Re: [Leica] Jupiter 12 for LTM

["Jack Herron" <jherron@theriver.com>]

JPM,
    Let me ad that the Jupiter 12 uses a large rear element very close to
the focal plane.  Hence the condition and cleanliness of the element is
critical.  A spot of dust or grime will shadow itself on the film, and a
scratched element renders the lens useless.  Due to the way it protrudes and
the fact that the normal rear lens cap will not fit, this lens is prone to
rear element damage.  That said, I concur with the below.
Jack
Jack C. Herron
8118 E. 20th St.
Tucson, AZ 85710
520 885-6933
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Rolfe Tessem" <rolfe@ldp.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Jupiter 12 for LTM


> --On Monday, September 9, 2002 2:11 PM -0700 JP M <skeenut@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> > I've been thinking about trying a Jupiter 12 on my
> > recently acquired IIIf.
> > I poked around on e-bay and found zillions of them,
> > all put up by outfits (or outfit) in Russia and
> > Estonia and Latvia. I've never had a bad experience
> > trading on the internet, I generally just send things
> > out before payment is received (unless it's really
> > big)and have never been burned.
> > But these ads seem funny.  Have any luggers had
> > experience with these folks?  I don't want to be
> > naive.
> > Thanks,
> > Jeff
>
> Please consider my experience to be only one data point as I think Russian
> lenses are one case in which YMMV, very definitely :-).
>
> Curious about these lenses, I set out to acquire a good example of the
> Jupiter 12, Jupiter 3, and Jupiter 9. These are 35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.5 and
> 85mm f2 lenses respectively. I spent some time on the auction site whose
> name may not be mentioned and wound up with one of each. The vendors
> operated professionally, with all taking Paypal or Billpay. As far as
> grading, I would say that their definition of a "new" condition lens would
> probably equate to our definition of 9 or 9+.
>
> While I haven't done Erwin style testing, my experiences are that:
>
> 1. The 50mm is mediocre at full aperture, fine if stopped down a bit,
> excellent at f4 or f5.6. I believe this lens is a copy of the Zeiss 50mm
> Sonnar.
>
> 2. The 35mm is pretty darn good at full aperture (only 2.8)  but the
unique
> nature of the the aperture ring makes using the lens somewhat
inconvenient.
> (The aperture ring is actually recessed inside the outer lens hood.) This
> lens is a copy of the Zeiss 35mm Biogon. The back of the lens intrudes too
> deeply into the body to mount on the Bessa bodies. One plus: It is a
*very*
> tiny lens, much smaller than the 35mm Summicron for example.
>
> 3. For m, the 85mm is the standout performer of the crowd. It is crisp and
> contrasty even wide open, at least in the central area. The only problem
is
> that I would not trust the focus to be exact (to within 1cm) at closest
> focus. It appears to be fine at the distance used for an actual head and
> shoulders portrait. I've tested this on several bodies, so it is a lens
> issue, not a body issue. This lens is a copy of the Zeiss 85mm Sonnar.
>
> A further comment onf the 85mm. I picked up a good example for around
$100.
> The focus ring was so stiff as to make the otherwise pristine lens almost
> unusable. I understand this is the rule rather than the exception, due to
> the lubricants the Russians used. My usual repair shop took the lens,
> relubricated it, and gave me a bill for over $100. So be aware that if you
> want one of these lenses, getting it to usable shape may cost as much as
> the purchase price. Yes, the focus ring now rotates very nicely :-). Even
> at $200, it is a very credible performer.
>
> Oh yes, don't forget to add the price of the LTM too M mount converter
ring.
>
> Did I say YMMV?
>
> --
> Rolfe Tessem
> rolfe@ldp.com
> Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html