I Used Only a Russian M39 Jupiter-9 lens On Sony A7ii for a Few Weeks with Review

Sliver-Surfer · 05-05-2019, 09:07 AM - **2 Likes**

I have not used this lens very much, even thought I have had it for almost 10 years shortly after I bought my Pentax K-x. the problem was I when I needed this focal length. I had Pentax-f 100mm2.8 Macro or Bokina 2.5/90m or Rokinon 1.4/85mm or Tamron adaptall-2 2.5/90mm and so on..all much easier to use. I used only a Jupiter-9 2/85mm lens on my Sony A7ii for 3 weeks straight and reviewed it, Here's my Take away.

Youtu.be

Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 05-05-2019 at 09:17 AM.

**BigMackCam** · 05-05-2019, 11:48 AM

Nice video! Thanks for sharing

The Jupiter-9 is a really lovely lens... I believe yours is most likely from the mid-to-late 1960s, given that it's M39 mount and in black finish. My 1972 M42-mount example is very similar:

I also have an M39 version in silver - same basic shape, but 1960s (I forget the exact year).

stevebrot · 05-05-2019, 12:04 PM - **3 Likes**

One can do amazing things with a J-9, pity mine in M42 needs some repair at present. I am most sad. Just one point regarding your presentation. While all J-9s are coated, multi-coating was not a feature until the last few years of production. Such lenses are prominently labeled "MC Jupiter-9"* and I believe production was limited to M42 mount. It is my lens that is pictured on the review page for the J-9 on this site, though I sadly did not include a face-on view. I also own a 1962 vintage "silver" J-9 in Kiev/Contax rangefinder mount...very pretty. As for reports of a "quality decline" on new versions, I have read suggestions that the earlier "silver" versions render better, but have seen no compelling example photos to confirm those claims. Below are a few example images from both 35mm film and Pentax dSLR.

Yes, the Kiev/Contax version photographed with the MC M42 version on the K10D.

Taken with the K10D

Rollei Retro 100 on my Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL

Ektar 100 on my Ricoh XR7

Ekatar 100 on my Ricoh XR7

With the K10D

Wide open on the K-3...Explored on Flickr

With the K10D

Steve

* I don't know how non-export versions might be marked.

**BigMackCam** · 05-05-2019, 01:27 PM - **1 Like**

Lovely shots, Steve

Originally posted by stevebrot

One can do amazing things with a J-9, pity mine in M42 needs some repair at present. I am most sad.

What's up with your M42 J9, Steve?

Originally posted by stevebrot

Just one point regarding your presentation. While all J-9s are coated, multi-coating was not a feature until the last few years of production. Such lenses are prominently labeled "MC Jupiter-9"* and I believe production was limited to M42 mount. It is my lens that is pictured on the review page for the J-9 on this site, though I sadly did not include a face-on view. I also own a 1962 vintage "silver" J-9 in Kiev/Contax rangefinder mount...very pretty. As for reports of a "quality decline" on new versions, I have read suggestions that the earlier "silver" versions render better, but have seen no compelling example photos to confirm those claims. Below are a few example images from both 35mm film and Pentax dSLR.

My '60s M39 Jupiter-9, though not in the same pristine condition as my '72 M42 model, has a very slight (and it really is slight - but noticeable) edge in image quality. I don't know whether the coatings used in single-coated lenses differed over the years, but I've found this with other Soviet lenses too... even the humble Industar-50 / 50-2; earlier versions (I have several from the early to late '60s) simply produce nicer-looking photos.

Back to the Jupiter-9, I've read many reports that later (1980s onwards) versions are inferior optically. I'd love to add a good copy to my collection, and compare side-by-side to see if this is actually true. Certainly, the same can be said of the MIR-1 vs later MIR-1B... the earlier lens is better by far (I own two copies of the MIR-1, tried two copies of the MIR-1B and still own one of them).

Apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread slightly, but I hope its still relevant information

Last edited by BigMackCam; 05-05-2019 at 01:36 PM.

Sliver-Surfer · 05-05-2019, 03:46 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Nice video! Thanks for sharing

The Jupiter-9 is a really lovely lens... I believe yours is most likely from the mid-to-late 1960s, given that it's M39 mount and in black finish. My 1972 M42-mount example is very similar:

Hey thanks. I delved a little deeper and you are correct about the date 1969. I just omitted that part in my video. ps your copy is so pretty.

**BigMackCam** · 05-05-2019, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

Hey thanks. I delved a little deeper and you are correct about the date 1969. I just omitted that part in my video. ps your copy is so pretty.

Thank you

I bought it that way for my collection, but in truth it probably produces about the same image quality as yours

Sliver-Surfer · 05-12-2019, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Thank you

I bought it that way for my collection, but in truth it probably produces about the same image quality as yours

Yeah mines been around the block a few times.

