Suprised how good Jupiter 12 lens are

[Mainecoonmaniac]

A few weeks back, I ordered a Jupiter 12 lens for about $30. I finally made a print in my darkroom from a negative I shot with it and I'm suprised how sharp they are. They are supposed to be a clone of the Zeiss Biogon lens. I wonder How close Jupiter lenses are to their German counterparts?

 

[Cybertrash]

Which camera are you using it on? I hear they don't play very well with Leicas

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Which camera are you using it on? I hear they don't play very well with Leicas

I use it on a Canon P.

 

[jim10219]

Considering the Russians invaded German at the end of WWII, dismantled one of the Zeiss plants, shipped it back to Russia, and took a bunch of their designers with them, I'd say it's they're really close. Some of the early ones are even made from Zeiss glass that was confiscated from the original German plant that be assembled in Russia. For those, I'd argue they're even too similar to be called a clone.

A lot of people do complain that they have focusing issues when mounted on Leicas. That can be fixed with a shim, but I prefer to just use a Russian camera body. I bought a Zorki 4 and had it professionally CLA'd for less than $100. Pretty much any tech with Leica experience shouldn't have any problems with them, as the camera bodies are also very similar.

They're definitely one of the steals on the vintage camera market. In more ways than one!

 

[Fin]

A few weeks back, I ordered a Jupiter 12 lens for about $30. I finally made a print in my darkroom from a negative I shot with it and I'm suprised how sharp they are.?

^This. I bought one for £35 with shipping. Not used it a lot yet but the few images I've taken look great!

 

[1kgcoffee]

Russian lenses can be excellent if you find a good copy, I mean in terms of image quality not construction. Try out the industar-61/26 if you if you like the jupiter.

 

[awty]

Shhh! the price has just doubled since your post.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

How many Biogons have you seen? They are next to non existing ones. Stop worry about "how it compares".
Get Kiev with J12. It is awesome lens. And LTM is good one as well. My J12 produces less distortions than Summarit-M 35 2.5. It is not as sharp as Leica, but it is far from soft lens.

No prices will double on so called "Russian" lenses. Too many of them were made and cheap MiC are coming. Like Seven pArtisans.

 

[Dennis S]

Got an Industar on my Canon P but was not thrilled with it but I picked up a Jupiter 9 that really impressed me. Next one I think will be the Jupiter 12. .

 

[jim10219]

And get a Jupiter 8. It’s not super fast or very sharp, but the bokeh is really smooth. In fact, it’s a tad soft, but in a way that renders females in a very pleasing way. It’s an excellent, full body portrait lens and they’re really cheap. Plus, sharp lenses are easy to come by. What’s hard to find is a soft lens that looks smooth and pleasing and not just messy or unfocused.

 

[M-88]

Too much depends on specific sample when it comes to Soviet lens quality. It is true for J-12 as well. I have one, from my dad, who use it as an enlarger lens. It's got two bubblesvinside the rear element, but works without notable deficiencies.

 

[BMbikerider]

I think it will be largely down to a bit of good luck. Quality control was not the Soviet's best manufacturing system. I had one of these lenses on a Zorki 4 and it was best described as 'poor', and saying that I am being kind. However one on a Kiev 4 was absolutely superb. With Ilford Pan F developed in Rodinal, I could distinguish individual metal railing spikes which were over 1/4 mile away. Not only in the centre, but at the edges also.
How it compares to a Zeiss lens I have absolutely no idea.

The Soviets 'borrowed' quite a number of Zeiss designs and the Zeiss 85mm F2 Biotar was a good lens, but Russian copy I bought some years ago to fit a screw thread Pentax SP, gave such a flat image it was virtually unusable. It was sharp(ish) but no way on God's earth could I get a normal negative from it. Yet others who have one don't have a problem

 

[Ian Grant]

The Soviets 'borrowed' quite a number of Zeiss designs and the Zeiss 85mm F2 Biotar was a good lens, but Russian copy I bought some years ago to fit a screw thread Pentax SP, gave such a flat image it was virtually unusable. It was sharp(ish) but no way on God's earth could I get a normal negative from it. Yet others who have one don't have a problem

Did CZJ ever make an 85mm f2 Biotar ? There was a 75mm f1.5 Biotar and an 80mm f2.8 Biometar the standard lens for the KW Praktisix and also sold in M42, Praktina, and Exakta mounts, but the Russian Jupiter 9 85mm f2 is a copy of the CZJ Sonnar not the Biotar.

