That's a real compliment, many thanks! Glad you enjoy the videos; like the old cameras I try to keep them simple, straightforward and informative. Many thanks for watching - stay tuned for more soon.
Your videos introduced me to the Zorki and FED cameras and educated me enough to know which body would fit my shooting needs the best. I've waited around and finally discovered an excellent deal on a Zorki 4K (Jupiter 8) which is on the way to me as I type this. Thanks for taking the time to make this enormously helpful content! With that being said, I would like to now respectfully ask you to stop so the prices don't continue to rise :)
Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge. You are being part of my education in photography, I often use the black Jupiter 8 lense on a Fuji xpro1 and it's such a great pleasure...it gives me an unique sense of contemplation.
I think according to Ken Rockwell..who is a photo god.. he thinks velvia 50 would resolve about 87 megapixel but there are so many variables and nothing is set in stone and I could be wrong in quoting that figure....?
Many thanks, glad you're enjoying the channel! I love the J8 and have used it extensively - I was interested to know the differences between the various versions myself, although they're not that big, and any J8 will give some great images. Thanks for watching!
@@zenography7923 Thank you for your reply, here is a good video about all versions ''Jupiter-8 2/50 in-depth review(all 4 versions)'' search on RUclips, guy gives some good info on them, i personally want to get black one with green markings. and it would be great if you could make a review on MIR 1 37mm, i have MIR 1 1958 version and it produces magnificent high contrast photos.
@@zenography7923 i watched and liked your review on that! definitely an excellent lens, i will try to get latest version of it and try to see if there are many difference between first silver production and the latest black one. If only i could use it with m39 adapter on my Oly pen ep3 , it works with m42 adapter only and it looks in an odd shape with large adapter and narrow lens thread having an unwanted space between an adapter and a lens.
Thanks again Bunty's Dad; must admit I do like to get the editing right - I've made a few comedy shorts in the past and was somewhat dismayed that the first version I posted included bits that should have ended up on the metaphorical cutting room floor - where they now rest in peace. Or should that be pieces? Once again, thanks for watching!
Superb video + demonstration of these lenses. I love your style of presentation ! Awaiting the arrival of a 1974 Zorki 4k including Jupiter 8 lens + case, an ebay purchase for £46.50 Your videos always inspire me + at the same time I learn more. Thanks Derek HOLMES
As a fan of keyboard synths from the 70s and 80s as well as cameras and lenses, the Jupiter 8 is a massively collectable and now very expensive ace vintage synth also!
Wonderful comparison! In the end, you do what you can with what you've got, and the limits of each lens are good to push you to do your best. And in so doing pushes your creativity to grow. Have you made a video about the different types of film to use with the vintage cameras in where we're limited to what film negative is available to shoot on in the digital age? From there, it could be nice to discuss in a first part shooting in B&W, and the the second part shooting in colour. And then a third part on where to get those rolls developed if you can't for any reason do it at home. Thank you for the many informative videos you make about photography! So insightful!
In an oversimplification, the early FED cameras were fitted to the lens they were to be sold with, and there was some variation. The NKVD FED cameras did have a slightly different registration distance to the Leica. After the war, FED production was resumed at the KMZ factory, and they were exactly the same as the Leica. When FED production was moved back to the new factory, the production tolerences and registration distance went with it. KMZ continued to produce cameras under the Zorki brand. In summary, the very early FED cameras could be correct or not, and might not focus exactly without the original lens. The NKVD FED cameras will be slightly off, but it probably wont matter. Any postwar camera will be exactly correct. With that said, the chance of buying a camera or lens that has been taken apart and incorrectly reassembled is far too high. One should buy them from reputable sources.
20:38 It's so strange that the best image from the 87 model was wide open. The URL on the sign is clearer only really on the 68 version at f/22, I think. There are quite big differences in contrast on the images too.
Hmm, it's very unusual that the lens would be less sharp at f5.6 than at f2. I think it's more likely that the camera or focus ring moved slightly, thus changing the plane of focus.
Another great video I have the black j8 on a fed 4. I took some great slides with it on Kodachrome 64. Not used it for about 30 years must get it out again.
Erm received Zorki 4 and black jupiter lens today... Think may have silver one it needs fishing out etc... My Zorki 4 and black jupiter of today... all in good condition and lens focus is as smooth as day it left the factory....f stops and diaphragm perfect..no click stops....very happy with it just gave it all a light clean...so pretty perfect.. so lens will be heading for its first outing with me on my FED 2 most likely Nigel... Thanks for the jupiter 8 info mate!?
Thanks for the video. Have 2 Zorki's, a 1957 with the red P version and a 1971with the all black version. Agree in general use there isn't much of a difference between them, at least on film. Very happy with the results from these cameras and lenses.
Hi Andrew, glad you liked the video. I see very little difference on film or digital, use them regularly on both. I have to say though, I think the red P adds a small element of cool that makes them seem a bit special, even if they're not! Thanks for watching.
Just catching up on videos, thank you so much for confirming what I thought already. I have several of these lenses, although no later examples such as yours. I'm with you, I think the Jupiter series lenses are the best deal going. I thought I was "upgrading" by buying a bunch of Canon LTM lenses, but instead got endless problems. Also, the Helios lens I got for my Contax/Kiev cameras is superb. Cheap as chips too. Thanks for what must have been a lot of hard work here, I am subscribed.
The Jupiter lenses are great, I'm a confirmed fan, as you can probably guess! Never tried the Canons, although I've heard they can be really nice - your experience seems to suggest otherwise? Of the Helios lenses I only know the 44, which is a really, really nice lens and has developed something of a cult following of recent years. Thanks for watching, and for subscribing!
@@zenography7923 The Canon lenses are really nice and very well made. Perhaps I've been unlucky but most of mine had or developed haze and required expensive clean-ups.
@@jonlouis2582 It's always a hazard with old lenses - like all old machinery they require servicing now and again. Only ever had one Russian lens with haze though...
Great video, and a scientific comparison of multiple variants of this lens. The only thing that struck me is that the pictures of the 68 and 87 versions from the churchyard may have been affected by hand tremours. The way the lettering appears does suggest that.
I have an unusual example which looks a little like the Industar 50 with the chunky throw focusing ring. It is definitely a Jupiter 8, I was concerned it was the wrong lens, but I had the Cyrillics translated for me by a Russian client. It’s dated 1975 and it’s gorgeous, it gives phenomenal images. It is without doubt my favourite lens, even though I have some very expensive digital lenses for my wildlife photography. I would say an image from Zorki 4K with its Jupiter 8 would hold up against any camera, the only thing that lets it down is the nine inches behind it. A very interesting set of tests. I’ve never known lenses lose sharpness as you close down, except when you come out of the sweet spot. The 1968 lens certainly redeemed itself at infinity, another urban myth put to rests with regard to age. A really important point if you try to take the lens apart is to get a 0.8mm jewellers screwdriver, the ones most eBay sellers offer only go down to 1mm. The 1mm won’t be able to screw the screw in fully and straight. I went to the jewellers that I buy my wife’s jewellery from and he sourced them for me. Another superb video, thank you very much for making it.
Thank you. Your videos are great and super informative. This is a great take on a lens that I've been eagerly prowling for as of late for my fed 2 camera. I cant wait to pick one up now. Thanks zen-man!
The Jupiter should complement your Fed 2 very nicely. It's a camera I haven't owned or used up to now, though I'm tempted by the small size and long base rangefinder. I've also heard - don't know if it's true - that Pablo Picasso used to own one, which adds a certain element of cool! Glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for watching!
