[ultraviolet]

Is there any difference in these two Jupiter 9, optically, mechanically or overall quality. After using Helios 44M, I think, I will be OK with one of these until a Tak 85mm can be grabbed.

---

Last edited by ultraviolet; 10-11-2011 at 10:44 PM.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Some say the older silver versions are sharper, but I never heard of an optical difference between the black versions. The design has changed for many Russian lenses - the second photo of the 1982 model made by LZOS shows the older style with the thinner bumpy focusing ring - this is similar to the style of the earlier Helios 44 and Mir 1V lenses. The first photo shows a lens with a more modern design, as the production year also suggests - 1987. My copy of the Jupiter 9 is of the modern type as well.

BTW, what is the factory that made the first lens? The logo doesn't show up in the photo.

Also, note that the Jupiter-9 lens has a soft effect when used wide open. If you don't like that, better look for another 85mm lens. The Mitakon is sharper at f/2 and can be had for a similar price. And the Samyang is always a great choice and is 1 stop faster too. Not sure why you would want a Takumar when you can get the Samyang for cheaper.

[Pentaxor]

some say that the older versions are better. the ones that were manufactured around the early 90's aren't as good as their previous predecessors as what I have read before. although personally I have no means of comparing but rather based on what was rather talked about.

I have the older design which is more like the second photo. as far as getting a Tak goes, I would have to agree with Laurentiu. price of the Taks nowadays don't make sense considering that there are other cheaper options, unless of course you are there to purchase as a collector.

[RioRico]

Also, note that the Jupiter-9 lens has a soft effect when used wide open. If you don't like that, better look for another 85mm lens.

One does not buy and use a J9 for its wide-open sharpness; just the opposite, it's prized for its soft renderings. If looking for a 'sharp' lens in portrait range, get a 90/2.8 or f/2.5 macro lens, or a 90mm enlarger lens (EL) on bellows. Or a 70-75- 80mm EL or folder lens on tubes can be fixed-focused at a comfortable portrait distance. I get nice results with a scary-looking Industar-58 75/3.5 (US$21, shipped from Kiyev) glued to tubes for a fixed focus of about 1.5m / 5 feet. I haven't used a Pentax 70 or 77 so I can't comment on those.

I have just three camera primes in that neighborhood. (Because I can't find others that are cheap enough!) I have a Nikkor 85/2 (300g); a silver M39 Jupiter-9 (350g); an M42 Vivitar-Komine 90/2.8 macro (470g). Somehow the Nikkor feels much lighter than the J9 even at just 50g, and it's sharper and smoother to use. Probably nobody here wants to see a listing of my other EL and MF glass in that range, so I'll spare y'all, but Ill just mention that they're all cheap and light and sharp and cheap and give good results and are cheap.

The J9 has its place. That place is generally NOT wide-open 'scapes with an expectation of detail. That thin 85/2 DOF, thinner than a 50/1.2, works well to surgically isolate a subject (or some small part thereof) from its surroundings.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

a silver M39 Jupiter-9 (350g)

Do you have sample shots from this one?

[ultraviolet]

BTW, what is the factory that made the first lens? The logo doesn't show up in the photo.

Both has same factory logo.

I am following the comments. All inputs & suggestions are highly appreciated.

[RioRico]

a silver M39 Jupiter-9 (350g)

Do you have sample shots from this one?

Yes, but they're not available right now -- I'm still having serious problems with my photo computer and its storage systems. I'll post some pics when I can.

[stevebrot]

a silver M39 Jupiter-9 (350g)

Note that this is probably M39 Zenit and not to be confused with the M39 LTM version of the same lens. The M39 LTM will not allow infinity focus when adapted to an SLR.

For the OP...

I own the Multi-Coated (MC) version of the top version from your photos. Mine was made in 2007. The circle/triangle/"c" factory logo is for LZOS. As noted above, there is no difference in optical design between the various J-9 versions. All are based on the pre-WWII Zeiss Sonnar. The two lenses in your photos will probably yield very similar results to each other.

As for softness and optical performance...yes, the J-9 is significantly softer with lower contrast wide open than stopped down. Things get significantly better by f/4 and the lens is quite competent at f/5.6. One characteristic that is often overlooked is color rendition. The J-9 is very unique in that regard. For example:



Here is a link to my photos (some digital, some film) on Flickr taken with my J-9...

