Ed S.
Member
I have a Kiev-3, a Kiev-4, a J-3, a couple of J-8s, a Helios-103 and a Menopta (aparently identical to the Helios-103 except for the nameplate). I've had good results with all of these lenses, but I also bought from reputable dealers. But I also use either an SLR (35mm and MF) or a view camera for very sharp focus and high-resolution photographs.
From doing a lot of reading, it seems that the '53 and earlier J-3s and J-8s may be the best ones to get, and that '58-'61 are the best years for J-9s and J-11s, as the Soviet optics industry hit a high point then. But no mention of J-3 or J-8 quality is made. I'm uncertain about the J-12. But this is based on me piecing statements and opinions together from several different sources. Perhaps there's a test published somewhere.
The Helios-103/Menopta (50/1.8) is apparently an update to the J-8, and possibly only in Kiev/Contax mount; better resolution and similar, maybe better, contrast. I think that they're only slightly more expensive than the J-8. Avoid the "rare" listings, and the "10 lenses" listings (unless you want 10 lenses).
Dante Stella has an interesting article on the Contax-Kiev and Leica-Zorki lens "compatibility" questions; Section 3 "Ivan the Incompatible" seems to clarify things.
The J-3 and J-8, and the others of the Jupiter series are pre-'60s designs (possibly reformulated in the '60s). Compating their performance to same-era designs is a reasonably useful activity. A comparison to later designs is less useful, the results are usually never in question.
Cost is the flip side of this coin: for the cost of a Noctilux or a even a Summicron, obtaining a complete set of FSU lenses and camera body (of your choice, and all professionaly reworked) seems easily possible, and with money left over.
I once had an analogous debate, some years ago, of daily/weekly planner (with pencil) vs. Palm (with stylus). After hearing much noise about the advantages of the Palm, I then beat my planner against a table edge several times, then opened it up and noticed that all the numbers and information within were still correct and accesable.
A similar debate can be performed with Zeiss/Nikon/... elites when discussing equipment capabilities, using your FSU equipment (I've only come close twice to this): remove your J-8, DISCRETELY SWITCH IT FOR A GOLF BALL, then THROW THE GOLF BALL AS FAR AS YOU CAN. Invite your opponent to do the same with his Nikkor.
If necessary, go to Step 2: What is the ultimate product of photography? For some of us, me included, the gear itself is a major item, but an image, either on paper or on a monitor, is the final product, the one on which our skills, ability and whatever are judged. In my case, a Summicron won't help.
I'm a hobbyist photographer; I don't make money at photography, so my outlook is very different from a professional. If I really need low-light ability, I'll find a way to attach a camera to my 90/1.0 or my F/0.68 9.25"D lenses.
From doing a lot of reading, it seems that the '53 and earlier J-3s and J-8s may be the best ones to get, and that '58-'61 are the best years for J-9s and J-11s, as the Soviet optics industry hit a high point then. But no mention of J-3 or J-8 quality is made. I'm uncertain about the J-12. But this is based on me piecing statements and opinions together from several different sources. Perhaps there's a test published somewhere.
The Helios-103/Menopta (50/1.8) is apparently an update to the J-8, and possibly only in Kiev/Contax mount; better resolution and similar, maybe better, contrast. I think that they're only slightly more expensive than the J-8. Avoid the "rare" listings, and the "10 lenses" listings (unless you want 10 lenses).
Dante Stella has an interesting article on the Contax-Kiev and Leica-Zorki lens "compatibility" questions; Section 3 "Ivan the Incompatible" seems to clarify things.
The J-3 and J-8, and the others of the Jupiter series are pre-'60s designs (possibly reformulated in the '60s). Compating their performance to same-era designs is a reasonably useful activity. A comparison to later designs is less useful, the results are usually never in question.
Cost is the flip side of this coin: for the cost of a Noctilux or a even a Summicron, obtaining a complete set of FSU lenses and camera body (of your choice, and all professionaly reworked) seems easily possible, and with money left over.
I once had an analogous debate, some years ago, of daily/weekly planner (with pencil) vs. Palm (with stylus). After hearing much noise about the advantages of the Palm, I then beat my planner against a table edge several times, then opened it up and noticed that all the numbers and information within were still correct and accesable.
A similar debate can be performed with Zeiss/Nikon/... elites when discussing equipment capabilities, using your FSU equipment (I've only come close twice to this): remove your J-8, DISCRETELY SWITCH IT FOR A GOLF BALL, then THROW THE GOLF BALL AS FAR AS YOU CAN. Invite your opponent to do the same with his Nikkor.
If necessary, go to Step 2: What is the ultimate product of photography? For some of us, me included, the gear itself is a major item, but an image, either on paper or on a monitor, is the final product, the one on which our skills, ability and whatever are judged. In my case, a Summicron won't help.
I'm a hobbyist photographer; I don't make money at photography, so my outlook is very different from a professional. If I really need low-light ability, I'll find a way to attach a camera to my 90/1.0 or my F/0.68 9.25"D lenses.
Ed S.