I've got a black 80's Jupiter-8 and also a 1955 Red-P version. I can't see much or any difference between the two image-wise, but I haven't gone into any detail, but in terms of use the 1955 Red-P version is vastly better. It has a focus tab and also the whole lens doesn't turn as you adjust focus, like it does on 80's version. It's my favourite lens, just lovely photos.
Just a thought Nigel with some FSU lenses needing a 40.5mm lens hood/filter size... I am wondering if I might do this in the future... But a step up ring say 40.5 to 49mm + to use a more convenient lens hood maybe a modern square one with nice brass screw on side?? Thanks....
So! I'm glad to find out that I'm not the only one when using the later (black) lens, every time I adjust the focus, the aperture goes to hell as well.
On ebay as an aside I spotted an CZJ Sonnar lens a faulty one from foreign parts as it happens a silver one...all beautifully engraved with the usual numbers except was slightly agast that you were able to focus on the scale at 100ft..would have thought infinity near enough any thoughts Nigel?? thanks
I'm sure it will perform really well - the J8 is an excellent lens, in all its incarnations. I have a video on here comparing it to the Leica Summitar 50mm f2 - although they have different looks, they're almost indistinguishable in quality, although the Leica is a tiny bit sharper. Enjoy!
My black and green 1974 version has great contrast and excellent sharpness into the light. You should try the old Leica Elmar lenses. Soft as sxxt with really low contrast. I'd never want another one.
@@zenography7923 my boss liked the low contrast look of Ilford Hp3 and Zeiss Planar lens. I liked the look of Tri x, so I left over a film preference! I wanted the look of Schneider lenses. I couldn't afford it so I bought a Yashica Mat and used Trix with Unitol developer. Bingo. I had the result I wanted.
I notice from the church sign... do you have a camera shop somewhere near the barracks there? I went for a job interview at the DRA research place there in 1998 and I noticed a couple of fascinating camera shops that I had no time to visit. Didn't get the job either! Oops, my memory tricked me. It was Colchester, not Chelmsford!
Excellent video. One comment, you state that the closest focus is around half on m43 compared to ff. I cannot understand why that would be, afaik focus is entirely a matter of the lens effective focal length, 1/f=1/f1+1/f2, the diagonal of the image makes no difference. If you could explain would be appreciated thankyou
Great lens. I have a pristine one that came with a Kiev from 1959. Compared to the original 30s Contax Sonnar i could not find any difference. Thank you.
i was looking for an adapter for my jupiter 8m 50mm contax/kiev lens.. i have black magic4k so the mount is micro four thirds....been told about all types of adapters so im confused.. do i look for the contax/kiev to m3/4 or c/y m4/3 0.7x ?
I wouldn't recommend adapting Contax/Kiev mount lenses as they're much more difficult to adapt than most others, however to use a Contax/Kiev mount lens on your black magic you'll need a Contax/Kiev to M43 adaptor. The Contax/Yashica CY is a much later mount. Hope that helps!
i found a jupiter-11 4/135 for 40 euros, it's three times as big as the one you have there and it is also silver outside. do you know anything about it?
highly informative. as stated, it is a basic system. however, compared to Japanese kit, seems there are differences. you pick your choice and get what you spend your dosh on.
You said that the Jupiter had a clickless aperture but my copy has a clicked aperture. Serial number 7407062. Have no idea what system this lens came off of. Silver bodied so not the last version. Had to get a "focusing part" to adapt to my Fuji so is a pain to use as the lens can be screwed out of the adapter while trying to get focus LOL Still not a bad lens for the price. I have a growing collection of fast 50`s and this one has been used once for testing then put away. Maybe I will have to revisit it.
Is there any truth to some Soviet lenses being radioactive? Would the Jupiter 8 50mm lenses be in this category? I like the quality of the images you have presented. I have been considering buy a rangefinder camera.
HEllo.. I’ve recently learned about adapters for vintage lenses and ordered a few,, I’ve been told that ones with Kiev mounts are hard to find adapters for.. . I just ordered one with with contax/kiev mount due to it being so cheap I figured it was worth the risk. ..I believe I’ll need a contax/Kiev to m4/3s adapter? (I have black magic 4k).. any advice would be great thanks…there seems to be a lot of adapters available for it so I don’t know why some people say it’s hard to find or fit..
Personally I think the Kiev/Contax mount is best steered clear of if adapting to mirrorless - the adaptor has to have a focussing helix built into it, so apart from anything else they're rather more expensive - and rare - than other adaptors. I'd stick with simpler mounts eg L39 or M42.
Excellent insights. Thinking about "smooth" or unclicked F stops on lenses does this mean that it is possible to stop anywhere in the lens' range say for example F9 and three quarters?
It's possible to find intermediate aperture settings even on a lens with click stops, although it would be tricky if you're near the actual clicks themselves. De-clicking allows you to easily stop, as you say, anywhere in the range!
Thanks! Just got a 55 version and i'm very happy thanks to you! By the way they are soviet not russian! I know your in clear with it and that the FED factory is in Kharkiv but in reason of war it is sensible for me. Sorry if my words mite be toxik for anybody!
Interesting comparisons but I have to admit I do prefer the earlier Jupiter 8 models for their nice as you said bubbly bokeh.I bought a very nice polished aluminium J8 from a well known and respected EBay seller.It had a knurled external focusing knob but the front of the lens indicated it was made in 1973.That threw me as the J8s were not made with the knurled focusing knob in 1973- that stopped around 1960.However the front plate of the lens was black , not silver like the rest of the lens.When I asked the seller about this he said "The lens you own is an old one type1, just as you may know, those are hard to get in good shape, because of age, glass and body very often hardly used, and the one you've got from me, original filter thread with inner plate with writings it was bented, without any possibility to screw in filters, that's why i changed front plate from later jupiter-8 from 1973, i had for parts." As it turns out, I got an excellent lens but the moral of this story is you can never be sure of what version J8 you are getting.
It can't be done - rangefinder lenses and slr lenses focus the image at different points, often referred to as different flange distance. Not a possibility I'm afraid!
@@zenography7923 yeah I’m talking about like the contax mount Jupiter lenses because I read online that the mounts are similar enough to allow mounting the lens but that perhaps they can’t properly focus because the measurements don’t line up but then other people claim that they don’t have any issues at all
You're correct in that nothing about the lens actually changes - but because a crop sensor will magnify the image from a given lens (because it looks through a more central portion of the lens), minimum focus distance is effectively reduced!
@@itsskin I'm not talking about focussing distance, I'm talking about effective or apparent minimum focussing distance. Because the image from crop sensor cameras is magnified, the image at any distance looks closer than it would using the same lens on full frame. Therefore, a closer EFFECTIVE minimum focussing distance, although the lens itself, of course, does not change.
I have two of those lenses, both inherited with their respectable cameras. Zorki 3 from early 50's and Zorki 4K from 1978 (serial No. says so). Now the version of the Jupiter From 1978 (?) is in black finish, so which version would that be?
It sounds like the final version, or some variation of it. The best place to check for detailed specification is a website called Sovietcams - it's down just now though, so can't give you the exact link!
Hello - I have learned a lot from your channel and have a question for the Top Zenographer... I have a Jupiter 8M [serial #7329045], BUT it appears to be in an Industar 61 body [zebra version, M39 mount]. I didn't know this was unusual when I bought it via ebay. Have you ever encountered such a thing? Is it common for Jupiter 8Ms to be re-housed like this or is it an oddball Frankenstein lens? It's functionally great and in terrific condition with clean glass plus smooth aperture and focus. Any info or insight is greatly appreciated - Thanks :D
I've never encountered such a thing, and I can't really see it being made in a factory, though of course I could be wrong. It sounds rather more like something somebody's put together from a bunch of parts, and all the more interesting for it! If it works nicely, enjoy it!
