Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
Log in or register to remove ads.

Third-Party Pentax Lenses - Reviews and Database » Russian and Zenitar Lenses » Prime Lenses
Jupiter 11 135mm F4 Review RSS Feed

Jupiter 11 135mm F4

Reviews Views Date of last review
5 71,910 Mon June 28, 2021
Recommended By Average Price Average User Rating
100% of reviewers $24.00 8.60
Jupiter 11 135mm F4

Jupiter 11 135mm F4
Jupiter 11 135mm F4
Jupiter 11 135mm F4

The Jupiter 11 is yet another of the classic Zeiss-derived USSR lenses available in a plethora of mounts over a period of decades. The particular one shown here is in Kiev-10/Kiev-15 mount, which is almost certainly not the one to get for mounting on a Pentax(1). The M42 version is probably easiest. Pic 2 shows the more common and more desirable M39* (silver) and M42 (black) "fatboy" versions.
*Note that the M39 as illustrated, for Zenit, is easy to adapt to M42, and therefore Pentax, because the registration distances are (virtually) the same. The long barrel Zorki L39 (pic 3) is designed for rangefinder cameras with a registration distance of ~28mm and is not easily adaptable to DSLR's.

Jupiter 11-A t-mount version review page.

Optics: 4 elements/3 groups.
Aperture range: f4-22.
Iris: 12 blade iris.
Focus: .
CFD: ~ 1m or a little under.
Length: .
Weight: ~ ?g lens only.

There is a built-in shade on the kiev mount lens, but such features vary over time and mounts....
(1)There is an instructable for adapting kiev bayonet to dslr here.
Mount Type: M42 Screwmount
Price History:

Add Review of Jupiter 11 135mm F4
Sort Reviews by: Date | Author | Rating | Recommendation | Likes (Descending) Showing Reviews 1-5 of 5
New Member

Registered: February, 2019
Posts: 13
Lens Review Date: June 28, 2021 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $30.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: Nice average-to-good image quality
Cons: Overly hyped up by the "Russian Lens" fanclub
Sharpness: 7    Aberrations: 7    Bokeh: 7    Handling: 8    Value: 8    Camera Used: Sony mirrorless and film cameras   

A solid fair-to-good lens in many ways. Good imaging at f8/11/16ish but rarely very good, and never excellent at 10/10 scoring. But for an old 135mm lens "good" is often as good as it gets with even the best makes of lens. And this lens is one of the best, for sure.

Cute and shiny in the unpainted version (which some people get excited about for some reason) and romantically exotic for being made in the USSR (which some people get excited about for some reason). Too many folks forget that when you use a lens on a digital cameras, the internal software makes small adjustments to maximise the quality of image. Labs also scan using adjusting technologies to get you the best results. Too many other folks make adjustments in software suites like Photoshop, then they post images and claim it's only the lens that makes the image. Get rid of all that digital interference, and you have a nice lens here that takes fairly good images. Some minor Chromatic Aberration and - sometimes too much - flare, lots of edge blurring and some distortion outside of f8/f11/f16 with some barrel vignetting in places.

But it takes nice centrally-focussed images and you can get some lovely shots if you enjoy edge distortions, blur and old time "back in the day" imaging. And it's certainly one of the better 135mm old lenses that are out there, but it is a great pity that the excitement about shiny Russian lenses pushes the prices up to the insane levels some people want to pay for this lens.

Here is a spot-on objective and more scientific review than just posting one or two best-of-the-day's shooting images...
New Member

Registered: November, 2014
Posts: 3

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: April 30, 2015 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $16.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: adds a certain touch to the pictures; non-stop aperture
Cons: m42 ( needs adapter ); flare;
Sharpness: 8    Aberrations: 8    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 8    Value: 10    Camera Used: Pentax K5 IIs   

I've forced myself to use my Jupiter 11 ( m42, f4.0, silver version ) last week at a Beachy Head sunset scenery; it was worth it. Definitely needs a little fixing in contrast in post-processing, otherwise the colours can seem very washed out.

There are not forced steps with the aperture ring; it's continuous and you can literally set whatever you want.

( Due to the 135mm and the m42 I use this one pretty rarely though. )

New Member

Registered: July, 2012
Posts: 4
Lens Review Date: October 12, 2013 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: None indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, nice colors
Cons: -
Sharpness: 10    Aberrations: 9    Bokeh: 9    Handling: 10    Value: 9   

Very nice lens for it's age (1970) and a real beauty in silver version.


Registered: May, 2012
Location: ---
Posts: 6,737
Lens Review Date: May 23, 2012 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $40.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Pretty sharp, good contrast, compact, excellent Bokeh
Cons: exposes mount contacts.
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 9    Bokeh: 9    Handling: 7    Value: 10   

Very nice lens. A real looker (i've got the silver version)

It's short for a 135mm lens. The F4 is a bit slow, but on a K5 that doesn't really matter. The focussing ring feels a bit lose, but only along the axis. Focussing is hard work as the lens has a 360 degree throw from unlimited to 140cm. It has a double action aperture ring. The front one limits de aperture range F22 max, F4 min. The second one is step less and closes the aperture to the maximum selected F-number.

I'm not really happy that it doesn't cover my mount contacts, but at least it doesn't leave open the gaps in my adapter (like the Orestor and Orestegor do). I didn't really miss not having a lens hood. No flare or bad contrast. Contrast was fine really. Best use for it is close ups I think. I like the Bokeh there. I saw some purlpe abberations near extreme highlights but they were minor.

Here a pic.

Junior Member

Registered: August, 2009
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 30
Lens Review Date: February 2, 2012 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $10.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Small, good IQ, sharp wide open
Cons: Slow f/4
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 8    Bokeh: 9    Handling: 7    Value: 10   

First off, my pristine 1981 Jupiter 11 is in Kiev-10/Kiev-15 mount, which explains the low price. I built my own adapter for it, which wasn't fun, but works.

Wide open, this lens is exceptionally sharp on APS-C from corner to corner. Then again, many f/2.8 135mm lenses get really good by f/4. It has a lot of that old Zeiss look in the images. The main draw, however, is that it's pretty small.

The build quality is unfortunately USSR solid and functional, but not polished. For example, there is a built-in slide-out lens hood. It's a nice hood, but there is tons of play in its movement. No matter; it is still an optically very good lens.
Add Review of Jupiter 11 135mm F4

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:32 PM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]