05-05-2019, 12:04 PM - 3 Likes	#3
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	One can do amazing things with a J-9, pity mine in M42 needs some repair at present. I am most sad. Just one point regarding your presentation. While all J-9s are coated, multi-coating was not a feature until the last few years of production. Such lenses are prominently labeled "MC Jupiter-9"* and I believe production was limited to M42 mount. It is my lens that is pictured on the review page for the J-9 on this site, though I sadly did not include a face-on view. I also own a 1962 vintage "silver" J-9 in Kiev/Contax rangefinder mount...very pretty. As for reports of a "quality decline" on new versions, I have read suggestions that the earlier "silver" versions render better, but have seen no compelling example photos to confirm those claims. Below are a few example images from both 35mm film and Pentax dSLR. Yes, the Kiev/Contax version photographed with the MC M42 version on the K10D. Taken with the K10D Rollei Retro 100 on my Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL Ektar 100 on my Ricoh XR7 Ekatar 100 on my Ricoh XR7 With the K10D Wide open on the K-3...Explored on Flickr With the K10D Steve * I don't know how non-export versions might be marked. Last edited by stevebrot; 05-05-2019 at 12:22 PM.

05-05-2019, 03:46 PM - 1 Like	#5
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558 Original Poster	Originally posted by BigMackCam Nice video! Thanks for sharing The Jupiter-9 is a really lovely lens... I believe yours is most likely from the mid-to-late 1960s, given that it's M39 mount and in black finish. My 1972 M42-mount example is very similar: Hey thanks. I delved a little deeper and you are correct about the date 1969. I just omitted that part in my video. ps your copy is so pretty. Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 05-05-2019 at 03:53 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Got a Fotodiox Pronto Pro For Sony A7ii	Sliver-Surfer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	11	08-31-2018 04:41 PM
Which Is Better"In Body" or "Optical" Stabilization? , Sony A7 vs A7ii	Sliver-Surfer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	6	06-14-2018 05:57 PM
Vignetting with adapted M42 long lens + TC on Sony A7II?	BigMackCam	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	02-14-2018 02:11 PM

05-05-2019, 11:48 AM	#2
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Nice video! Thanks for sharing The Jupiter-9 is a really lovely lens... I believe yours is most likely from the mid-to-late 1960s, given that it's M39 mount and in black finish. My 1972 M42-mount example is very similar: I also have an M39 version in silver - same basic shape, but 1960s (I forget the exact year).

05-05-2019, 01:27 PM - 1 Like	#4
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Lovely shots, Steve Originally posted by stevebrot One can do amazing things with a J-9, pity mine in M42 needs some repair at present. I am most sad. What's up with your M42 J9, Steve? Originally posted by stevebrot Just one point regarding your presentation. While all J-9s are coated, multi-coating was not a feature until the last few years of production. Such lenses are prominently labeled "MC Jupiter-9"* and I believe production was limited to M42 mount. It is my lens that is pictured on the review page for the J-9 on this site, though I sadly did not include a face-on view. I also own a 1962 vintage "silver" J-9 in Kiev/Contax rangefinder mount...very pretty. As for reports of a "quality decline" on new versions, I have read suggestions that the earlier "silver" versions render better, but have seen no compelling example photos to confirm those claims. Below are a few example images from both 35mm film and Pentax dSLR. My '60s M39 Jupiter-9, though not in the same pristine condition as my '72 M42 model, has a very slight (and it really is slight - but noticeable) edge in image quality. I don't know whether the coatings used in single-coated lenses differed over the years, but I've found this with other Soviet lenses too... even the humble Industar-50 / 50-2; earlier versions (I have several from the early to late '60s) simply produce nicer-looking photos. Back to the Jupiter-9, I've read many reports that later (1980s onwards) versions are inferior optically. I'd love to add a good copy to my collection, and compare side-by-side to see if this is actually true. Certainly, the same can be said of the MIR-1 vs later MIR-1B... the earlier lens is better by far (I own two copies of the MIR-1, tried two copies of the MIR-1B and still own one of them). Apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread slightly, but I hope its still relevant information Last edited by BigMackCam; 05-05-2019 at 01:36 PM.

05-05-2019, 04:01 PM	#6
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer Hey thanks. I delved a little deeper and you are correct about the date 1969. I just omitted that part in my video. ps your copy is so pretty. Thank you I bought it that way for my collection, but in truth it probably produces about the same image quality as yours

05-12-2019, 04:28 AM	#7
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558 Original Poster	Originally posted by BigMackCam Thank you I bought it that way for my collection, but in truth it probably produces about the same image quality as yours Yeah mines been around the block a few times.