@@zenography7923 Yes, that's what I think is most likely as well. But it's fairly nice and certainly is interesting in and of itself [although being in the "low contrast" camp optically]. Thanks for the reply - I definitely enjoy your channel!
There are two ways - one is to cut the top of a Z4 case and use it as a half case, the other is to swap the bodyshell with one from an earlier camera with strap lugs - not too difficult to do, but the first way is easier!
I just bought my copy and don't know what happened to it.This lens only focuses at very close-up focus, from the object to the lens I have to get as close as possible nearly 30 to 40cm away but the picture gets sharp in the middle and very low depth of field. Can't focus any thing farther more than 60cm, even at f/22. It's my copy faulty? Thank you.
If you're shooting the lens on a rangefinder camera then yes, it definitely sounds like you have a faulty lens. But, what you describe sounds like what this lens would do if you put it on an SLR! Which camera are you shooting it on?
I just discovered your channel, having just recently developed an interest in vintage Russian lenses for my Sony a7iii, and really appreciate the content. Question. How would you compare this to the Industar-61 L/D F/2.8 Tessarar M39?
The Industar is rather more contrasty, and in my experience is generally sharper too. It is a little slower at f2.8, it's cheaper to buy, but in my opinion not as nice looking. Both are very nice but do give slightly different looks.
It really depends what kind of image you want, and the look you want to achieve. First of all, the red P has the reputation of being the best of the Jupiter 8s, but the P only refers to the fact that it's coated. Only the very earliest J8s were uncoated, so pretty much any J8 from the mid 50s onwards will give you good results. The J8 is a great lens, and reasonably fast, but it's not quite as contrasty or sharp as the I61. There's not much in it, but for me the images from the I61 are that little bit nicer.
Red letter "П" (russian "P") was used in 1950-th to mark coated lens. Only coating and nothing more. Later this marking was omitted as all lenses became coated. So in this test it means nothing as all these lenses is coated. PS Please edit description with mistakenly written Jupiter 9 instead of Jupiter 8.
Jupiter 8m for me has performed the best so far,of course 8m is not a ltm lens but a contax rf one and adaptors tend to get extremely pricy, riskless adaptors that is.
@@zenography7923 I initially bought the cheap abomination that are vastly available on eBay.These are plastic macro tubes with an actual Kiev 4 mount stuck on the end.They are unreliable.At least the screw is plastic and so it doesn't cause damage to the camera. After I tried that and saw that the rendering of Jupiter 8 was as I wanted it in the digital sensor,since it is one of my most used lenses I bought the kipon one that goes up to 350$.There are two versions,one has both the outer and inner bayonet attached and the second one just the inner that one comes at 250$ but I couldn't find if it had the focusing mechanism attached,it probably does. it's not worth it,but as I said it is the main lens I use for work.I do street photography and concert photography and if you learn how to use it it can easily help you out stand out from the crowd. Unfortunately mirrorless sensors can't get 100% the value out of this lens.This lens is incredible for making pictorialisn-like work with fast/ultra sensitive films,I haven't figured out recreating such thing with my Fuji. Anyway the kippon adapter works exceptionally well as it should in this price.
Hi, I have a few more videos planned and ready to shoot, but I'll try and do one on the Jupiter in the not too distant future, when time allows. Thanks for watching!
The J8 is lovely, and capable of some making some really nice images. I use only Russian lenses on my Leicas, but would love to try an Elmar, the comparison would be very interesting. Thanks for watching!
I don't (want to) understand your claim that you get a half "effective" focus distance with a m43 camera (compared to film). In my understanding, the focus distance is given by the actual lenses in the lens. If closer than the minimum focus distance, it will not focus at any sensor, no matter size . I do understand you get a half field of view with the m43, compared to the 35mm film it was intended for, but that's another story. In my view, minimum focus distance is a fixed measurement of a lens. It should not be translated in to user experience compared to an old standard.
You're right, nothing about the lens changes, and the minimum focus distance stays the same. But because of the different field of view, the effective minimum focus distance changes with sensor size. I do think that's worth mentioning, as it changes the experience of using the lens!
@@zenography7923 Please help me out. Am I correct? -On a full frame sensor will you have 39.6 degree field of view, with the Jupiter lens. Swap it to a m43, and you get 19.6 degrees view. To get the same field of view on both cameras, you can either swap to a 105mm on the full frame, or a 26mm on the m43. If you take a picture of an apple at the closest focus distance with both cameras, the apple will appear twice as big on the M43 vs the FF. This is due to the narrower field of view. Then take the M43, and increasee the distance to the apple until it gets the same size in the picture as with the FF camera. Take a picture, and compare the background. It will not be equal. The picture taken with the FF camera will show more of the surroundings than the M43 picture. This fact(?) is the reason I don't agree with the use of the word "effective mininmum focal distance", - it never changes. But the lens switches from beeing a normal focal lenght, to a long focal lens, on the M43. I do understand the purpose of informing of the difference, but I think the best way is to inform that the "field of view is similar to an 105mm on a full frame body". Or even better just inform about the different field of view the lens provides on the different sensor sizes.
Don't shoot at F22(!), most lenses are optically aligned/set-up for an optimum aperture of F8, though on an adapted DSLR you could look at F10/F11... but I don't know your lens or subject? Your adaptor may well connect the lens, but I'd select 'manual' up top or especially 'A'... aperture priority. Select your F8 aperture and let the D90 do the rest. It'll select the speed if you're in 'A' priority mode. You might need to change speed to suit the subject. Though the D90 is good at iso3200, so if you're in auto mode on iso then it's already doing this! Assuming you're in a darker place.
I think it would help if these videos, also placed these vintage lenses in perspective with their modern equivalents. Otherwise it can me misleading to a novice, when one lens is described as being "sharp", i.e that has to be relative, sharp compared to what?. The big question I ask is which of these vintage lenses comes near to the sharpness of modern lenses....We have become accustomed (except where the creator deliberately wants to avoid extreme sharpness) to very sharp images - especially in stills, and I hope Zenography can kindly share his thoughts on this issue. At teh end of the day, accurate focus and sharpness are really key, while you can improve things like flare by repositioning to avoid direct light, there is nothing a photographer can do about sharpness, the lens is either sharp enough or not. When one is aiming to improve their photography, especially with the internet an so much exposure to what others are capable of, we get to see some really sharp images, and at the end of the day, while a better sensor, full frame, lighting are important contributors, the lens can become a disruptive factor is its not sharp enough to resolve and deliver the kind of resolution that modern digital sensors are now capable of. Which of these vintage lenses, comes closest to being able to take advantage of the kind of resolution that modern sensors are now capable of.? This is a really important point. Appreciating that these vintage lenses were developed for a time when film was the target, and film does not resolve anywhere near as good as a modern digital sensor. I can appreciate that vintage lenses are great contributors to the "film" look, and an easy way to achieve that look. But seriously, if one wanted the ultrasharp image, at high resolution on a camera with at least 16 megapixels, which lens would one use, from all these vintage lenses? I am also curious - what is the equivalent resolution of 35 mm film, in today's megapixels.? i,e at how many megapixels does one begin to exceed the resolution of film...?
The sharpest vintage lenses I've used are without doubt the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses - specifically the Pancolar 50mm f1.8 and the Pancolar 85mm f1.8. Others may approach, or even beat them, but I haven't found one yet! I once heard that 35mm film (iso 50 I guess) has a resolution of 50mp, but that seems rather high. Anyone else know better?
