-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
I got back the '51 KMZ Jupiter 8 which had been in the shop for most of this year. It seems to function alright but it is still cold so there is some fog on the internal surfaces. I will run it against the Cooke Amotal, '57 KMZ J8 and see how they all fair, when the '51 warms up. My '57 is awfully good so I am interested in seeing how this alleged '51 stacks up. The original design, Zeiss, is good. If I understand correctly the Russians used German parts to make the early J8's and then fabricated their own using kidnapped German techs and later their own techs. A good Jupiter is a good lens. If mine is not dialed in on focus it will be. The J8/M9 combo is a good one as can be seen above.
Looks like it has the "back focus" problem which means the camera shop that had it missed this. There is another shop which has been accurate, fast and reliable in the past and I suppose it still is. I have a few lenses that can be checked.
Looks like it has the "back focus" problem which means the camera shop that had it missed this. There is another shop which has been accurate, fast and reliable in the past and I suppose it still is. I have a few lenses that can be checked.
OK, this same '51 KMZ Jupiter 8 has just returned from the hands of the Jupiter Master. It is better. I have shot a couple of around the house pics and the lens is nice and sharp with good color. It functions smoothly and is way better than before the Jupiter Master got it. These two are shot with the lens manually set to infinity w/o RF reference, one at f/8.0 and the other at f/5.6. You can pick out the ship in the distance which is sailing towards us, the Sentinel, a bulk carrier headed upstream for grain. The real pixel-peepers will notice that the channel buoys are canted left which means a falling tide.
Part of the plan of the Third Reich was to put a Nazi head on a Slavic/Russian body. In defeat this goal was achieved when the Soviets carried Zeiss back to Russia as war reparations. To quote the Scottish bard, "The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men Gang aft agley, . . . "
But the pics with a sweet '51 KMZ Jupiter 8 that Sonnar Brian has baptized and blessed.
Part of the plan of the Third Reich was to put a Nazi head on a Slavic/Russian body. In defeat this goal was achieved when the Soviets carried Zeiss back to Russia as war reparations. To quote the Scottish bard, "The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men Gang aft agley, . . . "
But the pics with a sweet '51 KMZ Jupiter 8 that Sonnar Brian has baptized and blessed.
"In response to an ever-diminishing number of requests, . . . " I am posting a quick, seat-of-the pants test I ran just now of the Cooke Amotal, the '51 J8 and the '57 J8. I will get out another day but am tied up at home today so there will just be this three image test.
All shots were on an M9 at ISO 160. All lenses were at f/5.6 and manually set to infinity not through the rangefinder. There were no filters on the lenses. Not surprisingly the Leica gave them all the same shutter speed, 1/2000. The '51 is back from an SB CLA, the '57 as is from date of purchase and likewise for the Cooke.
In order the photos are Cooke, '51 Jupiter and '58 Jupiter.
All shots were on an M9 at ISO 160. All lenses were at f/5.6 and manually set to infinity not through the rangefinder. There were no filters on the lenses. Not surprisingly the Leica gave them all the same shutter speed, 1/2000. The '51 is back from an SB CLA, the '57 as is from date of purchase and likewise for the Cooke.
In order the photos are Cooke, '51 Jupiter and '58 Jupiter.
- Location
- Cambridgeshire, UK.
- Name
- Charles
On my iPad, the '51 Jupiter appears sharpest! Having said that, there really isn't much difference between all three.
You are probably right. This was just a quick test. I will do a better one. The '51 KMZ was baptized and blessed by Sonnar Brian so it will be in the best condition and may well have Zeiss glass and guts in it. I am grateful to have found it and grateful to have it made whole after some chancre mechanics in Portland screwed around with it for about nine months. Not only is their customer service bad, they can't fix lenses either.
They are all good lenses. I really like the '57 but I have used it a lot so have many exposures with it. The '51 will catch up. The Amotal is different but it does not show in these photos. It does get a dreamy look with light and color in the right circumstances. Let's see what another test shows. But what is interesting is that these old lenses are really good. Let me correct that, I think that they are really good.
This is a half-assed test but check it out as a first attempt. I have been told that a UV filter would be advised. These were shot without the UV. There are two, one on the M9 and a repeat on the X2D. So just peep at these and know there will be a better one coming.
M9: https://www.flickr.com/gp/sandynoyes/6A3P8N0646
X2D: https://www.flickr.com/gp/sandynoyes/6F3pEjk23Y
M9: https://www.flickr.com/gp/sandynoyes/6A3P8N0646
X2D: https://www.flickr.com/gp/sandynoyes/6F3pEjk23Y
