Jupiter 9 Opinions

Lamar · Jul 23, 2015

I'm thinking about getting a Jupiter-9 85mm f/2. I'd like something for portraits and still life that fills more of the frame than a 50mm at closest focusing distance of ~ 1 m. I think the Jupiter 9 closest focusing distance is 1.15 m. I don't want to break the bank and the prices of the Jupiter 9 are about what I would want to spend as long as the image quality is at least as good as the Jupiter 8's. Has anyone used a Jupiter 9? Opinions / recommendations? I have a Jupiter 11 and am happy enough with it's performance. I just need something a little faster that will get closer and fill the frame a bit more.

baachitraka · Jul 23, 2015

There is one for sale in cupog.

darkosaric · Jul 23, 2015

Are you planing to use it on Leica, or Zorki? For f2 lenses accurate focusing can be critical, and I have read that there are some focus incompatibilities with this lens on Leica LTM (and M).

Lamar · Jul 23, 2015

Hmmm. That's not good. I would use it on a Leica IIIb & c, Canon 7, and Zorki 3S & 4. I need to look up more info then since I would be shooting f/2.0 at closest focusing a lot for my intended use.

Lamar · Jul 23, 2015

Found this article that seems to explain the issue well. http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html. Looks like I'd be good to go with it on my Zorki's up close. I'd have to figure out compensation up close for the Leica. Not sure where the Canon would stand but my guess is it would need compensation too.

darkosaric · Jul 23, 2015

If you can be satisfied with f4 - old elmar 90mm is cheap (around 100$/€) and close focus up to 1 meter. With close focusing even f4 is more than enough for portraits and blurring the background. To get sharp picture with Jupiter 9 - you need to stop down to f4 or smaller (at least what I have seen on some forums).

Alan Johnson · Jul 23, 2015

I had an M42 Jupiter-9, IMO the following assessment of it is similar to my experience but my example was not as sharp as the J8 at f2:
http://spydermans-photo-world.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/bokeh-of-soviet-lenses.html

railwayman3 · Jul 23, 2015

Alan Johnson said:
I had an M42 Jupiter-9, IMO the following assessment of it is similar to my experience but my example was not as sharp as the J8 at f2:
http://spydermans-photo-world.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/bokeh-of-soviet-lenses.html

I too have a couple of M42 Jupiter-9's, which I used with adaptors on my Pentax M cameras. I rather like them for their speed and general image quality; though both had to be CLA'd soon after I had them, as the usual Soviet "tank grease" lubricant had more-or-less solidified! But no problems since.

ruby.monkey · Jul 23, 2015

If you want the classic Sonnar look without the potential headaches then look for the screw-mount 85mm f/2 Nikkor-PC. You should be able to find a good one for reasonable money.

Ko.Fe. · Jul 23, 2015

I went through users reviews of this lens on russian rangefinder forum. Most were satisfied, the only issue which was noticed is how it not so good with the direct light.
Checked e-bay prices and it is twice more I paid for little Elmar 90 f4, which was sitting on the shelf in the local camera store for some time before they offered it to me under very good price.
It went on M4-2 as soon as I received cheap but working adapter for it. As usual with Leitz on Leica - no focusing issues.
While it is known what FSU on FSU might require shimming as no surprize. The shimming itself is very easy, but nightmare comes with repositioning of aperture rings. FSU RF lenses have very tiny holding screws which are going into the soft by its nature aluminum.
I wish OP good luck with getting of J-9 which will be sharp at f2 at FSU and Leica without re-shimming.

UPD: I checked J-11 prices on ebay... WOW! But I just purchased coated 135 4.5 Hektor yesterday under similar price...

Lamar · Jul 23, 2015

I wonder if an early model of the Jupiter 9 is any better than the newer ones. I read somewhere a while back the later models may be less soft wide open. But I've also read, generally speaking, the sweet spot for FSU lenses is the late 50's to early 60's if they are in good shape. Cost taken into consideration, I'm certainly happy with my Jupiter 8's, 12, and 11 from that time period. I can live with that cost/performance and can deal with any focus off-set when on the Leica's since I am now aware of the problem.