@@zenography7923 Thanks Zenography. You have been a great source of 1) Enlightenment, 2) Entertainment, 3) Frustration cos some of these are expensive if one is impatient or not savvy at finding where to buy - I suspect Ebay may not always represent the best approach to buying lenses that one cannot examine in person, and then the horrible wait to have the item delivered - I have a lens awaited which is one day overdue - not nice to have to wait, and the pandemic is changing everything - I live in the UK and I would like to think there would be local events not too far from me where I could find these items at lower prices - hopefully next year will be much better than 2020, 4) Reliable Experience - helping novices like me avoid much of the pain and expense of trial and error. On your recommendation, the lens I'm waiting to receive is a Chinon 50mm f/1.9 which you recommended on one of your reviews in 2020, and I also ordered a Canon nFD 50mm f/1.4mm which should be the newer version of the FD which you also recommended in the same video, which is coming from another country and should arrive in a week or two from now. So we are listening to you!, and following after your wise words.!!!! From what I've deduced, there are various approaches to taking pictures including - 1) Modern point and shoot - where you are relying on the camera to take certain decisions for you - especially auto focus - and for this you benefit from a modern digital camera compatible lens - very efficient and pretty much required for snapping events with people and animals moving about, 2) Vintage style - when you have a bit more time to compose and be responsible for the focusing. Prior to now, for years I had been using a bridge camera and auto focus only, then I tried to use manual focus, and while there were a number of failed attempts especially cos I was handholding and this is a mirrorless camera with relatively poor resolution EVF, LCD display and no focus peaking assistance, but the few shots that were in focus, were like gold - pin sharp. Sharper than any autofocus attempts... Which brings into question, and analog vs digital debate - purely for entertainment not any serious contention, autofocus using cannot use an infinite analog scale like the continuously variable focus of a vintage lens, JUst airing my thoughts, not that I am an expert at these things. I did note on another video - also a nice one, that there is an assertion that 35mm film is about as good as digital cameras, but that medium format film is even higher resolving than current digital cameras. But in this world of fake news, I have no personal evidence or research info to challenge or confirm the assertion. And to those who may find my long form expression on youtube exceptional, and complain about it, we communicate in different ways - this is how I'm comfortable at expressing myself, especially as in isolation/lockdown one has fewer direct contacts with others...
Hi - I bought a ZORKI 4K not long ago, and I do love it. The lens is nice, but the quality is a bit lacking, the focus ring is notchy - I think it might be dry. Anyway, it is the OEM lens, the 1984 version. It is the weak point of the camera. So! I bought a 1959 version. This lens is in good shape. The point I am working up to is - ergonomics. The '84 is just not much fun to use, while the '59, with the focus ring knob - is a joy. I can now zone focus knowing that with the knob positioned at about 6 o'clock it focused at 2 meters, 7 o'clock is 4 meters, and 9 o'clock is infinity. This simple bit of design elevates the '59. Time will tell which lens is marginally sharper or has more character - but for now, it's ergonomics for the win. I wonder if this might be a topic of discussion. For the record (becasue you might want to know), I paid $55 US + $5 shipping. The lens had no back cap, but did include a very nice, yellow filter. Love the channel.
That tab is very handy and does take the guesswork out of zone focussing. A shame it was deleted in later versions - I think it may have been a matter of style as much as anything else - focussing tabs were definitely a little passe in the 70s. Don't discount the black lens though, a little lubrication will see it right! Glad you're enjoying the channel!
@@zenography7923 I did mount both lenses on my XT3 and I think optically, they are about equal. but in the hand, the '59 makes the camera feel complete...thanks for the channel.
I believe this review is slightly wrong. Sonnar design lenses shift in focus as you close down the aperture and jupiters are known to be variable in their focal length. A 52 mm lens would shift more than a 48mm lens. if they are not refocused for every aperture setting the sharpness test is completely useless in my opinion. I have many many sonnar design lenses and they do shift and awful lot
If you mean the 'black' Jupiter 8, well colour is different, but the optics are just as classic. Get an adaptor for your current digital & you'll be surprised! Take care & keep your kit going... some great stuff still works on our 'modern' DSLR's & so forth!
I've often heard it said that FSU lenses had poor quality control, but of the fairly large number that have passed through my hands I've only found one that didn't focus correctly!
@@zenography7923 ok ist will do, but how is the name of the beneeded part Jupiter 12 RFC to E mount ? 2.Question : I will try an infrared Filter for the Jupiter, do you recommand this ?
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Probably the most no-bullshit most informative videos about old camera equipment on RUclips. Thank you very much!
That's a real compliment, many thanks! Glad you enjoy the videos; like the old cameras I try to keep them simple, straightforward and informative. Many thanks for watching - stay tuned for more soon.
Your videos introduced me to the Zorki and FED cameras and educated me enough to know which body would fit my shooting needs the best. I've waited around and finally discovered an excellent deal on a Zorki 4K (Jupiter 8) which is on the way to me as I type this. Thanks for taking the time to make this enormously helpful content! With that being said, I would like to now respectfully ask you to stop so the prices don't continue to rise :)
Hope you're enjoying that Zorki!
Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge. You are being part of my education in photography, I often use the black Jupiter 8 lense on a Fuji xpro1 and it's such a great pleasure...it gives me an unique sense of contemplation.
Thank you so much for your excellent contribution !!
It's a real pleasure to listen to you.
Take good care of you.
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
I think according to Ken Rockwell..who is a photo god.. he thinks velvia 50 would resolve about 87 megapixel but there are so many variables and nothing is set in stone and I could be wrong in quoting that figure....?
You deserve at least 200k subs for your great in depth videos.
Always appreciate your thoughtful, well-presented videos. And ooooh, that Zorki 3 is beautiful.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! The Zorki 3 is, I think, the best looking of the FSU rangefinders - with the possible exception of the Zorki 1/Fed 1.
Such a beautiful channel. Everything I search for, you've got a video for it and each done so very well.
Many thanks!
And thank you! Very glad you're enjoying the channel.
Found your channel recently, and it is the best on vintage lens reviews. And thank you for clearing out on Jupiter 8 lens variations.
Many thanks, glad you're enjoying the channel! I love the J8 and have used it extensively - I was interested to know the differences between the various versions myself, although they're not that big, and any J8 will give some great images. Thanks for watching!
@@zenography7923 Thank you for your reply, here is a good video about all versions ''Jupiter-8 2/50 in-depth review(all 4 versions)'' search on RUclips, guy gives some good info on them, i personally want to get black one with green markings. and it would be great if you could make a review on MIR 1 37mm, i have MIR 1 1958 version and it produces magnificent high contrast photos.
@@spiritencyclopedia7166 Curiously enough, I reviewed the Mir 1 in my latest video! A very nice lens indeed!
@@zenography7923 i watched and liked your review on that! definitely an excellent lens, i will try to get latest version of it and try to see if there are many difference between first silver production and the latest black one. If only i could use it with m39 adapter on my Oly pen ep3 , it works with m42 adapter only and it looks in an odd shape with large adapter and narrow lens thread having an unwanted space between an adapter and a lens.
@@spiritencyclopedia7166 The Jupiter 8 has an L39 mount, or Leica Thread Mount, so it should work fine on your ep3 with m39 adaptor.
Great to see you back again again, I liked the unedited version, it showed what goes into making your videos. All good stuff 👍👍
Thanks again Bunty's Dad; must admit I do like to get the editing right - I've made a few comedy shorts in the past and was somewhat dismayed that the first version I posted included bits that should have ended up on the metaphorical cutting room floor - where they now rest in peace. Or should that be pieces? Once again, thanks for watching!
