Opinion on Jupiter-9, Jupiter-12 and Helios 1.5/85?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I'm interested in these lenses for LTM and/or M42 mount and would appreciate any user opinion. Thanks.

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), April 16, 2002

Answers

I've messed with a few Russian/Ukranian lenses on LTM's before. The optics are actually pretty good, but the build quality is generally poor. F stop rings are either sloppy or tight, focus goes from buttery smooth to gravel road bumpy. Enlargements fall apart pretty fast above 5x7. They are cheap though! I did use an old Leitz Summitar on an old FED Ig with great results, so the shutter speed must have been close.

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), April 16, 2002.

I agree with Ben. I used a 35mm Jupiter for a couple of years and found it to be quite sharp. Well behind the 35 Asph that replaced it, but well ahead of the 35 Summaron I tested. But in the two years I had it, it virtually fell apart.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 16, 2002.

Because I believe my standards are as low as anyone's, I really wanted to like them--I've got six, three in Kiev mount, three in LTM, but you know, they're junk, no matter what anyone says. I think the glass is probably fine, but the mounts get in the way. I also believe that the Fed focus cam is different from the Leica standard, effectively preventing these lenses from ever working really properly on a Leica (all three of my Fed mount lenses misfocus in exactly the same way on my three Leicas, and I've seen the effect in others' pix, too), but I still haven't gotten around to the definitive test for that yet.

Just say no. Spend your money on Voigtlander, or even cheaper, old Canon--there are some great Canon LTM lenses.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 16, 2002.


I have used a few Russian lenses over the last two years. Mine at least seem to be of decent mechanical quality. Focusing and all controls are smooth, Infinity lines up where it should. The Jupiter 35/2.8 I find to have nice sharpness, it handles contrast well, and gives nice tone work the only complaint is there is a little more distortion than I would like, otherwise for around $70 it can't be beat. I have enlarged to 8X10 with nice results. Here is a shot and you can see that the first horizontal pole appears to bow slightly and the poles further down appear to be leaning. I little much for a 35mm.In most circunstances this is not appearent. I have also used the Jupiter-3 50/1.5. It too is a fine lens very sharp, handles contrast nicely and gives nice tones. It's drawback is wider than 2.8 it is low in contrast and not that sharp. I just consider it a 2.8 lens I can shoot wide open (2.8) with good results and for that once in a lifetime shot if I need 1.5 it is there. Here is the Jupiter 50. for around $75 it also can't be beat.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), April 16, 2002.

Someone mentioned above "but you know, they're junk, no matter what anyone says" and in the long run, my experience is the same. I tried more than a few out and bought a couple of theses lenses, and there ends up being something not quite right with just about every single one of them. You get what you pay for. I had my worst luck with the 85mm. Bought them from Eastern Europe, 1 was frozen solid on the focus, on another one, the focus was off by about 20 feet! The 50mm f1.5 I have is an OK lens, but its insulting to Zeiss to call it a "Sonnar copy"--maybe a poor copy would be more accurate.( I have a 50mm 1.5 Sonnar and it is in a different class completely-nearly as good as my current Summicron). None of the lenses seem to couple precisely to the Leica rangefinder. Ergonomics on the 35mm lens are poor-hard to set the F stop.

As a curiosity and for fun, you might enjoy trying them out, but all in all I have to say my experience is that it was a waste of time and money.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 16, 2002.



Well, I was born in Russia and lived there for the first 25 years of my life. Naturally I have accumulated a bunch of Russian and Ukrainian lenses. I've got 50mm 2.8 Industar for Fed(LTM), a bunch of 42mm screwmounts(pentax?) for Zenit SLR, a bunch of Nikon mount Kievs, and a Kiev 60 6x6 with two lenses. I think it is 12 total. Even though I'd hate to but I have to agree that most of them are junk. Optically they are OK especially 35mm SLR lenses. But the built quality is all over the place. And you do not want to shine a light inside them. Pretty much you get what you pay for and in rare cases you may get a decently made lens, but you'll have to be lucky. For me the gamble is not worth it.

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), April 16, 2002.

I guess I've been lucky. I don't doubt what everyone else is saying because I have heard the same here and at other forums many times. It's funny my Jupiter 35 eventhough the f stop is a little inconvenient (a design flaw not mechanical or quality) is as smooth to focus as any Leica lens I've ever used which includes 3 M mounts and 2 LTM mounts. While not as solid or heavy as a 50's Leica lens it feels well made. In terms of optical quality it is clearly superior to the 35/3.5 Summaron I had.501.5 optically is also clearly superior to my Elmar 50/3.5 it is noticably sharper and gives better shadow details. My Elmar example is coated, totally clear (no haze or fungus) and has only the faintest cleaning marks under bright light inspection. However when I received the Jupiter 50 the focusing was so stiff it would unscrew from the camera. But again this was probably from dis-use not a mechanical flaw. I left the lens in my glove compartment on a hot day and after a hundred or so back and forths the lens is smooth. I did however unscrew the optics from the barrell and can see that eventhough the focus is smooth it is not made that well. Maybe in the future it will fall apart. These lenses are so inexpensive and if you buy with the right of return they are a good way to try a new focal length before spending thousands on a Leica lens.And are also good for a second body. Maybe I should just hold my breath so they don't fall apart.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), April 16, 2002.