rjbuzzclick · Jul 23, 2015

I have a later black version of the Jupiter 9 and use it on both a Zorki 4 and a FED 2 without focusing issues. The nice thing about many of the FSU rangefinders is that you can adjust the cam angle for close focus accuracy. Here's a link describing it:

http://jay.fedka.com/index_files/Page422.htm

If you're interested, here's some photos I have up on flickr with the J9:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=53847054@N00&sort=date-taken-desc&text=jupiter 9&view_all=1

gone · Jul 23, 2015

The problem w/ the J9 lenses, and this is all over the internet, is the focus and quality control. Shimming it might get the focus right, but not necessarily at all distances no matter how you adjust the camera's cam. If you get a good one, no worries, but you're rolling the dice on any FSU lens. I speak from far too much experience when I say I will never buy anything from the FSU countries ever again. Almost nothing ever works right, and returning anything (and the odds are not so good that you won't have to) is way too much money and hassle. I had a SLR mount J11 that took pretty good photos but had grease from a tractor or something on the focus helical, and had been put together wrong w/ the aperture scale on the bottom. Real PITA to use. Plus, remember that you will need an aux viewfinder w/ any portrait lens because winging it w/ your 50 viewfinder on close up portraits does not make sense.

Here's a link below to a Canon 100 3.5 that is a nice little lens. Mine was OK for portraits. But truthfully, a rangefinder is a hard way to go for what you want to do. I finally bought a SLR for portraits. Good 85-135 lenses are cheap as chips if you look around, you just need to decide on a body for the mount. Canon FD 135 2.5 and FD 135 3.5 lenses are cheap and take wonderful portraits, and an AI Nikon 85 2 I owned was pretty close to my Leica R 90 Elmarit for portrait use.

Portrait lenses are specialty lenses, and I am pretty picky yhem. Here's a shot from a $60 Canon FD 135 2.5, followed by a FD 85 1.8 (about $150 if you look around). Both are better lenses than I am a photographer.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-RF-Ra...967?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ee3ef1c2f

cuthbert · Jul 23, 2015

I have a Jupiter 9 and I consider it better than the old chromed Elmarit 90 mm f2.8, unfortunately it dropped and now the focus is off.

The minimum focus distance CAN be adjusted to 1 mt, even if nominally it's longer, as every SU equipment most of these lenses had a difficult life so today they can be found in pretty bad shape, I heard the last ones have a better coating.

Lamar · Jul 23, 2015

What about the Canon 85mm f/1.9? I see those for about the same as the Jupiters.

Dali · Jul 23, 2015

FSU lenses are way too expensive now for what they worth nowadays. I would shoot for the Elmar if I were you (not the mention the QC...).

cuthbert · Jul 23, 2015

Dali said:
FSU lenses are way too expensive now for what they worth nowadays. I would shoot for the Elmar if I were you (not the mention the QC...).

A pity that some FSU are better than Leica glass.

Of course Leica men will never accept that not even in front of hard proof.

Dali · Jul 24, 2015

cuthbert said:
A pity that some FSU are better than Leica glass.

Of course Leica men will never accept that not even in front of hard proof.

Go ahead. Make my day..

darkosaric · Jul 24, 2015

Sharpest FSU lens that I had was Jupiter 8 50mm f2. But it was not so sharp as my summicron. Any f2 lens I compare with summicron - because summicron is f2. I don't think that there is a FSU f2 lens that is sharper than summicron.
I know that sharpness overrated - I use Holga and Diana regularly .

Ko.Fe. · Jul 24, 2015

cuthbert said:
A pity that some FSU are better than Leica glass.

Of course Leica men will never accept that not even in front of hard proof.

Not some, but all. In terms of the price. I'm not an expert on teles, but 50, 35 and 28 from Leica have the mechanical build to be in use for decades, while FSU 35 and 28 are PITA to use and 50 are flimsy or cumbersome or have lack of the character.

cuthbert · Jul 24, 2015

darkosaric said:
Sharpest FSU lens that I had was Jupiter 8 50mm f2. But it was not so sharp as my summicron. Any f2 lens I compare with summicron - because summicron is f2. I don't think that there is a FSU f2 lens that is sharper than summicron.
I know that sharpness overrated - I use Holga and Diana regularly .

Not my experience, I find the Industar 61 the sharpest SU lens...this level of sharpness:

While I would consider all my J-8 softer than my summicron, but perhaps I've been unlucky.