Superb video + demonstration of these lenses.
I love your style of presentation !
Awaiting the arrival of a 1974 Zorki 4k including Jupiter 8 lens + case, an ebay purchase for £46.50
Your videos always inspire me + at the same time I learn more.
Thanks Derek HOLMES
Many thanks Derek, glad you enjoyed the video! Enjoy the Zorki - it's a great little machine!
As a fan of keyboard synths from the 70s and 80s as well as cameras and lenses, the Jupiter 8 is a massively collectable and now very expensive ace vintage synth also!
Wonderful comparison! In the end, you do what you can with what you've got, and the limits of each lens are good to push you to do your best. And in so doing pushes your creativity to grow.
Have you made a video about the different types of film to use with the vintage cameras in where we're limited to what film negative is available to shoot on in the digital age? From there, it could be nice to discuss in a first part shooting in B&W, and the the second part shooting in colour. And then a third part on where to get those rolls developed if you can't for any reason do it at home.
Thank you for the many informative videos you make about photography! So insightful!
In an oversimplification, the early FED cameras were fitted to the lens they were to be sold with, and there was some variation. The NKVD FED cameras did have a slightly different registration distance to the Leica. After the war, FED production was resumed at the KMZ factory, and they were exactly the same as the Leica. When FED production was moved back to the new factory, the production tolerences and registration distance went with it. KMZ continued to produce cameras under the Zorki brand.
In summary, the very early FED cameras could be correct or not, and might not focus exactly without the original lens. The NKVD FED cameras will be slightly off, but it probably wont matter. Any postwar camera will be exactly correct.
With that said, the chance of buying a camera or lens that has been taken apart and incorrectly reassembled is far too high. One should buy them from reputable sources.
20:38 It's so strange that the best image from the 87 model was wide open. The URL on the sign is clearer only really on the 68 version at f/22, I think. There are quite big differences in contrast on the images too.
Hmm, it's very unusual that the lens would be less sharp at f5.6 than at f2. I think it's more likely that the camera or focus ring moved slightly, thus changing the plane of focus.
Another great video I have the black j8 on a fed 4.
I took some great slides with it on Kodachrome 64.
Not used it for about 30 years must get it out again.
Erm received Zorki 4 and black jupiter lens today...
Think may have silver one it needs fishing out etc...
My Zorki 4 and black jupiter of today... all in good condition and lens focus is as smooth as day it left the factory....f stops and diaphragm perfect..no click stops....very happy with it just gave it all a light clean...so pretty perfect.. so lens will be heading for its first outing with me on my FED 2 most likely Nigel...
Thanks for the jupiter 8 info mate!?
No worries, glad you enjoyed it - I think you'll have plenty of fun with J8, shot on either camera!
Thanks for the video. Have 2 Zorki's, a 1957 with the red P version and a 1971with the all black version. Agree in general use there isn't much of a difference between them, at least on film. Very happy with the results from these cameras and lenses.
Hi Andrew, glad you liked the video. I see very little difference on film or digital, use them regularly on both. I have to say though, I think the red P adds a small element of cool that makes them seem a bit special, even if they're not! Thanks for watching.
Just catching up on videos, thank you so much for confirming what I thought already. I have several of these lenses, although no later examples such as yours. I'm with you, I think the Jupiter series lenses are the best deal going. I thought I was "upgrading" by buying a bunch of Canon LTM lenses, but instead got endless problems. Also, the Helios lens I got for my Contax/Kiev cameras is superb. Cheap as chips too. Thanks for what must have been a lot of hard work here, I am subscribed.
The Jupiter lenses are great, I'm a confirmed fan, as you can probably guess! Never tried the Canons, although I've heard they can be really nice - your experience seems to suggest otherwise? Of the Helios lenses I only know the 44, which is a really, really nice lens and has developed something of a cult following of recent years. Thanks for watching, and for subscribing!
@@zenography7923 The Canon lenses are really nice and very well made. Perhaps I've been unlucky but most of mine had or developed haze and required expensive clean-ups.
@@jonlouis2582 It's always a hazard with old lenses - like all old machinery they require servicing now and again. Only ever had one Russian lens with haze though...
Great video, and a scientific comparison of multiple variants of this lens. The only thing that struck me is that the pictures of the 68 and 87 versions from the churchyard may have been affected by hand tremours. The way the lettering appears does suggest that.
I have an unusual example which looks a little like the Industar 50 with the chunky throw focusing ring. It is definitely a Jupiter 8, I was concerned it was the wrong lens, but I had the Cyrillics translated for me by a Russian client. It’s dated 1975 and it’s gorgeous, it gives phenomenal images.
It is without doubt my favourite lens, even though I have some very expensive digital lenses for my wildlife photography. I would say an image from Zorki 4K with its Jupiter 8 would hold up against any camera, the only thing that lets it down is the nine inches behind it.
A very interesting set of tests. I’ve never known lenses lose sharpness as you close down, except when you come out of the sweet spot. The 1968 lens certainly redeemed itself at infinity, another urban myth put to rests with regard to age.
A really important point if you try to take the lens apart is to get a 0.8mm jewellers screwdriver, the ones most eBay sellers offer only go down to 1mm. The 1mm won’t be able to screw the screw in fully and straight. I went to the jewellers that I buy my wife’s jewellery from and he sourced them for me.
Another superb video, thank you very much for making it.
Thank you. Your videos are great and super informative.
This is a great take on a lens that I've been eagerly prowling for as of late for my fed 2 camera. I cant wait to pick one up now. Thanks zen-man!
The Jupiter should complement your Fed 2 very nicely. It's a camera I haven't owned or used up to now, though I'm tempted by the small size and long base rangefinder. I've also heard - don't know if it's true - that Pablo Picasso used to own one, which adds a certain element of cool! Glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for watching!
@@zenography7923 He did; in fact, he liked the effect of a cracked or otherwise defective Industar 22 that he had for it.
@@georgeparkins777 I did't know that - really interesting.
I do have all three of these, have not put them on the dslr as of yet- need to give it a try soon- love your channel
Thanks, glad you're enjoying it!
I've got a black 80's Jupiter-8 and also a 1955 Red-P version. I can't see much or any difference between the two image-wise, but I haven't gone into any detail, but in terms of use the 1955 Red-P version is vastly better. It has a focus tab and also the whole lens doesn't turn as you adjust focus, like it does on 80's version.
It's my favourite lens, just lovely photos.
great review...!!!
I am behind one of this... but what you think is better: a Jupiter 8 or a Helios 44M?
thnx
Just a thought Nigel with some FSU lenses needing a 40.5mm lens hood/filter size... I am wondering if I might do this in the future...
But a step up ring say 40.5 to 49mm + to use a more convenient lens hood maybe a modern square one with nice brass screw on side??
Thanks....
Great ideas Phil, 40.5mm is indeed a tricky size!
welcome back!
Thanks JJ!
So! I'm glad to find out that I'm not the only one when using the later (black) lens, every time I adjust the focus, the aperture goes to hell as well.
That's the only problem with the black finish lens - the aperture dial is always eager to move!
On ebay as an aside I spotted an CZJ Sonnar lens a faulty one from foreign parts as it happens a silver one...all beautifully engraved with the usual numbers except was slightly agast that you were able to focus on the scale at 100ft..would have thought infinity near enough any thoughts Nigel?? thanks
Thanks for the brilliant advice. Got a1957 Jupiter 8 lens for my FED 1g now, curious to see the pictures it makes :)
I'm sure it will perform really well - the J8 is an excellent lens, in all its incarnations. I have a video on here comparing it to the Leica Summitar 50mm f2 - although they have different looks, they're almost indistinguishable in quality, although the Leica is a tiny bit sharper. Enjoy!
