you don't mind, but I've started a new thread on the other forum I told you about just in case they can help.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
As I already mentioned, focal length changes are unusually complex on a Contax outer mount - there are barely any one-offs in Contax outer mount as the required tooling for a unique helical was seriously expensive in pre CAD days, nothing even Zeiss engaged in unless they intended to make at least a run of several hundred...
pippy
Established
Thanks to those who have posted replies.
Yes; on reflection the 'engraver's error' idea is the only one tenable.
I undertook David's suggestion and the '60 "11.5cm" weighs in at 279g and my '77 135mm weighs 280g so this further advances this line of thought.
I look forward to shooting some frames with them both to confirm this once and for all. I haven't used film since 2009 and have only very recently - as in ten days ago - bought my first FSU camera (the '55 KNEB II pictured in the OP) but have been bitten by the Kiev bug and have since bought another six...four of which have yet to be delivered. In light of this I suspect I'll be visiting here regularly to learn from those much better informed on such matters than myself. If there is any interest in seeing them when they arrive I can post some snaps.
Thanks again for the help, suggestions and advice.
Philip.
Yes; on reflection the 'engraver's error' idea is the only one tenable.
I undertook David's suggestion and the '60 "11.5cm" weighs in at 279g and my '77 135mm weighs 280g so this further advances this line of thought.
I look forward to shooting some frames with them both to confirm this once and for all. I haven't used film since 2009 and have only very recently - as in ten days ago - bought my first FSU camera (the '55 KNEB II pictured in the OP) but have been bitten by the Kiev bug and have since bought another six...four of which have yet to be delivered. In light of this I suspect I'll be visiting here regularly to learn from those much better informed on such matters than myself. If there is any interest in seeing them when they arrive I can post some snaps.
Thanks again for the help, suggestions and advice.
Philip.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Can you hear all the cheers?
Because, at last, we've found a real genuine QC issue with a camera from the old USSR. ;-)
Regards, David
Can you hear all the cheers?
Because, at last, we've found a real genuine QC issue with a camera from the old USSR. ;-)
Regards, David
seany65
Well-known
Pfffft, "Quality control issue" my foot!
The engraver decided to do this on purpose so that soemone in the future would have a very rare lens that was worth talking about!
The engraver decided to do this on purpose so that soemone in the future would have a very rare lens that was worth talking about!
David Hughes
David Hughes
Could be or else someone in Kiev didn't like the Russians and this one was going to Russia.
Regards, David
Regards, David