i'll be damned...

[irakly]

today i found my old russian 2/85 and decided to test it against the second version 2/90 summicron. no, try to figure out which one is which. in this age of tanking dollar isn't it comforting to now what sixty bucks can still buy?
both pictures shot at f/2 and cropped to a square keeping vertical aspect intact. M8, iso640

 

[DougDolde]

I'm gonna guess the first one is the Russian lens. The skin looks much smoother in the second shot.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I would have to agree. I have 3 Russian lenses here and frankly there all garbage but they were cheap but focusing them is a bear

 

[Peter Klein]

The point is that the image quality is very close. Amazingly close, considering the price difference. I assume that the Russian lens is a Jupiter-9--a Zeiss Sonnar copy. Irakly, if you've got one that focuses accurately on a Leica, you're a lucky guy. They are wonderful lenses if they focus properly, but many don't. I tried a couple, but gave up.

I'm going to take a chance and guess that the Summicron is the first and the Jupiter-9 is the second. I'm doing this strictly on the basis of the background, which is a little harsher in the second shot. But the two backgrounds are not the same, so I could be wrong.

I recently found a humble Jupiter-8 (50/2) that focuses properly on my M8. I use it occasionally when I want a Sonnar look.

--Peter

 

[irakly]

guy, most likely you have the newer ones. i mean, from 1980-s. lenses from 1950-1960 are much much better. that is when they still had german parts and tools.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Funny I have 3 Russian lenses here and they are really low cost like 15 dollars each but i actually have one that does focus a Jupiter 8 50mm f2, they others are like focusing a rock the size of a house. I bolted it on the M8 once at it was pretty interesting . i may need to play with it more

 

[Peter Klein]

Interesting. The two Jupiter 9's I tried were both late 1950s lenses. Neither focused properly. I have a Jupiter 8 from 1962 that focuses on my Zorki 4, but not on a Leica.

My other J-8 focuses beautifully on my M8. I think it was made for export--the front ring is in Latin alphabet, not Cyrillic, and the serial number does not reveal the year it was made. A friend who knows such things says it's late 50s or early 60s. It's one of the more "primitive" ones where the entire lens rotates as you focus. Who cares?--it works.

I like to use the old lenses sometimes--they are like time machines. The "look" goes further back in time the wider you open up the lens.

--Peter

 

[irakly]

jupiter-3 is the most interesting. i have it somewhere, just gotta look for it. mine was early production, hand-picked, and it is indistinguishable from 1.5/50 sonnar, which is essentially the same lens.

 

[Peter Klein]

Here's what I mean about the "time machine" effect. This is on color neg film, Jupiter-8 50/2, probably at f/2.8, on a Zorki 4. I only shot two rolls of film in the camera, after which I decided I wouldn't be using it much. But I liked the lens, so I looked for one that would work with my Leicas.

Irakly, you should try a Leitz Summitar wide-open some time. It does some very beautiful pastel things with color, and has very dreamy out-of-focus effects. Almost the photographic equivalent of the music of Debussy.

--Peter

 

[helenhill]

Peter
What a Sweeeet shot....Lovely

can you post some shots w/your summitar /PLEASE
Many Thanx.... if you see this Post
Cheers-H

 

[Peter Klein]

Helen: I just saw your question. This might be a Summitar shot, but I'm not 100% sure.
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/oldpics/newengfall3.htm

I sold my Summitar in 1983, so I would have to find and scan an old slide to post a "people" shot that has the effect I was talking about. I don't know where it is...

Here is a 1:1 crop of the top right third of the above shot, maybe this will tell you what you want to know. It's a scan of a Kodachrome 64 slide. It was taken in southern New Hampshire, probably on my old IIIf (also sold years ago), with the Summitar at f/4-ish. Deep shade, ISO 64, so the shutter probably was fairly slow, too. "Into the Woods..."

--Peter

 

[4season]

For some reason, #2 looks noisier, though that does't really detract from the photo. I prefer the tonality of #2 also.