@@zenography7923 Thanks Nigel - and yes, I had watched that video as well :)
Thank you for such great videos.... yes, I've a couple of dozen Russian lenses! Love 'EM!!
Excellent review!
Glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching!
Sounds like a stupid question should I use an adaptor ring to use on a FED 2 please...?
Wonderful review. I love my '55 and use it for video as well as stills for its warmth.
This little lens is a real gem, for sure!
My black and green 1974 version has great contrast and excellent sharpness into the light.
You should try the old Leica Elmar lenses. Soft as sxxt with really low contrast. I'd never want another one.
Sounds a bit like the pre-war Fed 10 collapsible I have - soft, low contrast - but I kind of like the look!
@@zenography7923 my boss liked the low contrast look of Ilford Hp3 and Zeiss Planar lens. I liked the look of Tri x, so I left over a film preference!
I wanted the look of Schneider lenses. I couldn't afford it so I bought a Yashica Mat and used Trix with Unitol developer. Bingo. I had the result I wanted.
I am using a later model on my Fuji, Nice lens! Nice images! Nice rendering! Nice color!
It's a beautiful little lens, no doubt about it!
I notice from the church sign... do you have a camera shop somewhere near the barracks there? I went for a job interview at the DRA research place there in 1998 and I noticed a couple of fascinating camera shops that I had no time to visit. Didn't get the job either! Oops, my memory tricked me. It was Colchester, not Chelmsford!
Great video and info, Do you have a link to your lubricating a lens video? I can't find it on your channel. Thanks so much!
Excellent video. One comment, you state that the closest focus is around half on m43 compared to ff. I cannot understand why that would be, afaik focus is entirely a matter of the lens effective focal length, 1/f=1/f1+1/f2, the diagonal of the image makes no difference. If you could explain would be appreciated thankyou
What about the academic view that eg. a 135mm lens is always a 135mm lens no matter what the sensor..size???
Great lens. I have a pristine one that came with a Kiev from 1959. Compared to the original 30s Contax Sonnar i could not find any difference. Thank you.
Great video but prices have moved on. I can’t see any between £20 and £50 on the well known auction site in January ‘23.
i was looking for an adapter for my jupiter 8m 50mm contax/kiev lens.. i
have black magic4k so the mount is micro four thirds....been told
about all types of adapters so im confused.. do i look for the
contax/kiev to m3/4 or c/y m4/3 0.7x ?
I wouldn't recommend adapting Contax/Kiev mount lenses as they're much more difficult to adapt than most others, however to use a Contax/Kiev mount lens on your black magic you'll need a Contax/Kiev to M43 adaptor. The Contax/Yashica CY is a much later mount. Hope that helps!
@@zenography7923 it does thanks very much.
i found a jupiter-11 4/135 for 40 euros, it's three times as big as the one you have there and it is also silver outside. do you know anything about it?
It could perhaps be an M42 mount version, designed for use with SLRs?
highly informative. as stated, it is a basic system. however, compared to Japanese kit, seems there are differences. you pick your choice and get what you spend your dosh on.
Indeed, the FSU rangefinders were rather basic compared to some western models - but they're a lot of fun too!
You said that the Jupiter had a clickless aperture but my copy has a clicked aperture. Serial number 7407062. Have no idea what system this lens came off of. Silver bodied so not the last version. Had to get a "focusing part" to adapt to my Fuji so is a pain to use as the lens can be screwed out of the adapter while trying to get focus LOL Still not a bad lens for the price. I have a growing collection of fast 50`s and this one has been used once for testing then put away. Maybe I will have to revisit it.
Sounds like it's overdue for an airing - never seen one with a clicky aperture either!
Is there any truth to some Soviet lenses being radioactive? Would the Jupiter 8 50mm lenses be in this category? I like the quality of the images you have presented. I have been considering buy a rangefinder camera.
HEllo.. I’ve recently learned about adapters for vintage lenses and ordered a few,, I’ve been told that ones with Kiev mounts are hard to find adapters for.. . I just ordered one with with contax/kiev mount due to it being so cheap I figured it was worth the risk. ..I believe I’ll need a contax/Kiev to m4/3s adapter? (I have black magic 4k).. any advice would be great thanks…there seems to be a lot of adapters available for it so I don’t know why some people say it’s hard to find or fit..
Personally I think the Kiev/Contax mount is best steered clear of if adapting to mirrorless - the adaptor has to have a focussing helix built into it, so apart from anything else they're rather more expensive - and rare - than other adaptors. I'd stick with simpler mounts eg L39 or M42.
Excellent insights. Thinking about "smooth" or unclicked F stops on lenses does this mean that it is possible to stop anywhere in the lens' range say for example F9 and three quarters?
It's possible to find intermediate aperture settings even on a lens with click stops, although it would be tricky if you're near the actual clicks themselves. De-clicking allows you to easily stop, as you say, anywhere in the range!
Thanks! Just got a 55 version and i'm very happy thanks to you! By the way they are soviet not russian! I know your in clear with it and that the FED factory is in Kharkiv but in reason of war it is sensible for me. Sorry if my words mite be toxik for anybody!
No problem friend, enjoy that 55!
Interesting comparisons but I have to admit I do prefer the earlier Jupiter 8 models for their nice as you said bubbly bokeh.I bought a very nice polished aluminium J8 from a well known and respected EBay seller.It had a knurled external focusing knob but the front of the lens indicated it was made in 1973.That threw me as the J8s were not made with the knurled focusing knob in 1973- that stopped around 1960.However the front plate of the lens was black , not silver like the rest of the lens.When I asked the seller about this he said "The lens you own is an old one type1, just as you may know, those are hard to get in good shape, because of age, glass and body very often hardly used, and the one you've got from me, original filter thread with inner plate with writings it was bented, without any possibility to screw in filters, that's why i changed front plate from later jupiter-8 from 1973, i had for parts." As it turns out, I got an excellent lens but the moral of this story is you can never be sure of what version J8 you are getting.
Indeed, after so many years a lot of mixing of parts must have gone on!
Hey I was wondering if it’s viable to use the Jupiter lenses on the Nikon S3? There’s conflicting information about it online
It can't be done - rangefinder lenses and slr lenses focus the image at different points, often referred to as different flange distance. Not a possibility I'm afraid!
@@zenography7923 yeah I’m talking about like the contax mount Jupiter lenses because I read online that the mounts are similar enough to allow mounting the lens but that perhaps they can’t properly focus because the measurements don’t line up but then other people claim that they don’t have any issues at all
Thank you very much, especially for your remarks about war reparations
Glad you enjoyed it!
Focusing distance does not change with sensor size size.
You're correct in that nothing about the lens actually changes - but because a crop sensor will magnify the image from a given lens (because it looks through a more central portion of the lens), minimum focus distance is effectively reduced!
@@zenography7923 You are talking about focusing distance. It will not change with crop factor :))) Try it yourself, report back :)))
@@itsskin I'm not talking about focussing distance, I'm talking about effective or apparent minimum focussing distance. Because the image from crop sensor cameras is magnified, the image at any distance looks closer than it would using the same lens on full frame. Therefore, a closer EFFECTIVE minimum focussing distance, although the lens itself, of course, does not change.
I have two of those lenses, both inherited with their respectable cameras. Zorki 3 from early 50's and Zorki 4K from 1978 (serial No. says so). Now the version of the Jupiter From 1978 (?) is in black finish, so which version would that be?