Flickr: Search fotostevia's photostream


Steve

P.S. First rule for shooting with the Jupiter-9...Use a hood. Second rule...Use a hood.

[jsherman999]

Is there any difference in these two Jupiter 9, optically, mechanically or overall quality. After using Helios 44M, I think, I will be OK with on of these until a Tak 85mm can be grabbed.

The newer versions reportedly have better coatings. Some have said that the older versions have no coatings at all, but I find that hard to believe, although it's certainly possible.

Here's the (newer) version I ordered off ebay in 2008:



Here are a few shots from that copy (I really liked the J-9) :

[stover98074]

Do you have sample shots from this one?

My version of the M39 Silver J9 (SLR version) is from 1964. A simple M39 to M42 ring allows it to be adapted to the camera via a M42 adapter.

Here is a photo taken last weekend at f2 - ISO 200 1/100. For me, the lens is fun to work with more than anything.



This was taken with the lens and I think around f8 to get some extra depth of field - ISO 400 1/10 Shot on a tripod.



This was taken last summer with the same lens.

[ryan s]

The silver lenses are single-coated, like my Mir-1 (without an N or B after the -1).

Lower contrast, less flare resistance...some say different rendering. I don't think you can go wrong with a silver or black version, but I'm liking the silver M39 (SLR) lenses at the moment, if for no other reason they look better on the camera. But they wobble on the genuine Pentax M42 adapter :ugh:

One of these years I'll get a J9. Only wanted one for like 4 years...

[stevebrot]

But they wobble on the genuine Pentax M42 adapter

I just did a quick survey of my K-mount bodies and my J-9 using the genuine Pentax adapter looking for wobble. Here are the results:

• Pentax K10D, no wobble
• Pentax Super Program, no wobble (in fact, nicely snug!)
• Ricoh XR7, no wobble
• Ricoh XR-2s, no wobble
• Pentax KX, wobble

So, apparently there is some variability between camera models and maybe even between adapters in regards to the wobble issue.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Some have said that the older versions have no coatings at all, but I find that hard to believe

Trust your intuition Jay. All versions of the J-9, as with most FSU lenses, are coated. The more recent ones marked MC are multi-coated. Soviet lenses, while generally suffering from utilitarian build, generally have pretty good glass and coatings. Acquisition of the Zeiss coating technology at the end of WWII was a major coup that allowed the Soviets to make significantly better optical devices for both military and civilian applications.


Steve

[ryan s]

I made a thread recently about the genuine adapter having a wobble with lenses which don't touch the K mount...does it with all my cameras. Still haven't bought a cheap adapter to test...

[aoleg]

At one time, I had three different version of Jupiter-9. I put them through a test in order to discover which one is the one.

Lens 1: Silver Jupiter-9, M39 (SLR) mount. Made in 1965 by LZOS.
Lens 2: Black Jupiter-9, M39 (SLR). 1969, LZOS.
Lens 3: MC Jupiter-9, M42. Bought new. 2007, LZOS.

All lenses were used with the same hood.

Colors

Silver: strong warm cast.
Black: strong green tint.
MC: neutral, slightly cool.

Contrast

Contrast was similar in all lenses. Just don't use them in contra light; even MC version flares terribly and loses all contrast to veiling flare.

Sharpness

Shot the same subject at f/2 and 2.8. Tried several times, refocusing, picked the best picture.

Silver and non-MC black versions were similar in sharpness. NO soft-effect wide open. Again, there was no softness wide open with both the old lenses! They do sharpen up by f/2.8, but they're quite OK wide open, the black being ever so slightly sharper.

MC lens has STRONG SOFT FOCUS effect at f/2; exactly the same type I've seen in samples posted everywhere on the net. Glowing halos around bright objects. Very sharp by f/2.8; the soft-effect disappears.

Considering others' reports on late Jupiter lenses, I just wonder whether the lens was redesigned to become a 'better' (in the eyes of its designers) portrait lens, or if it was simply the lack of certain types of optical glass that caused re-calculation (as a result of re-structuring in Russian (ex-Soviet) manufacturing infrastructure).