My thanks to all who have replied. (and keep'em coming!)

Michael, I thought Canon LTM lenses have become collectors' items. Any specific models do you recommend? Are they cheaper than equivalent Voigtlander/Cosina models?

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), April 16, 2002.


Gerry, the photos you put up are all at a distance--the thing I've noticed is wide open, at 1M, (about the only circumstance under which I usually shoot, unfortunately) the focus with all of them consistently falls about four or five inches behind where I focus. The one that people like the most is the 35mm, and I think a lot of that might be that DOF to some extent covers the focusing error, especially at longer distances. After I realized what was going on I wondered how they'd work on my Fed body, which I lent out and don't have around to test with. I'm willing to bet that on a Russian body for which they were made they'll be on the nose. This is a somewhat similar situation to the problem between switching Contax and Nikon lenses--they're on the nose at infinity, but the closer you get the more they're off (because the number of degrees the two systems rotate between near and far is very slightly different)--but people usually say DOF makes it OK.

I took my 50/1.5 apart and greased it up--it's now the smoothest lens I have--probably the effect of lots of grease, in lots of space. :-) But the nose is too short to hold a lens cap for long, and the f- stops change if you think at them too hard. :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 16, 2002.


Andrew, the only Canon Ltm lens I have is the 35/2 which I am very happy with.It's a very nice lens all around. If you look on the LUG archives many people have rated it equal to the 2nd/3rd version of the Summicron of the same time period.Tom Abrahamsson was one of them. One with mint glass goes for around $300, so they are not cheap. At the time I was deciding between the Canon and the Ultron 35/1.7 while I'm happy with the Cannon I'm sure I would also be with the VC. The 50/1.8 is also supposed to be very good. Probably will be my next purchase. Some people have claimed in side by side tests to be equal of the Rigid/DR Summicron, I'm sure some here will have something to say about that. They go for around $150 or so with mint glass. Hope this helps.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), April 16, 2002.


The Canon 50/1.4 has a stellar rep, and is relatively cheap--I keep almost buying one, just because they show up all the time at a bit more than half the price of a used Summicron 50. The 135/3.5 in black is hard to beat for the price, common, and usually in perfect shape. The 85/1.8 was greatly superior to the contemporary Summicron--one of the very best Canon RF lenses--and quite a bit smaller, but it's a collector thing. Even so, if you can find one, it costs less than a used 90 Summicron, and fits LTM, too. I currently have an 85/1.5 which is a great lens at 2.8, and at 1.5, well, it has so little depth of field, who knows if it's good or bad. :-) It's really too heavy, though. As Gerry says, the 35/2 is the one to have in that range. People who have them say the black 100/3.5 or whatever exactly it is, is an absolute gem, and always cheap. Too slow for me, though.

The 35/1.5 is a dog, and I don't have direct experience with the 28/2.8 (I like the size of it, though), the 25, the 19, and the 100/2 in black.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 16, 2002.


I continue to use and strongly recommend the 100 mm f3.5 A36 Canon. Small and light and extremely sharp.

-- Harry Soletsky (hbsmd@rcn.com), April 16, 2002.

Andrew:

Re: Canon RF glass--in my continuing fit of camera collecting madness, I've managed to accumulate a lot of the classic Canon LTM lenses (50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2, etc.) & they have indeed proven to be excellent performers for the money (even the hard-to-find "collector" models like the 100/2), fully competitive w/their Leitz, Nikkor, & Zeiss competition.

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 16, 2002.


http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 16, 2002.

I have a 50 mm f2 Industar LTM and it is great both optically and mechanically. The only complaint is that there are no click stops on the aperture ring. From 2.8 down it is very good, tho' I hesitate to make a sharpness comparison WRT the 50mm Summicron.

I also have 3 Russian/Soviet lenses for my Nikons: a 35mm f2 which is indistinguishable in performance from my Nikon 35f2, a 50f2 Helios which I got for $15 Cdn at a pawn shop and a recently purchased 100mm 2.5 Kalenar- all excellent optically AND mechanically, but I checked them out first, having rejected more than few because of poor build quality.

Considering the prices-total less than 150 Cdn- In have no complaints. The LTM Industar has exquisite colour rendition and depth unlike anything else I have seen. Sharpness is not up to the Summi, but for £25 with a Zorki 4K attached- no complaints. The Zorki still works very well.

I also have 2 E German Zeiss Jena lenses for a Pentacon- an 80mm Biometer and a 50mm Distagon- both very good.

I guess I am lucky Cheers.

-- richard ilomaki (richardjx@hotmail.com), April 16, 2002.



I also happen to like my 50/2 Jupiter. A nice lens with excellent optics (but not a Leica lens, though). The Helios 53/1.8 on my Kiev works also well. Build quality is another chapter: The 50/2 is out of aluminium and the quality is as light as the lens. But as long as it is properly greased it works very well.
On the other hand I have seen a lot of LTM copies which were just in bad shape - someone had apparently forgotten to maintain them: If you grease them once a year you should have no problems and they will serve you some 20 or more years (my lenses are from the 50s). In general the older lenses are alo better build, so have a look at ther serial#: The first two digits show you the year of manufature. I found that almost every lens up to the 67/68 range was ok, while most of the latter were not.

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), April 17, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