It sounds like the final version, or some variation of it. The best place to check for detailed specification is a website called Sovietcams - it's down just now though, so can't give you the exact link!
@@zenography7923 Thanx
Hello - I have learned a lot from your channel and have a question for the Top Zenographer...
I have a Jupiter 8M [serial #7329045], BUT it appears to be in an Industar 61 body [zebra version, M39 mount]. I didn't know this was unusual when I bought it via ebay. Have you ever encountered such a thing? Is it common for Jupiter 8Ms to be re-housed like this or is it an oddball Frankenstein lens? It's functionally great and in terrific condition with clean glass plus smooth aperture and focus. Any info or insight is greatly appreciated - Thanks :D
I've never encountered such a thing, and I can't really see it being made in a factory, though of course I could be wrong. It sounds rather more like something somebody's put together from a bunch of parts, and all the more interesting for it! If it works nicely, enjoy it!
@@zenography7923 Yes, that's what I think is most likely as well. But it's fairly nice and certainly is interesting in and of itself [although being in the "low contrast" camp optically]. Thanks for the reply - I definitely enjoy your channel!
Great video thanks, is there any way to attach a strap to my Zorki 4 k
Thank you
There are two ways - one is to cut the top of a Z4 case and use it as a half case, the other is to swap the bodyshell with one from an earlier camera with strap lugs - not too difficult to do, but the first way is easier!
I just bought my copy and don't know what happened to it.This lens only focuses at very close-up focus, from the object to the lens I have to get as close as possible nearly 30 to 40cm away but the picture gets sharp in the middle and very low depth of field. Can't focus any thing farther more than 60cm, even at f/22. It's my copy faulty? Thank you.
If you're shooting the lens on a rangefinder camera then yes, it definitely sounds like you have a faulty lens. But, what you describe sounds like what this lens would do if you put it on an SLR! Which camera are you shooting it on?
@@zenography7923 Yes, I'm using it on a Canon. MKIV.
I just discovered your channel, having just recently developed an interest in vintage Russian lenses for my Sony a7iii, and really appreciate the content. Question. How would you compare this to the Industar-61 L/D F/2.8 Tessarar M39?
The Industar is rather more contrasty, and in my experience is generally sharper too. It is a little slower at f2.8, it's cheaper to buy, but in my opinion not as nice looking. Both are very nice but do give slightly different looks.
Oh how the price has changed in 2 years.
finally got an adaptor for my sony. blown away
For its price and image quality the J8 is very hard to beat!
Amazing video as usual. Would you say that the red p Jupiter 8 is better than an Industar 61?
It really depends what kind of image you want, and the look you want to achieve. First of all, the red P has the reputation of being the best of the Jupiter 8s, but the P only refers to the fact that it's coated. Only the very earliest J8s were uncoated, so pretty much any J8 from the mid 50s onwards will give you good results. The J8 is a great lens, and reasonably fast, but it's not quite as contrasty or sharp as the I61. There's not much in it, but for me the images from the I61 are that little bit nicer.
Can you do or made a review with a zorki4 and flash?
I have one of the two black version with the white writtings made in 70's...the worst from all 4 versions.But i love it..it's a bijoux..
A great little lens - enjoy!
Red letter "П" (russian "P") was used in 1950-th to mark coated lens. Only coating and nothing more. Later this marking was omitted as all lenses became coated. So in this test it means nothing as all these lenses is coated.
PS Please edit description with mistakenly written Jupiter 9 instead of Jupiter 8.
Now corrected - thanks for pointing that out!
Jupiter 8m for me has performed the best so far,of course 8m is not a ltm lens but a contax rf one and adaptors tend to get extremely pricy, riskless adaptors that is.
Adapting Contax mount lenses is very tricky - and as you say, some of the adaptors I've heard can be unreliable. How did you mount your 8m?
@@zenography7923 I initially bought the cheap abomination that are vastly available on eBay.These are plastic macro tubes with an actual Kiev 4 mount stuck on the end.They are unreliable.At least the screw is plastic and so it doesn't cause damage to the camera.
After I tried that and saw that the rendering of Jupiter 8 was as I wanted it in the digital sensor,since it is one of my most used lenses I bought the kipon one that goes up to 350$.There are two versions,one has both the outer and inner bayonet attached and the second one just the inner that one comes at 250$ but I couldn't find if it had the focusing mechanism attached,it probably does.
it's not worth it,but as I said it is the main lens I use for work.I do street photography and concert photography and if you learn how to use it it can easily help you out stand out from the crowd.
Unfortunately mirrorless sensors can't get 100% the value out of this lens.This lens is incredible for making pictorialisn-like work with fast/ultra sensitive films,I haven't figured out recreating such thing with my Fuji.
Anyway the kippon adapter works exceptionally well as it should in this price.
red P means single or double coated, no?
The cyrillic red letter 'P' refers to single coating.
Uggh, RUclips put an unstoppable 40minute ad about a mobile video game in your video
Could you do a Jupiter 8 (1968) CLA video please ?
Hi, I have a few more videos planned and ready to shoot, but I'll try and do one on the Jupiter in the not too distant future, when time allows. Thanks for watching!
A great lens .... very sharp .... I use this lens with my Leica II f
The J8 is lovely, and capable of some making some really nice images. I use only Russian lenses on my Leicas, but would love to try an Elmar, the comparison would be very interesting. Thanks for watching!
I don't (want to) understand your claim that you get a half "effective" focus distance with a m43 camera (compared to film). In my understanding, the focus distance is given by the actual lenses in the lens. If closer than the minimum focus distance, it will not focus at any sensor, no matter size . I do understand you get a half field of view with the m43, compared to the 35mm film it was intended for, but that's another story. In my view, minimum focus distance is a fixed measurement of a lens. It should not be translated in to user experience compared to an old standard.
You're right, nothing about the lens changes, and the minimum focus distance stays the same. But because of the different field of view, the effective minimum focus distance changes with sensor size. I do think that's worth mentioning, as it changes the experience of using the lens!
@@zenography7923 Please help me out. Am I correct? -On a full frame sensor will you have 39.6 degree field of view, with the Jupiter lens. Swap it to a m43, and you get 19.6 degrees view. To get the same field of view on both cameras, you can either swap to a 105mm on the full frame, or a 26mm on the m43. If you take a picture of an apple at the closest focus distance with both cameras, the apple will appear twice as big on the M43 vs the FF. This is due to the narrower field of view. Then take the M43, and increasee the distance to the apple until it gets the same size in the picture as with the FF camera. Take a picture, and compare the background. It will not be equal. The picture taken with the FF camera will show more of the surroundings than the M43 picture. This fact(?) is the reason I don't agree with the use of the word "effective mininmum focal distance", - it never changes. But the lens switches from beeing a normal focal lenght, to a long focal lens, on the M43. I do understand the purpose of informing of the difference, but I think the best way is to inform that the "field of view is similar to an 105mm on a full frame body". Or even better just inform about the different field of view the lens provides on the different sensor sizes.
Your results at f22 make no sense. All of the lenses should have lost sharpness due to diffraction. I suspect an error in methodology.
Don't shoot at F22(!), most lenses are optically aligned/set-up for an optimum aperture of F8, though on an adapted DSLR you could look at F10/F11... but I don't know your lens or subject? Your adaptor may well connect the lens, but I'd select 'manual' up top or especially 'A'... aperture priority.
Select your F8 aperture and let the D90 do the rest. It'll select the speed if you're in 'A' priority mode. You might need to change speed to suit the subject. Though the D90 is good at iso3200, so if you're in auto mode on iso then it's already doing this! Assuming you're in a darker place.
