Jupiter 37A - bad copy?

HoBykoYan · 08-22-2011, 07:10 PM

had the same case with my K55 1.8 before. fuzzy,foggy like images . try to look through the glass though, i discovered that the glass seems foggy as well. sent to for clean up and rest is history. k55 now is my go to lens. very sharp and great lens. i also have the 37a russian copy and its my best portrait lens now, very sharp indeed. it may be cheap buy don't just give up on that great lens

vladimiroltean · 08-22-2011, 11:51 PM

Good thing to know that I'm not making things up, or at least I'm not the only one

My glass looks clear really, that's why I believe the lens had been previously disassembled and some optical elements swapped or something. Is that even possible?! Or the groups simply screw in place, leaving no room for mistake. That's what I really want to know before I throw away money on a lens spanner.

vladimiroltean · 08-22-2011, 11:59 PM

I have an idea now, it's just speculations though. You remember what I said in the OP, that the pictures have a grayish quality to them. Well when I dismantled the lens there were tons of this grey grease that got on my fingers (is this what they call lithium grease?). Is there any chance the grease could get through the aperture mechanism inside the optical part?

Laurentiu Cristofor · 08-23-2011, 12:13 AM

I expect the grease would be really obvious if it really got on the lens elements. Have you looked through the lens at a light to see if you can see any irregularities on the glass surface?

As for the assembly of the lens - I don't know if on the 37A it is possible to mount something the wrong way. I disassembled a few lenses and the worst issue I encountered was screwing back the focusing helicoid so that I don't lose infinity focus. Only once I played with a lens (Domiplan 50/2.8) where the rear element could actually be reversed - that was a very peculiar design.

You can take the lens to a shop to get it cleaned, but it may cost you more to repair it than to get a new copy. Try looking a bit for another sample.

vladimiroltean · 08-23-2011, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

You can take the lens to a shop to get it cleaned, but it may cost you more to repair it than to get a new copy. Try looking a bit for another sample.

Well, I already have a Takumar 200/4 which, although fungus-ridden, takes much sharper picture than this lens, so I'm not putting high hopes into repairing it/buying another copy. It just intrigues me that nothing seems obviously wrong with it, and it is so well regarded even here on PF that I sometimes think I am crazy.

vladimiroltean · 10-12-2011, 02:33 PM

Major update although will not be the last: I had some free time this weekend, and as I just realized what a great spanner tool would a pair of scissors make, I hurriedly took it apart and cleaned the lens elements (still left more dust inside than it already was), but I realized that the rear element should really fit backwards

So I reversed it, and voila, the Jupiter 37A was now sharp after so many years and god knows what improper service (remember when I said somebody had previously opened it?)
I didn't get to test it at full potential (I am very, very, very busy during the week), I get home when there's not enough light for a clean ISO (and I only tried it wide open), but this is the first sharp picture that ever came from it (picture no longer available, but here's my set on Flickr with this lens):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kcobain1992/sets/72157632495357149/

Laurentiu Cristofor · 10-12-2011, 07:31 PM

Great job! I'm glad to hear you figured out the problem. I think you'll like it now.

10-12-2011, 02:33 PM	#21
vladimiroltean Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Bucharest, Romania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,465 Original Poster	Major update although will not be the last: I had some free time this weekend, and as I just realized what a great spanner tool would a pair of scissors make, I hurriedly took it apart and cleaned the lens elements (still left more dust inside than it already was), but I realized that the rear element should really fit backwards So I reversed it, and voila, the Jupiter 37A was now sharp after so many years and god knows what improper service (remember when I said somebody had previously opened it?) I didn't get to test it at full potential (I am very, very, very busy during the week), I get home when there's not enough light for a clean ISO (and I only tried it wide open), but this is the first sharp picture that ever came from it (picture no longer available, but here's my set on Flickr with this lens): http://www.flickr.com/photos/kcobain1992/sets/72157632495357149/ Last edited by vladimiroltean; 07-29-2013 at 03:28 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Jupiter 37A M42 + K100DS, no antishake, why?	MrA	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	05-20-2011 10:48 AM
Jupiter 37a mounting upside down...	c5k0	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	01-26-2011 05:28 PM
Jupiter 37A 135/3.5	Levanister	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	10-03-2009 12:49 AM

08-22-2011, 07:10 PM	#16
HoBykoYan Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: HCMC Posts: 271	had the same case with my K55 1.8 before. fuzzy,foggy like images . try to look through the glass though, i discovered that the glass seems foggy as well. sent to for clean up and rest is history. k55 now is my go to lens. very sharp and great lens. i also have the 37a russian copy and its my best portrait lens now, very sharp indeed. it may be cheap buy don't just give up on that great lens

08-22-2011, 11:51 PM	#17
vladimiroltean Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Bucharest, Romania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,465 Original Poster	Good thing to know that I'm not making things up, or at least I'm not the only one My glass looks clear really, that's why I believe the lens had been previously disassembled and some optical elements swapped or something. Is that even possible?! Or the groups simply screw in place, leaving no room for mistake. That's what I really want to know before I throw away money on a lens spanner.

08-22-2011, 11:59 PM	#18
vladimiroltean Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Bucharest, Romania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,465 Original Poster	I have an idea now, it's just speculations though. You remember what I said in the OP, that the pictures have a grayish quality to them. Well when I dismantled the lens there were tons of this grey grease that got on my fingers (is this what they call lithium grease?). Is there any chance the grease could get through the aperture mechanism inside the optical part?

08-23-2011, 12:13 AM	#19
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	I expect the grease would be really obvious if it really got on the lens elements. Have you looked through the lens at a light to see if you can see any irregularities on the glass surface? As for the assembly of the lens - I don't know if on the 37A it is possible to mount something the wrong way. I disassembled a few lenses and the worst issue I encountered was screwing back the focusing helicoid so that I don't lose infinity focus. Only once I played with a lens (Domiplan 50/2.8) where the rear element could actually be reversed - that was a very peculiar design. You can take the lens to a shop to get it cleaned, but it may cost you more to repair it than to get a new copy. Try looking a bit for another sample.

08-23-2011, 02:34 AM	#20
vladimiroltean Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Bucharest, Romania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,465 Original Poster	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor You can take the lens to a shop to get it cleaned, but it may cost you more to repair it than to get a new copy. Try looking a bit for another sample. Well, I already have a Takumar 200/4 which, although fungus-ridden, takes much sharper picture than this lens, so I'm not putting high hopes into repairing it/buying another copy. It just intrigues me that nothing seems obviously wrong with it, and it is so well regarded even here on PF that I sometimes think I am crazy.

10-12-2011, 07:31 PM	#22
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Great job! I'm glad to hear you figured out the problem. I think you'll like it now.