I particularly agree with the Jupiter 9 as I have one and use it quite regularly. Its a little soft and low contrast wide open as all of these lenses tend to be in that era but sharpens up nicely as you stop down with contrast improving too. I cannot comment on the other mentioned lenses directly.I agree with Doug's very complete mini-review of the Heliar 50mm 2.0 and also with David's contribution of the Avenon 28mm 3.5. I own them both and dearly love them.
Also, the before mentioned Elmar 50mm 3.5 is a true gem. I own an uncoated nickel one and a chrome one with an even earlier serial number that was factory upgraded to a modern chrome and coated lens. Again, I can concur.
Two more lenses I'd like to add though.
First is a very early Jupiter-9 labelled 85mm 2.0 lens with Carl Zeiss Sonnar optical block. It has a minimum focusing distance of 1.8 meters and the index marks for distance and aperture do not line up, signalling that the lens is made from non-Russian parts. This is the second one I own and I'm constantly impressed by sharpness and rendering.
They are harder to find but aren't spotted by either collectors or sellers so can be had for reasonable prices if you invest time.
The second lens is a bit of a rangefinder equivalent of the now much appreciated Trioplan lenses, it's the early Topcor 50mm 2.0 LTM, the non-S model. It does swirly bokeh wide open, and is pretty sharp with still softer corners when stopped down. Once at 8.0 it's sharp overall.
These are the full-chrome early lenses, fully made from brass (around 225 grammes heavy) and have whiskey colored coating with a tinge of pink. They are probably single coated.
Several of the above mentioned lenses are featured in this article on my web site.
Unlike Canon lenses or Elmars, and no denying those are nice, this lens really is under the radar.
The Orion-15, on the other hand, is more likely to elicit comments such as “the Oreo what?
The lens is sharp “wide open”, if f5.6 can be considered wide open, but is really, really sharp, closed down a bit. I added some vignetting to this shot, probably at f8, as it normally would not have much vignetting on its own.
They are not all equal. Get a very early one, or a pre-production one (they are out there). There is some information with test comparisons on the web.
It is a Topogon formula.
People balk at buying these because they go for more than the normal $30 Soviet lens. There is a reason for that. Ko.Fe is right. The closest relatives are the Leitz 28/5.6 Summaron and the ultra-rare, ultra spendy, Zeiss Contax 25/4 Topogon.
It does color well also. Still ultra cheap for what it is.
Another sleeper that comes to mind are any of the 135mm f3.5 lenses of the type originally made by Komura (I believe) but later sold by the name of Super Acall, Force and many other brand names. These are a sweet lens in any variant - heavy build and very like in some respects the early heavy chrome on brass Canon 135mm lenses though usually in black and silver livery and later all black.
This shot (not my image incidentally) taken with the Super Acall variant shows just how good this lens can be.
One other lens that does come to mind though if you can get it (I am not sure if it was made in LTM mount) is the Carl Zeiss Jena Triotar 135mm f4. I have one in Exacta mount and its a lovely lens to use- surprisingly sharp for such a simple lens and with delightful classic rendering.
Another sleeper that comes to mind are any of the 135mm f3.5 lenses of the type originally made by Komura (I believe) but later sold by the name of Super Acall, Force and many other brand names. These are a sweet lens in any variant - heavy build and very like in some respects the early heavy chrome on brass Canon 135mm lenses though usually in black and silver livery and later all black.
This shot (not my image incidentally) taken with the Super Acall variant shows just how good this lens can be.