There was a Russian Helios 40 85mm f1.5 lens, this was a Biotar type lens derived from the shorter CZJ 75mm Biotar

Ian

 

[trendland]

A few weeks back, I ordered a Jupiter 12 lens for about $30. I finally made a print in my darkroom from a negative I shot with it and I'm suprised how sharp they are. They are supposed to be a clone of the Zeiss Biogon lens. I wonder How close Jupiter lenses are to their German counterparts?

Don't wonder about - just have a LOOK on what the "Russians" also have "stolen" . The quality isn't comparable in any way. I remember cheap 6x6 magazines for Kiev wich are usable with Hassis.
(For a while....).
But I guess - and that is in concern of you : the lens manufacturing of the Russians before 1945 wasn't
in reality actually such bad as most are telling today. To me it is quite clear that German Patents and material for manufacturing inclusive full production what has been shipped in direction EAST gave an enormious impact to Russians technology. Later (within the end 50th - midt 60th this advantage came from East Germany to the Russians because their aproach stopped.

I also had ideas of Zeiss biogon if you compare both lenses. To my Pentax67II there was a way to use the Jupiter lens but I didn't .
In regard of the price it is from extraordinarily characteristics of course ....30bucks!!!

with regards

 

[trendland]

Did CZJ ever make an 85mm f2 Biotar ? There was a 75mm f1.5 Biotar and an 80mm f2.8 Biometar the standard lens for the KW Praktisix and also sold in M42, Praktina, and Exakta mounts, but the Russian Jupiter 9 85mm f2 is a copy of the CZJ Sonnar not the Biotar.

There was a Russian Helios 40 85mm f1.5 lens, this was a Biotar type lens derived from the shorter CZJ 75mm Biotar

Ian

Aha - I see it is a Sonnar type coppied from CZJ so I was wrong twice : in historical context AND from
construction.....

Ok but it was a Zeiss coppy....

with regards

 

[guangong]

My Kiev 4 with 50mm Russian Sonnar copy is my stormy rainy and snowy weather camera. Bought about 20 yrs ago. Lucky, camera and lens work o.k. For more normal circumstances I use a Contax IIa with Zeiss lenses. Mainly because IIa has a better feel in the hand.
Zeiss Ikon had stringent quality control while Russian was slacker, so getting a perfect camera and lens is a little unpredictable. Somewhat similar to contemporary Cuban cigars.

 

[btaylor]

I had a bunch if FSU rangefinders until recently. Most of the lenses renderings were pretty great IMO. I quite like the older Zeiss look. As you probably know the FSU ltm lenses have a slightly different helical from Leica specs, leading to not-quite-right focus calibration. One of my favorites is the Jupiter 9, the ltm version I had was incredibly sharp and I really liked the lower contrast than modern lenses. I have one in Contax mount, and though mechanically it is wobbly the image rendering is really nice. A great portrait lens for few $. But a few and see how you like them, you can buy a box full for the price of one Leica or Zeiss rangefinder lens.

 

[trendland]

Damned we are talking about 35mm Jupiter lens - not about 6x6 Kiev Jupiter right ?

I remember sellings of Russians 35mm lens half a year ago. I can't remember 100% but it could be that is the same lens OP refered.
What I indeed have in good remind is the sort of sellings : I was a convolut of used lenses in different
condition (some were in bad used condition , some looked normal in concern of the age. not many of them looked realy good) But the pricing was such extreme that it was also a good price if you would had by 10pc.or 20pc. of that lens AS "Convolute" - so it was indeed offered.
Later one could have selected the batch of lens and could sell the others (in less condition).

Perhaps that is the background of today's offerings on EBay ?

with regard

PS : I remember I wondered half a year ago about the origin of this lenses (nearly 100 at all).
Can not imagine that it came out of a big collection. Who would collect lenses in that bad condition.
Next idea was some guys have traveled through the whole Russian Republic and rang at the door of each russian babushka for asking about old lenses?....unrealistic because it would need a long time
to get that great batch. If it would be a rest of original production the condition isn't that like because it
is in much too different used condition? A serious concern of mystique!
Perhaps at last a colector with minimal budget AND maximum ambition?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

How many Biogons have you seen? They are next to non existing ones. Stop worry about "how it compares".

Not worried but just curious. Now some Chinese optics are getting a decent reputation too. Very happy with my lens. No comparisons will change that.

 

[trendland]

Glad to hear that some people are remaining to live without autfocus......

with regards

 

[Helinophoto]

A simple shim may not be enough, even for Jupiter 8 and Jupiter 3.

I fiddled a lot with these lenses last year and found that I also had to grind the lenses, to get them to Leica-standard.
This is what makes it hit or miss, if they are Leica-standard, a shim is enough, most often they are zeiss standard, which demands that you grind the rear, so that the rear group comes closer to the front group, or you will never be able to focus correctly from far to near across the range.

Once you get them true though, they are pretty wonderful pieces of glass, especially the Jupiter3's can create some very nice rendering, even if its not the sharpest lens at f1.5.

I blogged about my experience with that here:

Disassembly and clean
http://helino-photo.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-to-clean-and-re-grease-two-jupiter.html

Adjusting the focus
http://helino-photo.blogspot.com/2015/12/jupiter-8-vs-jupiter-8-vs-carl-zeiss.html

I will buy a J9 in time, but then only use on for example a digital camera like the Sony a-series, I hear they are almost impossible to get adjusted properly if they are out.

 

[blockend]

The Jupiter 12 renders beautifully but is the most flare prone lens I've used. The entire image turns pale if the sun hits the front element. I still use it, but always with the sun behind as recommended by old instruction manuals. Probably incomplete internal blackening rather than an optical design flaw.

My other favourite FSU optic is the Helios 103, a 53mm Biotar symmetrical design which replaced the Jupiter 8 on the Kiev 4. I thought it might have a neutral, modern rendering, like a good copy of a late Industar, but it has a classic sharp-but-smooth look. Resolution numbers are reputed to be twice those of the Jupiter 8, itself a nice lens. Incredible value for money. Ironically the 103 emerged at the same time Kiev 4 camera production took a downturn in quality, probably best matched to an older body or a 4M that has been tested/checked. Contax fit Soviet lenses tend to be less expensive than their M39 counterparts because they only work on the quirky Kiev (or expensive Contax). Definitely worth mastering its habits for the lenses available.

 

[blockend]

For those unfamiliar with the Contax/Kiev mount, there is no helicoid, focusing is on the camera not the lens. This makes for a simple design, but little adaptability. There is a converter available which has focusing, but when I last looked some years ago it cost $175. Rather pricey for an inexpensive lens.

 

[btaylor]

IMO the solution for the focusing issues of FSU ltm lenses on Leica ltm cameras is to use the lenses on the bodies for which they were designed— like Zorki and FED. So you get an inexpensive body and great optics all for one low price (fedka.com)! If you don’t want to use expensive Leica optics on your ltm body there are lots of Nikkors and Canon ltm lenses that require no adjustment.
A note on the Kiev/Contax mount, the helical is only built in to the body for the 50mm lens. There can be a temptation to use the Amadeo adapter, which will correctly adapt the Contax/Kiev mount lens to Leica thread mount specs. I tried it and it was just too fiddly. Best to use the camera it was designed for— Kiev’s are dirt cheap anyway.

 

[markjwyatt]

My Kiev 4 with 50mm Russian Sonnar copy is my stormy rainy and snowy weather camera. Bought about 20 yrs ago. Lucky, camera and lens work o.k. For more normal circumstances I use a Contax IIa with Zeiss lenses. Mainly because IIa has a better feel in the hand.
Zeiss Ikon had stringent quality control while Russian was slacker, so getting a perfect camera and lens is a little unpredictable. Somewhat similar to contemporary Cuban cigars.

I have both also. A nice pair so to speak. Both have 50mm f2's (J8 and Sonnar). I ran some Ektar 100 through the Contax iia and am very happy with the shots.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=ektar100