I think it would help if these videos, also placed these vintage lenses in perspective with their modern equivalents. Otherwise it can me misleading to a novice, when one lens is described as being "sharp", i.e that has to be relative, sharp compared to what?. The big question I ask is which of these vintage lenses comes near to the sharpness of modern lenses....We have become accustomed (except where the creator deliberately wants to avoid extreme sharpness) to very sharp images - especially in stills, and I hope Zenography can kindly share his thoughts on this issue. At teh end of the day, accurate focus and sharpness are really key, while you can improve things like flare by repositioning to avoid direct light, there is nothing a photographer can do about sharpness, the lens is either sharp enough or not.
When one is aiming to improve their photography, especially with the internet an so much exposure to what others are capable of, we get to see some really sharp images, and at the end of the day, while a better sensor, full frame, lighting are important contributors, the lens can become a disruptive factor is its not sharp enough to resolve and deliver the kind of resolution that modern digital sensors are now capable of.
Which of these vintage lenses, comes closest to being able to take advantage of the kind of resolution that modern sensors are now capable of.? This is a really important point. Appreciating that these vintage lenses were developed for a time when film was the target, and film does not resolve anywhere near as good as a modern digital sensor. I can appreciate that vintage lenses are great contributors to the "film" look, and an easy way to achieve that look. But seriously, if one wanted the ultrasharp image, at high resolution on a camera with at least 16 megapixels, which lens would one use, from all these vintage lenses?
I am also curious - what is the equivalent resolution of 35 mm film, in today's megapixels.? i,e at how many megapixels does one begin to exceed the resolution of film...?
The sharpest vintage lenses I've used are without doubt the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses - specifically the Pancolar 50mm f1.8 and the Pancolar 85mm f1.8. Others may approach, or even beat them, but I haven't found one yet! I once heard that 35mm film (iso 50 I guess) has a resolution of 50mp, but that seems rather high. Anyone else know better?
@@zenography7923 Thanks Zenography. You have been a great source of 1) Enlightenment, 2) Entertainment, 3) Frustration cos some of these are expensive if one is impatient or not savvy at finding where to buy - I suspect Ebay may not always represent the best approach to buying lenses that one cannot examine in person, and then the horrible wait to have the item delivered - I have a lens awaited which is one day overdue - not nice to have to wait, and the pandemic is changing everything - I live in the UK and I would like to think there would be local events not too far from me where I could find these items at lower prices - hopefully next year will be much better than 2020, 4) Reliable Experience - helping novices like me avoid much of the pain and expense of trial and error.
On your recommendation, the lens I'm waiting to receive is a Chinon 50mm f/1.9 which you recommended on one of your reviews in 2020, and I also ordered a Canon nFD 50mm f/1.4mm which should be the newer version of the FD which you also recommended in the same video, which is coming from another country and should arrive in a week or two from now. So we are listening to you!, and following after your wise words.!!!!
From what I've deduced, there are various approaches to taking pictures including - 1) Modern point and shoot - where you are relying on the camera to take certain decisions for you - especially auto focus - and for this you benefit from a modern digital camera compatible lens - very efficient and pretty much required for snapping events with people and animals moving about, 2) Vintage style - when you have a bit more time to compose and be responsible for the focusing.
Prior to now, for years I had been using a bridge camera and auto focus only, then I tried to use manual focus, and while there were a number of failed attempts especially cos I was handholding and this is a mirrorless camera with relatively poor resolution EVF, LCD display and no focus peaking assistance, but the few shots that were in focus, were like gold - pin sharp. Sharper than any autofocus attempts...
Which brings into question, and analog vs digital debate - purely for entertainment not any serious contention, autofocus using cannot use an infinite analog scale like the continuously variable focus of a vintage lens, JUst airing my thoughts, not that I am an expert at these things.
I did note on another video - also a nice one, that there is an assertion that 35mm film is about as good as digital cameras, but that medium format film is even higher resolving than current digital cameras. But in this world of fake news, I have no personal evidence or research info to challenge or confirm the assertion.
And to those who may find my long form expression on youtube exceptional, and complain about it, we communicate in different ways - this is how I'm comfortable at expressing myself, especially as in isolation/lockdown one has fewer direct contacts with others...
Hi - I bought a ZORKI 4K not long ago, and I do love it. The lens is nice, but the quality is a bit lacking, the focus ring is notchy - I think it might be dry. Anyway, it is the OEM lens, the 1984 version. It is the weak point of the camera. So! I bought a 1959 version. This lens is in good shape.
The point I am working up to is - ergonomics. The '84 is just not much fun to use, while the '59, with the focus ring knob - is a joy. I can now zone focus knowing that with the knob positioned at about 6 o'clock it focused at 2 meters, 7 o'clock is 4 meters, and 9 o'clock is infinity. This simple bit of design elevates the '59. Time will tell which lens is marginally sharper or has more character - but for now, it's ergonomics for the win.
I wonder if this might be a topic of discussion.
For the record (becasue you might want to know), I paid $55 US + $5 shipping. The lens had no back cap, but did include a very nice, yellow filter.
Love the channel.
That tab is very handy and does take the guesswork out of zone focussing. A shame it was deleted in later versions - I think it may have been a matter of style as much as anything else - focussing tabs were definitely a little passe in the 70s. Don't discount the black lens though, a little lubrication will see it right! Glad you're enjoying the channel!
@@zenography7923 I did mount both lenses on my XT3 and I think optically, they are about equal. but in the hand, the '59 makes the camera feel complete...thanks for the channel.
Ďakujem za objektívne zhodnotenie vzniku objektívu Jupiter 8 , 3.30 min.
Hello 👋
I would say that each example of the USSR made lenses can be a bit different. 😜
I've heard that, but I've only ever had one bad one...perhaps I've been lucky!
I feel like I just watched a class by a seasoned lecturer .
Top marks to you sir!
On eBay the Russians sellers are asking for $ 150 to $165 for the Juniper 8
That is crazy. Shame on them.
I believe this review is slightly wrong. Sonnar design lenses shift in focus as you close down the aperture and jupiters are known to be variable in their focal length. A 52 mm lens would shift more than a 48mm lens. if they are not refocused for every aperture setting the sharpness test is completely useless in my opinion. I have many many sonnar design lenses and they do shift and awful lot
I did refocus for each shot, so focus should be accurate...
cool
Thanks!
1ft=30.48cm
Depressing, I have the 1987 version.
If you mean the 'black' Jupiter 8, well colour is different, but the optics are just as classic. Get an adaptor for your current digital & you'll be surprised! Take care & keep your kit going... some great stuff still works on our 'modern' DSLR's & so forth!
Russian Jupiter lenses are as iffy as playing Russian Roulette with 5 rounds in a 6 shooter revolver.
I've often heard it said that FSU lenses had poor quality control, but of the fairly large number that have passed through my hands I've only found one that didn't focus correctly!
Dear Zeno(n), I just like and admire your clips ! - Please do a contribution on FED Industar typ comparisons ! / I will buy a Jupiter 8 :)
If you check out my back catalogue you'll find lots of Jupiter/Industar material!
@@zenography7923 ok ist will do, but how is the name of the beneeded part Jupiter 12 RFC to E mount ?
2.Question : I will try an infrared Filter for the Jupiter, do you recommand this ?
Nice video! I have a Jupiter 8 on my Zorki-4. It is a pretty decent bit of glass...
Hi there, glad you enjoyed the video. Hope you're enjoying the Zorki plus J8! Thanks for watching.