Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Guy Bennett wrote cheerfully: > >> Were you Jupiter flare guys using a lens hood, or were you >just out there, >> aiming that naked lens at the chariot of Pheobus and >firing away like there >> was no tomorrow? > >Uhm.. We are talking Jupiter 12 (2.8/35) here. This lens >have sunshade built-in.. >Jupiter 9 (2/85) is a Sonnar copy. As such, it has only >three groups and six air-glass surfaces. Such a design has a >little flare from day 0.. :-) >-------- >St. No, we are talking about the Jupiter 9. Read on. Guy : I'm in the look for a Jupiter-9 85mm f2. I've looked in the archives for comments on this lens, but there's one thing I cannot find: What years are the safest to go with? I'll probably be buying from ebay, unless someone suggests a good source for these things in the San Francisco bay area, so I won't be able to try before I buy. Are lenses older than 1965 better, should I go with one from the late 70's, does it matter at all? Thanks, j * > I'm in the look for a Jupiter-9 85mm f2. I've looked in the archives > for comments on this lens, but there's one thing I cannot find: What > years are the safest to go with? I'll probably be buying from ebay, > unless someone suggests a good source for these things in the San > Francisco bay area, so I won't be able to try before I buy. Juan, mine was a total dog, which was a shame because I wanted to like it. Eventually I discovered the problem was that the focus cam had WORN DOWN FROM USE. I could not believe it but the camera store (Jessops classic in Pied Bull Yard, London) agreed with the diagnosis. Must have been phenomenally soft metal. Never seen anything like it before or since. Got my money back from the dealer. A shame because it had a lovely tonal quality when focused, quite unlike any other lens and certainly superior in look if not sharpness to either my voigtlander 75 or (heresy!) the skinny tele-elmarit. Both of these are fine lenses but a good jupiter has something about it that's unique. Probably uncorrected spherical aberrations! But you absolutely must try before you buy and make sure you do a critical focus test wide open at near focus and infinity. It is easy to blame yourself with this lens because at f/2 focused close, the dof is vanishingly thin. - -- Johnny Deadman * At 11:32 AM 3/26/2001 -0800, Juan J. Buhler wrote: > >I'm in the look for a Jupiter-9 85mm f2. I've looked in the archives >for comments on this lens, but there's one thing I cannot find: What >years are the safest to go with? Were I more humble, modesty would preclude my suggesting this, but I would recommend that phenomenal work dripping with arcane knowledge, NON-LEITZ LEICA THREAD-MOUNT LENSES: A 39mm DIVERSITY by <ah-HEM> Marc James Small, published by Rita Wittig and cheerfully available for a mere pittance worldwide. The 2/85 Jupiter-9 is discussed there in some detail. Marc * Now, this IS odd. I have had perhaps 30 2/85 Jupiter-9's pass through my hands, and have subjected 20 or so to photographic tests. Three were dogs. So, 85% seem magnificent, and 15% aren't keepers. The odds are around 17:3 that any given Jupiter-9 will be a wonderful lens. AND a Jupiter-9 should cost less than $100, while those Horrid Illegal Japanese Thefts will run three times that, in today's market. Why pay more, for less? Marc