J-9 in LTM vs the Nikkor 8.5cm f2

It's black. This business is clearly a good deal more complicated than I had thought. I could send on what you say in this thread, but I'd have to "translate". The man's English is not so good: for example, there is no way he'll know what is an iteration.
 
lkgroup said:
My Jupiter 9 is excellent in mid range to infinity focusing, really outstanding. Where is is tricky is F/2 and close up. There is it off a little. I try and use a more moderate f/stop when focusing close.

A really nice lens that I wish was perfect all focusing and F/stops

Leo
Click to expand...

Hey Leo, Totally agree with your findings and then some. My Jupiter 9 does fine at F/2 and close up on my Leica iiia, using it on my Zorki every shot was way out of focus. I'd say you have to be very careful. I happen to get lucky with my Leica.

Gary
 
OT
you will ne very happy with the canon 85 I sent you Mukul. It is much heavier however. The close focus is perfect. I don't understand why that canon /85 goes for so little money. It is a sweet Portrait lens open and becomes quite sharp stopped down a bit. Sometimes I wonder if we all put to much premium on sonnars :?
 
I also have a Canon 85/2. Came with a Leotax and 5cm F1.5 Simlar. I had to put a LOT of work into the lenses, and Youxin put even more work into the camera. All had been in a storage shed for 30 years, looked mint. Nothing worked.

But the Canon is a fine performer. Not as sharp or contrasty as the Nikkor. I am going to do a test of this J-9, the Nikkor, Canon, and early Summicron 90/2. I will post results in the Optics section.

On the J-9: I was curious to find out what is a systematic problem when using them on Leica standard problems. It is the same issue that I see with the J-3: it is built to the Contax standard. The longer focal length of the J-9 literally magnifies the problem. Changing the focal length allows the Leica calibrated RF to agree with the image. I made a Canon 50/1.5/J-3 Hybrid doing something like this. Had a Canon without a rear module. I used one a parts J-3. Set the standoff until I could get focus and RF to agree near and far.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I also have a Canon 85/2. Came with a Leotax and 5cm F1.5 Simlar. I had to put a LOT of work into the lenses, and Youxin put even more work into the camera. All had been in a storage shed for 30 years, looked mint. Nothing worked.

But the Canon is a fine performer. Not as sharp or contrasty as the Nikkor. I am going to do a test of this J-9, the Nikkor, Canon, and early Summicron 90/2. I will post results in the Optics section.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see the results of that test. Brian (or anyone), how different is the Canon 85/2 from the 85/1.9? I believe there are chrome versions of both? Are they essentially the same design? And are they Sonnar clones like the Jupiter-9?

I'd like a fast 85 or 90. Had the J-9, but the focus drove me nuts. It was a nice sample, though--super clean. Had the Canon 100/2 for a month or two, but it was way too big to use comfortably. Now have the Elmar 90/4, uncoated, and it's nifty, but would love a 1.9 or 2, especially an affordable one like the Canons.
 
The Canon 85/2 and 85/1.9 are Planar formula lenses. I've never used the F1.9 lens, it is reputed to be a bit better that the F2 lens. My Canon 85/2 is a fine portrait lens wide-open. It is much bigger and heavier than my Chrome mount Nikkor 8.5cm f2: that is saying a lot! The J-9 is in aluminum mount, is much lighter, and front element does not rotate as you focus. Let's hope this hack works.
 
J-9 has clearly more details in the whites on the two photos you posted. Is it because of scan or it is real??
 
The J-9 is lower contrast than the Nikkor. I suspect the details in the high-lights are real. Same roll of film, same scan, same exposure, shot a few minutes apart on a cloudless day. The lossless JPEG compression took slightly more space to store the image than did the Nikkor. That is a reasonable metric that some finer detail was preserved by the lower contrast lens. Once highlights are blown, detail is lost, and the compression algorithm requires less space to store the image.

I have a late model J-9 in Contax/Kiev mount that I did the same type of test with to compare with my Contax version of the Nikkor 8.5cm f2. The Later 1975 J-9 was not as sharp as the Nikkor, or this 1958 KMZ J-9. I also have a Nikkor 8.5cm F2 in S-Mount, total of three. All three Nikkors are indistinguishable in performance.
 
Last edited:
I am confused, Brian. I have sent the J-9 to be opened up and reassembled correctly, and possibly adjusted following your notes. I think, though, that perhaps I should have waited for the FED-2 I have bought so that I could test that lens on that camera. If the combination worked, then nothing would need to be done.

Reason tells me that if the J-9 focussed badly on an M2 it would focus badly also on a FED-2, as an ancestor of the second was a copy of an ancestor of the first, and the two would be made to the same standard. But reason also tells me that only bloody fools would make a lens which could be screwed into a particular camera body but would not focus correctly on that body, and that people who design and make such equipment are generally not bloody fools.

One option I have is to set the R/F of the FED-2 such that the J-9 -- as it now is -- gives good focus in the 1.15M to 2.5M range. That camera would then be unusable with other lenses, and the combination would be unusable at other distances.

Incidentally, Andy, I got a handsome Serenar 85/2 today which I intend to use with my M2. Haven't taken test pictures yet, but some taken with the lens on an M8 were okay, so I don't think I need to worry.
 
Brian--The next question: How do you get a Jupiter-11 (135mm f:4) to focus correctly on a Leica? Have you tried it?
Thanks,
--Lindsay
 
There are many lenses in 39mm thread mount not made to the Leica standard. The Braun Paxette? Lens screws on, back-focus is different. Contax lenses mount on Nikon cameras, but do not focus correctly.

The FSU thread mount is built to the Contax standard, and the Leica to its own. The Nikon S-Mount is built to the Leica standard focal length. Same problem, different mount.

SO: the J-9 can be used either with the Russian camera, OR with the Leica standard. On the latter you have to hack it.

I've never used a J-11 in Leica mount, but the one for my Contax is PURRR-FECT.

J-11, 13.5cm F4 wide-open on my Contax II, CLA'd by Eddy Smolov.

picture.php


Late (1975) new-old-stock J-9 wide-open at F2 on the same Contax II, same roll of film.

picture.php


picture.php


I had to shim the J-9, added 0.5mm to the shim. I did not have to adjust the rear shim.

So: Kiev mount Jupiters on the Contax: you might need to adjust the main shim, but probably not the focal length.
 
Last edited:
Does this -- "the J-9 can be used either with the Russian camera, OR with the Leica standard" -- mean that the Russian camera, though a copy of Leica, deviates from the Leica standard?
 
The J-3 and J-8 are built to the 52.4mm Contax standard, Kiev mount and 39mm Thread Mount. The Russian cameras, Kiev, Fed, and Zorki, are built to this same standard. I've adjusted my Zorki 3M's to work with my adjusted J-3's and Zeiss Sonnars. Done by putting a loupe at the film gate.

So you can adjust a J-9 to work with either a Leica or a FSU camera. Just like you can adjust a lens to work with either a Nikon or a Contax.
 
I got the first test roll back with the adjusted 1958 J-9 in LTM.

The close-focus was much better, but I went back and redid it tonight. I will retest this weekend. I further reduced the focal length by grinding down the rear fixture, and then reduced the main shim about 0.15mm. Basically, more of the same as before.

Here are the results with the first iteration. All shots are wide-open at F2.

At 2m, the focus is spot on. It slowly drifts off from that point. ~1.5m to ~4m were covered by DOF.

picture.php


5m, focus on the branch laying across on the logs. Slight front-focus. Solved by reducing the Shim.

picture.php



1.15m. Slight Back-Focus. Solved by reducing the stand-off of the rear module. Polished down the optical fixture as the early J-9's do not use a secondary shim as do the later Black J-9's.

picture.php


Another at closest focus. "Close, but not close-enough".
picture.php


I'll be restesting lenses again this week.
 
Brian--
I am watching your work on the Jupiter-9 with interest. It seems to be coming together nicely. I can't wait for the comparison with the early Summicron 90.
--Lindsay
 
Second test roll is in, but using a magnifier on the Film Plane of the Canon 7, it looks like the focus is good from 1.5m to 30m. I'll stop down to F4 for ditance work, Sonnar focus shift is in my favor. The closest focus of 1.15m is off, about twice what is covered by the F2 DOF. The rear module cannot be moved in enough on the Chrome J-9 to accommodate 1.15m. The Black J-9 uses a shim for the stand-off, and removing it allows more movement. SO: I'm thinking the Black J-9 in LTM has a better chance of being adjusted for more range..
 
This is as far as I can take this lens- no more room to move the rear module in.

To my eye: looks good at 1.5m at F2. 1.15m at F4, or apply a little "fudge factor" and overshoot the focus when you are close in.

1.15m, F2. Focus is a bit behind where I set the RF.

picture.php


At F4: good enough

picture.php


at 1.5m, f2. Focus is on the main stalk, where I set it.

picture.php


1.5m at F4.
picture.php


2m at F2

picture.php


2m at F4.

picture.php


Bottom Line: Nikkor 8.5cm f2 wins. Accurate and sharp close-up and wide-open. It cost 6x as much as this J-9.

The J-9 can be set for "ranges". But to get it accurate over full-range, hard to do and does not seem to be possible on the early ones without major hacking. Like filing down the internal cams. Not going to do that...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top