Member
Link to Dante Stella: Section 3 "Ivan the Incompatible"
ferider
Veteran
Just because one advises against Russian LTM mount lenses (after having tried them), doesn't mean one is elitist and/or uses a Noctilux.
The OP asked for something faster and crisper than his Canon lens, and obviously it should be affordable.
1.) I doubt the J12 is "crisper", even if perfectly collimated. BTW, the 35/3.2 is not a "lowly" lens, KEH is selling a copy for US 286, currently. One could buy 2-3 J12 lenses for this.
2.) KEH is also selling Canon 50/1.4 (BGN) for US 225 and 50/1.8 (BGN) for US 172, both very close in quality to, say, Summilux or Planar and Summicron, respectively. There also is a used CV 28/3.5 (EX+, US 254), arguably one of the best 28mm lenses in LTM around.
3.) The 35/2.5 Color Skopar new costs US 299. But you can have it used on ebay for around US 200. Also that lens is very good, optically, similar in IQ to anything else (modern) out there. And it's half stop faster than J12, a full stop faster than the OP's 35/3.2. It most certainly is "crisp".
4.) there also is a Nikkor 35/2.5 LTM lens, that usually runs around US 250, and is one of the best RF wide angles that Nikon ever made. Also, the Nikkor 50/2 LTM is very well built and typically runs around US 200 or so.
Roland.
The OP asked for something faster and crisper than his Canon lens, and obviously it should be affordable.
1.) I doubt the J12 is "crisper", even if perfectly collimated. BTW, the 35/3.2 is not a "lowly" lens, KEH is selling a copy for US 286, currently. One could buy 2-3 J12 lenses for this.
2.) KEH is also selling Canon 50/1.4 (BGN) for US 225 and 50/1.8 (BGN) for US 172, both very close in quality to, say, Summilux or Planar and Summicron, respectively. There also is a used CV 28/3.5 (EX+, US 254), arguably one of the best 28mm lenses in LTM around.
3.) The 35/2.5 Color Skopar new costs US 299. But you can have it used on ebay for around US 200. Also that lens is very good, optically, similar in IQ to anything else (modern) out there. And it's half stop faster than J12, a full stop faster than the OP's 35/3.2. It most certainly is "crisp".
4.) there also is a Nikkor 35/2.5 LTM lens, that usually runs around US 250, and is one of the best RF wide angles that Nikon ever made. Also, the Nikkor 50/2 LTM is very well built and typically runs around US 200 or so.
Roland.
Last edited:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
1953 Jupiter 3. I paid $150 for it. Plus a little extra to Brian, who is fantastic to work with. I could not be happier with this lens. This isn't wide open, but it does focus perfectly wide open on my M8.
ferider
Veteran
I know Tim. And you do great work with it. However, be happy Brian didn't charge you what he is worth in his day-job ... I'm just opposed to advising a newbie to getting a lens like this, showing great results from a manually adjusted sample, unless Brian commits to help the newbie, too.
Anyways, enough said.
Anyways, enough said.
raid
Dad Photographer
Brian is a great guy to do such precision work for RFF members at nominal cost.
If he moves to Pensacola, I will keep him busy!
If he moves to Pensacola, I will keep him busy!
Santafecino
button man
There are a lot of good lenses out there, and it's great to be experimenting. The Russian lenses are very cheap and give an opportunity to do so. I think it has been established that most, maybe all, of the Russian LTM lenses were made to a different rangefinder spec and need to be shimmed to work properly on a Leica or Canon. (Talk to Mr. Sweeney about this) This still provides a lens that can do great and interesting work! My J-3 with Mr. Sweeney's help is now my main lens for color. The J-8 and I-61 do extremely well also. Don't imagine that Russian lenses are constant problems, because they aren't--they can be very reliable.
Sometimes a Russian LTM lens works on a Leica without adjustment. My 135mm J-11 focuses at 2.5 m and at infinity on my M-5. This should be the most difficult one to make work, but not so. Go figure. On the other hand, my J-9 just cannot be shimmed to work. (sigh!)
By the way, the Helios for Kiev/Contax and the Jupiters in Contax mount work beautifully. My Helios was free with a Kiev 2! It's on a par with my 50mm Summicron. When I can get a lens that rivals Leica quality for free or for $35 or so, I don't fuss--I go for it. By the way, lenses for Kiev/Contax have none of the problems LTM lenses have with a different RF spec, but still may need shimming.
Sometimes a Russian LTM lens works on a Leica without adjustment. My 135mm J-11 focuses at 2.5 m and at infinity on my M-5. This should be the most difficult one to make work, but not so. Go figure. On the other hand, my J-9 just cannot be shimmed to work. (sigh!)
By the way, the Helios for Kiev/Contax and the Jupiters in Contax mount work beautifully. My Helios was free with a Kiev 2! It's on a par with my 50mm Summicron. When I can get a lens that rivals Leica quality for free or for $35 or so, I don't fuss--I go for it. By the way, lenses for Kiev/Contax have none of the problems LTM lenses have with a different RF spec, but still may need shimming.
> i understand that some russian lenses fit my camera better than others, even though
> they're all LTM... something to do with shimming, which i am not interested in doing.
Based on this statement in the OP's original post, I would advise against getting a Russian lens for the Canon 7sz. "Chances are" a Jupiter-3 will have to be shimmed to work properly close-up and wide-open, and will need to be stopped down for infinity. Conservation of inconvenience of getting an inexpensive copy of Zeiss lenses in Leica mount.
If you want a Sonnar formula lens for the Canon 7sz that is sharper and crisper than the Serenar lenses, get a Nikkor 5cm F1.4. It will run more than a Jupiter-3, but will focus full-range "out of the box" and not require custom shimming, or going through several lenses to get the pick of the litter.
> they're all LTM... something to do with shimming, which i am not interested in doing.
Based on this statement in the OP's original post, I would advise against getting a Russian lens for the Canon 7sz. "Chances are" a Jupiter-3 will have to be shimmed to work properly close-up and wide-open, and will need to be stopped down for infinity. Conservation of inconvenience of getting an inexpensive copy of Zeiss lenses in Leica mount.
If you want a Sonnar formula lens for the Canon 7sz that is sharper and crisper than the Serenar lenses, get a Nikkor 5cm F1.4. It will run more than a Jupiter-3, but will focus full-range "out of the box" and not require custom shimming, or going through several lenses to get the pick of the litter.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
No doubt. I was amazed that he doesn't charge more for the stuff he does.
And I don't disagree with your advice. I only ventured down the J-3 path after chatting - through email - with Brian. I hate to think about what I might have ended up with had I gone about it on my own.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
What about the f/2 version of that Nikkor in LTM?
meezy
meezy
thanks for the flurry of great replies. my first camera was a zenit e and i've done many unholy pairings of russian lenses w/ my other cameras since my collection has expanded (read helios 40 85mm/1.5 screwed into an m42 --> pentax k-mount adapter fitted into a pentax k--> minolta af mount to work on my maxxum)... old russian habits die hard.
...but by the sounds of things, i guess i'll shell out a little more and get the correct lens for this kit - probably a 50/1.4 - and save myself from several potential complications. guess i'll start shopping.
thanks again everyone!!
...but by the sounds of things, i guess i'll shell out a little more and get the correct lens for this kit - probably a 50/1.4 - and save myself from several potential complications. guess i'll start shopping.
thanks again everyone!!
ferider
Veteran
That's a really great pick, MZ.
Here is my favorite "unholy", lathe adapted (with inf. focus) combo. Produces absolutely stunning results.
Cheers,
Roland.
PS: Tim, the Nikkor 50/2 LTM is very good.
Here is my favorite "unholy", lathe adapted (with inf. focus) combo. Produces absolutely stunning results.
Cheers,
Roland.
PS: Tim, the Nikkor 50/2 LTM is very good.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Realistically the OP ought to consider a nice Canon 50/1.8 rather than any of the FSU lenses. OR the Nikkors - great lenses but ISTR that they're going to be just a bit more expensive than the Canon. The 50/1.8 is probably the best bang for buck out there.
William
William
I have two in LTM and two in S-Mount. Fine lens, but the F1.4 is a bit "crisper". The Bokeh on the F2 is smoother.
And agree with the Canon 50/1.8 being a great lens and "bang for the buck". BUT- on the Canon lenses be wary of the inner surface behind the aperture being etched or having coating damage. The chrome lenses are not as prone to damage.
Last edited:
meezy
meezy
That's a really great pick, MZ.
Here is my favorite "unholy", lathe adapted (with inf. focus) combo. Produces absolutely stunning results.
Cheers,
Roland.
PS: Tim, the Nikkor 50/2 LTM is very good.
beautiful pairing, rolo!! and lathed, even! i have the first model of the helios 40 w/ the aluminum body. i adore it. can't help dropping the url: http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c100/metasac/scan0022-1.jpg
thanks!
ferider
Veteran
Nice shot and funny cat.Here is what you can expect from the Canon 50/1.4:
Check the flickr M mount group (see my sig), there are lots of example photos.
Roland.
Nikkor 5cm F1.4 wide-open.
Tight Crop:
1950s J-3 5cm F1.5, Custom shimmed, wide-open:
Tight Crop:
Canon 50/1.4, wide-open:
Tight Crop:
All on the Canon 7, same roll of film, mounted on a tripod.
I have a lot of lenses.
Tight Crop:
1950s J-3 5cm F1.5, Custom shimmed, wide-open:
Tight Crop:
Canon 50/1.4, wide-open:
Tight Crop:
All on the Canon 7, same roll of film, mounted on a tripod.
I have a lot of lenses.
1956 KMZ J-3, wide-open, custom shimmed, and modified for close-focus at ~0.85m on the Canon P.
Crisp, sharp, cheap, required some work.
Crisp, sharp, cheap, required some work.
You didn't think I could post this many pictures without one of my daughter, did you?
Same 1956 KMZ J-3 Canon P.
Same 1956 KMZ J-3 Canon P.
luiman
shadowgrapher
Jupiter-3 on Bessa R2A (Rollei Retro100 in D76).