Ko.Fe. said:
Not some, but all. In terms of the price. I'm not an expert on teles, but 50, 35 and 28 from Leica have the mechanical build to be in use for decades, while FSU 35 and 28 are PITA to use and 50 are flimsy or cumbersome or have lack of the character.

Bah, I've a Summaron 35 mm f2.8 with googles and as IQ it's worse than my Jupiter 12 (I prefer the Biogon design) and if you have a look at the reviews online you'll find out a lot of appreciation for that lens. Mechanically speaking the Summaron is better built, no comparison, and the J-12 is weird to use because due to its shape you have to be careful not to leave your fingers in front of the first element, but as soon as I've seen the first shots taken with the Summaron I realised I had wasted my money.

Same thing for the 1960 Elmarit 90 mm f2.8 I have (not the Canada one that came with my M4-P, that's better than the J-9) and probably the Summarit- Jupiter 3 comparison because the Sonnar 1.5 wa considered a better design of the Leitz lens, until the Summilux came out.

Dali · Jul 24, 2015

cuthbert said:
Same thing for the 1960 Elmarit 90 mm f2.8 I have (not the Canada one that came with my M4-P, that's better than the J-9) and probably the Summarit- Jupiter 3 comparison because the Sonnar 1.5 wa considered a better design of the Leitz lens, until the Summilux came out.

The design is one thing, manufacturing is another thing. I can buy a bunch of CZ Sonnar, I doubt to find a lemon. OK, it is not cheap but I know what I buy.

With FSU lenses, it can be good, VERY good like bad or VERY bad. I can take the risk for $25, not for $200.

That is why I consider these FSU lenses are overpriced nowadays.

cuthbert · Jul 24, 2015

Dali said:
The design is one thing, manufacturing is another thing. I can buy a bunch of CZ Sonnar, I doubt to find a lemon. OK, it is not cheap but I know what I buy.

With FSU lenses, it can be good, VERY good like bad or VERY bad. I can take the risk for $25, not for $200.

That is why I consider these FSU lenses are overpriced nowadays.

I think the main problem with SU lenses is not the quality control when they were made, but how they were treated through the years: we are talking about 40 years old glass that was cheap even when new and often was neglected or mistreated, while the Leica glass was expensive then and it's expensive now, so few people would dare to scratch the elements, or drop a lens etc...

RARELY I was able to find SU lense in NOS or mint condition and they always performed well, for instance the Industar in the previous shot is a '61, one of the first in production and it looks like brand new. I have another from the 80s with a sticky focusing ring and scratched front element that doesn't perform so well.

Another example is the NOS Helios 81 I used with my Nikon F2A to take this pic:

Good, isn't it?

This is the same subject with a Nikkor lens that has been used for long decades

I prefer the Soviet glass in this instance.

So...in the end for me it's a matter of choosing the right lens (being made of aluminium it's easy to see the ones who had an hard life) and buy from competent people. I spend $200 for my Orion 15 and I am satisfied with that wide angle, on the other side I agree that the price of a good Jupiter 3 is getting close to a Summarit that's the reason why that one along with the Russar is the only soviet lens I don't have.

Ko.Fe. · Jul 24, 2015

As soon as some one is telling me how good I61 is, because it is sharp here is no reason to me to continue.
It makes it double no reason with this kind of snapshots provided.
But...
I owned all common 50mm FSU RFs. They are all sharp once collimating is done properly. Most boring was I61.
I have shimmed J8 on M4-2 and J-3. They were sharp. I still have J-3 on FED-2 and it's original I-26 which has much better rendering comparing to I-61.
Here is a lot more what lens provides in addition to sharpness and contrast. If you can't see it, you are actually very lucky comparing to us, who is willing to pay ten times more. And not just because it has Leitz on it.

Again, I know next to nothing about long tele RF lenses.

Xmas · Jul 25, 2015

Hi

My LTM Orion and J11 are both users but have acceptable performance.

My LTM J12 ditto but fouled Canon baffle plates so swapped it, it's new owner extatic.

My J9 is in Kiev is a user and is also ok.

Comparing a J8 with a summicron for IQ is unfair, the J8 is a sonnar and comparable with a sonnar or Nikon clone.
A helious is comparable with a summicron type I or II but higher contrast.

Most FSU kit has been damaged by bad maintenance and neglect.

Jupiter 9 Opinions

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency