[dude163]

I just read on some forums that people were unhappy with their lenses

but they might have been people trying to hold 25 year old lenses to too high a standard

[stevebrot]

what do you mean hit and miss? I haven't heard of any dud nor bad copy of the J-9, except the oil on the blades which is normal for russian lenses.

Hit or miss in LTM land. There are some horror stories out there of lenses ruined by attempted service to the double focusing helix used for the rangefinder coupling.

Most M42 copies are pretty good from what I have read. In any case, I don't know that a J-9 would be any worse that the average Helios 40.


Steve

[hangu]

Why is that too much to pay?

I found some really good prices from some people

d163

An ST85 1.9 for $190? ($250)
An ultra rare SMC 85 1.9 for $240? ($300 min)

Good luck.

[stevebrot]

I just read on some forums that people were unhappy with their lenses

but they might have been people trying to hold 25 year old lenses to too high a standard

25 year-old lenses? The design may be old (Zeiss Sonnar from the 1930s) and production dates back to the 40s, but you can buy a J-9 new from the factory today. Mine was made in fall of 2007. The old ones perform pretty much the same as the newer ones. The main difference is that newer models have multi-coated optics.

The best way to approach a Jupiter-9 is that it is a classic design with archaic features (pre-set aperture) built to industrial grade standards. It is what it is. Work with the lens and there is magic. Push its limits and you may be disappointed. In addition to my J-9, I also own the FA 77 Limited. The FA 77 is much easier to use and consistently delivers fantastic results. Will I be selling my J-9? No way! The FA 77 may have been crafted by elves with a liberal sprinkling of pixie dust, but the J-9 was forged by dwarfs and has a deeper magic all its own.

One thing for sure...If you buy a J-9 and don't like it, you will have no problem selling it on this forum.


Steve

[dude163]

An ST85 1.9 for $190? ($250)
An ultra rare SMC 85 1.9 for $240? ($300 min)

Good luck.

if I get one Ill post pics

[RioRico]

re: Minolta Nikkor, how does that fir onto a Pentax Body, do you need an adapter?

More than a few threads here deal with mounting Minolta and Nikkor to Pentax. Yes, inferior optical adapters exist, which tend to ruin whatever was special about the lens. An adapter is hardly worth the cost, unless the lens is VERY special.

Both Minoltas and Nikkors can be modified for a PK mount. Adapting a Minolta MC-MD mount requires major surgery; it's a non-trivial operation. I don't know if Minolta AF (Maxxum) lenses can be adapted. You could try a little googling, eh?

Adapting non-AF Nikkors is pretty easy -- I just finished-off my third modification an hour ago (and I'm no mechanic). I may mod a fourth lens tomorrow. Many Nikkors can just be press-fit onto a Pentax mount. With press-fitting or my simple mod, the Nikkors are totally manual, which makes metering simple. With my mod, they can also be used with Catch-In-Focus. AF Nikkors can probably be modded too, but I'll try to sell the one I have instead of chopping it.

My Nikkor mod: At the bottom of the aperture ring is the Aperture Ridge. On some lenses, it extends 360 degrees around the aperture ring. That can be tedious to grind off, and I haven't done so yet. On other lenses, the ridge is just an arc on one side of the ring, and a nub on the other. Those are easy to Dremel away, using a metal-cutting blade. Non-Nikkors with NI mounts may have a small set screw on the side of the bayonet, that prevents it engaging the Pentax mount windgs. I just removed the screw, and the lens base hasn't fallen out yet.

[Pentaxor]

Hit or miss in LTM land. There are some horror stories out there of lenses ruined by attempted service to the double focusing helix used for the rangefinder coupling.

Most M42 copies are pretty good from what I have read. In any case, I don't know that a J-9 would be any worse that the average Helios 40.


Steve

I see. so it's more like having to deal with the unfamiliarity of the J-9's difficult construction. servicing I should say should be done by someone who really knew what they're doing.

my experience is the same with the M42 copies. I haven't seen one personally without oil on their blades. the other complaint I have about it is it's greasy smell.

[jsherman999]

... The FA 77 may have been crafted by elves with a liberal sprinkling of pixie dust, but the J-9 was forged by dwarfs and has a deeper magic all its own.


Steve

.

Well put, and it rings true. Gandalf may wield the 77, but Tom Bombadil makes mysterious use of the J-9....

[Pentaxor]

25 year-old lenses? The design may be old (Zeiss Sonnar from the 1930s) and production dates back to the 40s, but you can buy a J-9 new from the factory today. Mine was made in fall of 2007. The old ones perform pretty much the same as the newer ones. The main difference is that newer models have multi-coated optics.

The best way to approach a Jupiter-9 is that it is a classic design with archaic features (pre-set aperture) built to industrial grade standards. It is what it is. Work with the lens and there is magic. Push its limits and you may be disappointed. In addition to my J-9, I also own the FA 77 Limited. The FA 77 is much easier to use and consistently delivers fantastic results. Will I be selling my J-9? No way! The FA 77 may have been crafted by elves with a liberal sprinkling of pixie dust, but the J-9 was forged by dwarfs and has a deeper magic all its own.

One thing for sure...If you buy a J-9 and don't like it, you will have no problem selling it on this forum.



Steve

what is this? lord of the rings ?

[dude163]

That red leaf photo is excellent!

well my budget might be forcing me to either not get anything, or grab a Jupiter 9

I had some geek stuff for sale and 5 people backed out in a row , lol

[Mike Cash]

The M85/2 is only slightly less old than the Takumars, relatively speaking. To me that the almost no-brainer choice unless you are jonesing for the even shallower DOF you'd get with an 85/1.4, in which case the Samyang is. Just because it's new and inexpensive doesn't mean it isn't good.

We fully recognize that it is irrational, but for some of us using a lens that doesn't screw onto the camera leaves us with a bad taste in our mouths.

[Ira]

We fully recognize that it is irrational, but for some of us using a lens that doesn't screw onto the camera leaves us with a bad taste in our mouths.

I thought I was the only one:

I actually stay away from all auctions that involve a K mount.

And those J9 shots are SWEET!

[stevebrot]

...the other complaint I have about it is it's greasy smell.

Oh yes...the smell...reminds me of old firearms or antique sewing machines...

Steve

[Pentaxor]

I add the Pentax M85 into the mix. very sharp at wider apertures.



it's great for candid as well.

[Pentaxor]

one thing to consider with regards to using the M85 is shooting at wider apertures under very strong harsh conditions, the same with any lens at such conditions unless it's an APO lens. there is a degree of glow/halo effect and CA (blue channel) which can really be disturbing.

the image above which was shot at f2.8 has some traces of CA before it was corrected. I was able to eliminate some significant degree and it isn't as prevalent or obvious anymore.

I would advise to stopping down to f5.6 under these conditions or just have to contend with eliminating it afterwards during post-processing. either way, it's workable.