what are your favourite Jupiter and Industar lens

jan normandale

jan normandale

Film is the other way
Local time
4:47 PM
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
3,878
I'm writing this because I'm interested in these lenses and I'm unable to find much about them except the usual 'specification' stuff. I'd like to know what the RFF users think they like best from these manufacturers. There are 90mm lenses and 135 mm lenses but I'm most interested in the lenses that are 'rangefinder' style, 50mm to 15 mm. Eloquence is encouraged and photographic proof is welcome. Bragging is okay too...

thanks, Jan
 
Last edited:
interesting Gordon. I wasn't expecting a comparison of FSU lenses and German lenses. Still the quality is noteworthy. Even if the Summitar was cleaner the J8 gives a credible show of it's capabilities.

Jan

BTW ; I had a hunch you would see this thread..
 
If you ever decide on a 50, don't forget the Jupiter 8. I fell in love with it after trying the Industars (I-26, I-61 L/D). The J-8 is definitely the best of the bunch. The Industars are IMO to harsh.

The collapsible 50 (I-50 ?) is a sweet little lens, too, and collapses completely into my R-D1!

The J-9 85mm is as good as the J-8, only in a longer focal length.

The J-12 35mm is nice but my experience is that it flares badly.
 
I am currently using a J3 in my Kiev which I want to compare with the Sonnar in my IIIA, as soon as the latter gets back from its CLA, perhaps later this week (both the lens and the body are being worked over so I cannot try the Sonnar in the Kiev body). I might also try the J8 which I bought with the camera against both. I was interested to hear the comments on the J 12 with respect to flare, as one is hopefully winging its way down to Oz right now.
 
Has anyone had a chance to compare the collapsible Industar-22 or collapsible Industar-50 (a.k.a. collapsible FED-50) and the collapsible screwmount Leitz Elmar? Is there a huge quality difference between the two?

While the I-22 is coated, it seems that coated screwmount Elmars are almost impossible to find. This would give the I-22 a slight advantage in that regard (coating helps increase contrast and reduce flare, right?), though probably the Leica glass balances it out. Opinions?
 
J-12 flares sometimes, but not to the point of unusability.

My favorite Jupiter currently is J-9: an excellent portrait lens, smooth tones and creamy bokeh. The sample I've got was in the first 3000 batch manufactured (1955), and is just a pleasure to handle.

That said, I still use my black 1986 J-12 more often, but mainly because I prefer shorter focals in daily use. It can render good and sharp image (see my gallery), but was born with misaligned working distance. After some minor treatment it improved a lot at wider apertures. I passed on a 1951 silver J-12, but after seeing how the other 1950s lenses perform regret a lot.

J-8M I have leaves me cold, although has bokeh smoother than H-103 (my primary 50mm). The Helios however performs better in every other aspect.

My 1957 J-11 is an overall good performer, albeit not as often used as the rest of the bunch.

Among the Industars I mainly used I-23 110/4.5 on my Moskva and I-51 210/4.5 on FKD 13x18. Both can get the job done and perform great when stopped down, but are so-so at wider apertures.
 
I use a Kiev III and the two lenses I use for it are the Jupiter 8 and 12. I have yet to have any flaring with the 12. I have examples of both in my gallery. I test drove a Helios at my brother's place at Thanksgiving dinner as he has a Kiev II.

Bill
 
I have a couple of collapsible Industars, both the I-22 and the FED. They are my favorites. I use them on a FED 2 and Zorki 3 making them easy to carry when shooting on the street.

The Industars yield more contrast than the 5cm/3.5 Elmar and is a wee bit sharper. On an overcast or rainy day, I like the urban grittyness that this lens captures.

My Jupiters, which in both cases needed to be checked to see that they are properly collimated, really do make my FED 2 feel more like I'm wearing an SLR. They are longer and require a decent lens hood to prevent flare.

This is especially true of the Jupiter 9. It is my least used lens due to its bulk and weight. The J8 and J9 are definitely better suited for head shots. Color rendition has that pleasant old-world, post card look, as well.
 
Last edited:
Solinar said:
The [collapsible] Industars yield more contrast than the 5cm/3.5 Elmar and is a wee bit sharper. On an overcast or rainy day, I like the urban grittyness that this lens captures.
Click to expand...
Interesting... did you compare it to a coated 5cm/3.5 Elmar, or an uncoated one?
 
hoot said:
Interesting... did you compare it to a coated 5cm/3.5 Elmar, or an uncoated one?
Click to expand...

Coated, but in need of a professional cleaning. Lietze used whale oil to lubricate that lens, a 1951 version and 50 years later it is time for it to be serviced.
 
hoot said:
Has anyone had a chance to compare the collapsible Industar-22 or collapsible Industar-50 (a.k.a. collapsible FED-50) and the collapsible screwmount Leitz Elmar? Is there a huge quality difference between the two?
Click to expand...

My 50/3.5 Elmar flares quite a bit, but it's in need of cleaning, and is uncoated. My coated and clean I-22 performs a fair bit better, but is also capable of flaring.
 
My J-12 35mm is from the mid-60s. When I developed and printed my first roll from it, I was really stunned. I had expected a much more inferior lens, and its images were as sharp as my Nikon SLR lenses. These days I use two Nikkor RF 35mm lenses, the 1.8 and 2.5, so the Jupiter doesn't get much usage. But I always felt the J-12 had somewhat smoother tones. The flare is a problem and something you need to be aware of. In backlit situations, it easily results in a pentagon (yes, if memory serves correct, there are only five aperature blades) in the sky. Using your hand as a makeshift sunshade can help.

My J-8 is from 1957. It too takes wonderfully sharp photos with smooth out-of-focus areas. But I've also had bad flare/ghosting problems with it, also showing ghosts of the aperature blades in backlit scenes. I shoot a large number of backlit scenes, so that's a big problem. Sunshade helps.

I have an Orion 28mm f/6 in Kiev/Contax mount. I really like this lens because it's so small and light. Images are very sharp. I don't use it very often any more because I have a Nikkor 28mm 3.5, but I don't recall any optical difference between the two lenses. I used the Orion mainly for color-slide work while on vacations and its images were fantastic. I don't recall flare being a big issue. It's main problem is you can't use filters very effectively because the aperatures are set by reaching into the front of the lens.
 
Can't beat the Jupiter 8. There isn't a lot of difference between the collapsible I-22 and I-50 although the I-50 may be a little better at wide apertures
 
I have a J8 and a J12, each in both LTM and Contax mount. I also have a collapsible FED 50mm f3.5 (I-50?). And a 50mm Helios lens in Contax mount. I have not done any comparison shooting yet. All I know for sure is that the J8 in LTM is capable ov very nice results. Misty Lake in my gallery was shot with a J8 as was the bench over-grown with plants. My avatar, a photo of my father was taken with a J8 LTM.
 
FrankS said:
I have a J8 and a J12, each in both LTM and Contax mount. I also have a collapsible FED 50mm f3.5 (I-50?). And a 50mm Helios lens in Contax mount. I have not done any comparison shooting yet. All I know for sure is that the J8 in LTM is capable ov very nice results. Misty Lake in my gallery was shot with a J8 as was the bench over-grown with plants. My avatar, a photo of my father was taken with a J8 LTM.
Click to expand...


Frank:

I think your FED collapsible is probably the Industar 10, comparable to the I-22. I don't know if there is any real difference. The "10" designator just means it's a FED lens. The I-10 lens on my late FED 1 is super.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom