How to step up from Jupiter 8?

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 15, 2014

02Pilot said:
FWIW, J12 clears OK on my P and L1, so it can work.

The J8 is a Sonnar-formula lens, as are the Nikkor 50/2 and 50/1.4 and the Canon 50/1.5; the Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are double gauss/Planar-formula lenses and will produce a more modern look than the Sonnars.

What's a "more modern look"?

Xmas · Jul 15, 2014

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:
What's a "more modern look"?

razer sharp into corners for one.
The J8 and Canon LTM /1.8 are both single coated (SC) and will flash shadows and pastel colours.
So that is still oldy worldy signature.
If you have a M8 or M9 or RD/1 you need one of these so they are escalating...

miha · Jul 15, 2014

OT: How stiff should the aperture ring be on a Jup 8 lens. It's very loose on mine.

Erik Petersson · Jul 15, 2014

Xmas said:
razer sharp into corners for one.
The J8 and Canon LTM /1.8 are both single coated (SC) and will flash shadows and pastel colours.
So that is still oldy worldy signature.
If you have a M8 or M9 or RD/1 you need one of these so they are escalating...

Lots of good advice in this thread! First a quick reply here. The unsharp corners do not disturb me, but the pastel colours do. That's maybe the old look, as well as Soviet look to my experience.

Xmas · Jul 15, 2014

pastel colours are a feature of all lenses pre 1970.
Some people love them...
Cosina Voiglander make their 35mm and 40mm /1.4s in MC and SC, about 50:50 take up.
But no prejudice
I use SC on sunny days to compress the range on mono...
The little Cosina Voighlander /2.5 5cm best bet get the large optional hood as well.
Next the CV /1.5 LTM big get optional hood.
Next the post 94 Elmar expensive you can shave with the last three, like cut throat, razors.

ntenny · Jul 15, 2014

Xmas said:
pastel colours are a feature of all lenses pre 1970.

I wouldn't say that at all, though certainly lenses' color renditions have tended to get more saturated over time. But there are plenty of 1950s lenses that I wouldn't call "pastel": Planars, Sonnars with the coating in good condition, Topcon lenses.

To me it sounds like the OP's lens doesn't have terrific coatings, which isn't that unusual for Soviet lenses. I'd expect that a similar design in a contemporaneous lens from Japan or Germany would perform better in that respect, but so might a different example of the J-8.

-NT

Xmas · Jul 15, 2014

The Soviets (and Ja) used Zeiss coating machine(technology) and their coatings were better than Leitz until about 1960.

The OPs early J8 if still in good condition should have the same contrast signature as a just post war Sonnar or Nikkor HC in same condition (or mine do).

A modern Cosina Voighlander 40mm with single coating will also pastel colours (like a Planar) that is why people buy them.

The Planars like the LTM Canon /1.8 are lower contrast by comparison than J8s or Nikkor HC because they have four groups and eight air to glass surfaces rather than three groups and six air to glass surfaces.

The Leica Summicrons of same era even lower contrast still because of more air to glass surfaces. They had more correction for abberations.

Lots of people like the low contrast signature especially M9 or RD/1 users.

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 15, 2014

To all their own opinions but "pastel" colors with the SC VC lenses? Not in my experience. I bought the 40/1.4 SC right after it came out. Nice lens but nothing unique or interesting to me so I sold it. And I could see little to no difference from this single-coated lens to other multi-coated VC or other lenses, and certainly was not getting pastel colors.

ntenny · Jul 15, 2014

Xmas said:
The Soviets (and Ja) used Zeiss coating machine(technology) and their coatings were better than Leitz until about 1960.

I can't speak to the comparison ("Leitz" is generally a word that's too expensive for me), but with respect to Soviet lenses of the 1950s, I've found them to have significant sample variation in all respects, including in the condition of the coating. I don't know if that variation represents differences in original quality or durability or what, but just using the same design for the coating machine doesn't guarantee anything---maybe the maintenance regimes were different, the operators differently competent, and so on.

To be fair, no coating of the era was as tough as modern coating technology, and maybe the Soviet lenses just had a harder proletarian life than the bourgeoisie of Wetzlar and Oberkochen?

-NT

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 15, 2014

ntenny said:
..... and maybe the Soviet lenses just had a harder proletarian life than the bourgeoisie of Wetzlar and Oberkochen?

-NT

I think you nailed it.

Xmas · Jul 15, 2014

Well my 53 and 54 J8s are collector grade ditto the Nikkor HC and Contax IIIa Sonnar.

The Sonnar had a better IQ signature than the others on Kodachrome 25, but similar contrast/pastel. It was very late ('61) and may have had later glass.

This could support your theory.

The Planar type Canon lenses are more pastel don't have a copy of the Canon Sonnar clone.

But my 40mm SC CV would pastel and flare just like the Canon LTM Planar types. Where the CV /2.5 and /1.5 5cm were like normal modern lenses.

I always use the optional large hoods.

02Pilot · Jul 15, 2014

Somewhere over on RFF there's a thread with a color rendering comparison of the Canon 50/1.5, Jupiter-3 50/1.5, and one other similar lens (maybe the Canon 50/1.2? I can't recall). I suspect there are other direct comparisons of these lenses and others out there as well.

I'm not sure I would have characterized the colors from either my J8 or Canon 50/1.5 as "pastel" (especially the latter), but they are a bit lower contrast compared to more modern lenses. I also use lens hoods on basically everything. I'll throw in a couple of samples just because (sorry I don't have identical images for a better comparison). First from the J8 (on Portra 160):

And from the Canon 50/1.5 (on Kodak Gold 200 - note that these are both taken wide open):

Erik Petersson · Aug 2, 2014

Thanks everyone for sharing your insights. I am sorry for such a late reply. In the meantime I have studied my pictures again and tried to think about what I see. There is certainly flare in some pictures. I should buy a hood. I should consider trying another J8 for comparions. Maybe I'll like it better. Actually, I am going to Ukraine for a week now, maybe I'll find those things.

I still believe there is something with the colour though. Too much green, somehow. I have tried to correct for this in the pictures above. Perhaps this is because the lens was not optimized for colour back in -55.

Maybe I'll just accept my lens's qualities and shortcomings, and try to use them to my advantage. Some pictures turn out really well, too. I'll post an example below.

I should expose half a film in my Leica with the J8, and the other half in my FM2 with an 80-ies Nikkor. That would make a fair comparision, right? Actually, I have about 12 pictures left of a Reala in my FM2, I'll do this test tomorrow.

Erik Petersson · Aug 2, 2014

02Pilot said:
Somewhere over on RFF there's a thread with a color rendering comparison of the Canon 50/1.5, Jupiter-3 50/1.5, and one other similar lens (maybe the Canon 50/1.2? I can't recall). I suspect there are other direct comparisons of these lenses and others out there as well.

I'm not sure I would have characterized the colors from either my J8 or Canon 50/1.5 as "pastel" (especially the latter), but they are a bit lower contrast compared to more modern lenses. I also use lens hoods on basically everything. I'll throw in a couple of samples just because (sorry I don't have identical images for a better comparison). First from the J8 (on Portra 160):

And from the Canon 50/1.5 (on Kodak Gold 200 - note that these are both taken wide open):

Thanks 02pilot for these beatiful examples, and the reference to the thread on RFF.

Erik Petersson · Aug 2, 2014

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:
Wow, that is an old one. Mine's a black one, a 73. From your images I really like the character of yours. If you decide to sell I'm interested.

Richard, thanks for your offer. I'll keep it for the time being though.

blockend · Aug 5, 2014

Just an idea, but it might be worth putting a roll of slide film through the lens. Transparencies have their own signature, but there's less process variation than C41 + scanning. Scans can throw up different looks from the same negative and identical parameters. If slides still render soft and pastel-like, learn to live with it or change it for something multi-coated and modern. Japanese manufacturers spent a lot of R&D money over the years trying to avoid the "character" of these old lenses. They're not all-rounders to eyes used to Nikkors and Canon EF, but work great for some subjects and film types.

Erik Petersson · Aug 5, 2014

I already exposed the reala though. I'll see what results are, and go from there. Hope I'll be able to post a comparision here in a few days.

E. von Hoegh · Aug 5, 2014

Erik,
Does you're J8 have haze? Get an LED flashlight and look hard; spend time at it - it takes very little haze to inpair contrast and give pastel colors.
As for all pre 1970s lenses giving 'pastel colors' that's nonsense. I've made some very snappy transparencies with pre-war lenses - pre WWI and uncoated that is.

Do the haze test, clean the lens (all air - to glass surfaces); if it is in good condition it should give nice colors. My '59 J8 (with marks on the front glass) gives very nice colors when properly shaded.

Also, the current fashion is for very saturated colors. Don't let this mislead you - reality is often less contrasty.

Erik Petersson · Aug 5, 2014

That might be it, of course. I have only looked without a strong light. The glass looks clear when I hold it up in front of the window.
I'll spend a lot of time in Kiev this autumn, so I could easily buy another lens if this one is bad.

By the way, what is haze? Dirt stuck on the lens?

E. von Hoegh · Aug 5, 2014

Erik Petersson said:
That might be it, of course. I have only looked without a strong light. The glass looks clear when I hold it up in front of the window.
I'll spend a lot of time in Kiev this autumn, so I could easily buy another lens if this one is bad.

By the way, what is haze? Dirt stuck on the lens?

Usually comes from deteriorating lubricant and appears as a greyish film on the glass surfaces. I have a '75 J8 that had subtle and incredibly stubborn haze; removing it made it a different lens. Holding it in front of the window is about the least effective way to see haze; as I said you need a point source of light, preferably in a darkish room, and you need to look patiently for haze. It takes surprisingly little to impair contrast - it's only in feepay ads that haze "will have no effect". Any haze has effect.

Edit.
It pays to keep in mind that the J8 was originally designed in 1931. The Soviets recalculated it for their glasses in the early to mid 1950s, and applied some rather nice coatings as well. It isn't a modern lens and won't perform like one - but it will perform very well if you give it a chance. I have negatives from a 50/2 Sonnar I had on a Contax II; the '59 J-8 I have on my Kiev is the better lens due mainly to coatings. I haven't used the later one enough to have as definite an opinion but it is a good lens.

Erik Petersson · Aug 5, 2014

I should need some solvent to remove haze, right?

Xmas · Aug 5, 2014

Zippo or acetone cotton waste micro cleaning cloth.

But Id not expect the signature of a J8, Nikon or Sonnar from 50s to be like a modern multi coated lens.

Mine are not.

I do use them for their signature.

Id not strip it unless you can see a problem.

Leave the iris blades as an assembly, or lose a few hours...

How to step up from Jupiter 8?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency