Legend of the last century, the national lens - Jupiter 37A 3,5 / 135. He is called a small telephoto or a large portraiture, which is true. Jupiter 37-A takes first place in my vote on the best Soviet portrait lens in the range of 85-135mm.
Jupiter 37A Lens Overview
Jupiter-37A has interchangeable shank, which is marked on the lens with the letter "A". Replaceable shank allows you to change the "rear" part of the lens, which attaches it to the camera mount. Regarding the replaceable shank, it is necessary to erect a monument to domestic manufacturers for this ingenious move. With the help of an interchangeable shank, this lens can also be attached to cameras under the M42 thread or "H" mount.
Changing the size of the lens Jupiter-37A 3.5 135 when focusing from infinity to MDF
How to use with modern cameras?
'A' lenses with an interchangeable shank, such as the one in this review, are very easy to use on almost any modern digital camera (both DSLR and mirrorless), just select correct adapter. The replacement 'A' shank usually has an external M42 thread and an 'H' mount (similar to Nikon F). For use on modern cameras, the easiest way is to add the required adapter from M42 to the desired system or from Nikon F to the desired system to this shank.
Jupiter-37A on the ZK
In times of mass use, version with MS was twice as expensive as usual, which actually affects the quality of work. Nevertheless, a lens without an MC feels great with the hood installed. The lens hood can be worn backwards, the hood has special grooves that allow it to be screwed in the opposite state into the thread for the light filter. I know of only one Soviet lens that allows you to put on the hood backwards - and that is Jupiter-37A.
Enlightenment of the lens Jupiter-37A 3.5 135
Most likely, Jupiter 37A became a copy Carl Zeiss Jena DDR MC Sonnar 3,5 / 135 (Sonnara / Zonnara). Both lenses are pretty good, but narrowly focused experts say that the Sonnars are nevertheless better assembled and give a slightly sharper image.
Enlightenment of the rear lens of the Jupiter-37A 3.5 135 lens and the view of the aperture blades
Positive aspects and their brief description:
1. Cheap. Of course, in our time it can be obtained at a fairly low price. This is due to its mass production. This allows novice photographer to get a great picture for low cost.
Interchangeable shank and lens Jupiter-37A
2. Normal enlightenment. But even such enlightenment avoids unnecessary glare, Zaitsev. Removes fear of back and side light. But nevertheless, Jupiter-37A is a little afraid of flare and gives a light veil in the generated image.
Hood on Jupiter-37A dressed back to front and in normal position
3. The lens came with a wonderful case with the emblem of the 80s Olympiad. The lens hood and lens hood are conveniently placed in the case. You can see how the lens cases look here и here.
Difference in enlightenment MS and not the MC version of the lens Jupiter-37A 3.5 135
4. Lens hood in delivery. The metal hood is quite long. It sits very well on the lens. But here is one minus of the lens hood that it is metal, it adds extra weight and when screwing the metal into the metal, the lens hood wedges and then it takes a lot of effort to unscrew it back. So I do not advise tightening it up much.
5. With interchangeable shank. I wrote about this at the beginning of the article. Allows you to use photo systems with different working lengths.
6. As many as 12 aperture blades. Therefore, it can act as an excellent portrait lens with smooth circles to blur the background (it has good bokeh).
7. Non-fixed stroke of the iris ring. Let me explain - the ring does not have fixed aperture values of type 4.5, 5.6, 8, but has a continuous stroke ring. This is very useful when shooting video, when you can smoothly close and open the aperture (and not jerkily at fixed values)
8. The large stroke of the diaphragm F3.5-F22. Pretty maneuverable lens. Jupiter-37A has a function of preset diaphragm... To use this function, you need to strangle the aperture ring towards the camera and release it at the desired aperture value. After that, the diaphragm will close only to the specified value. This is quite convenient when working with manual optics - to focus on a fully open aperture, quickly close to the desired value and shoot.
9. Metal case... As they say - give the people bread and circuses, and here - give glass and metal.
10. It works in minus 15 to plus 45 ° C, it is nice to read about it in the instructions before going on a winter photo walk.
Features and their brief descriptions:
- The weight. Over 400 grams, makes you feel all the "power" of the telephoto. But still heavy.
- The location of the diaphragm ring itself is rather inconvenient.
- Close focusing from 1.2 meters, you can forget about macro. The focus ring rotates 270 degrees.
- The thread of the filter is 52 mm, which is a fairly popular diameter.
- The lens has 4 lenses in 3 groups
On the fully open F3.5 aperture, you get slightly soft excellent portraits, but if you close it, then the sharpness is enough with the head for almost all tasks. What does my copy without MS, 1980.
From personal experience using:
I shoot on Jupiter-37A, even when there is very little time to set the sharpness. The picture is excellent. I really like its contrast, although sometimes it seems dull, in the editor it can be made simply incredible. At aperture of 3.5, you can shoot portraits without fear for the soapiness of the glass. Impressions are pretty positive. Here's another interesting comparison of Jupiter-37A and Kaleinar-5N. Jupiter was slightly better.
But if you need to shoot at least slightly moving scenes, then I would prefer any autofocus telephoto, even if it is a zoom and even if it is very dark (does not have enough aperture) and even if from the manufacturer’s know-how, for example, similar to very cheap Quantaray 70-300mm 1: 4-5.6 D LDO MACRO.
Sample photos on crop (APS-C, Nikon DX)
All photos in the gallery below were shot on the APS-C Nikon DX, crop 1.5x. No processing. Reduced size to 2MP, imprinted data from EXIF.
Sample photos on crop (Canon APS-C)
All photos in the gallery below are shot on APS-C Canon 350D, crop 1.6x. No processing. Reduced size to 2MP, imprinted data from EXIF.
Full-frame sample photos (FF, Nikon FX)
All photos in the gallery below are shot on APS Nikon D700 FX Without processing, in JPEG L, VI mode, the size is reduced to 3MP, data from EXIF.
All photos in the gallery below, too, were shot on APS Nikon D700 FX Without processing, in JPEG L, VI mode, the size is reduced to 3 MP, data from EXIF.
UPDATED
Photographer shared examples of photos on Jupiter 37A 3,5 / 135 with readers of Radozhiva Lilia Nemykina:
UPDATE 2
Examples of photos on Jupiter 37A 3,5 / 135 (This one) and the camera Pentax K10D a photographer shared with readers of Radozhiva Yuri Leo.
UPDATE 3
More sample photos on Canon 600D and Jupiter 37A 3,5 / 135 for Radozhiva kindly provided Alexander Frolov.
There are several modifications of JUPITER-37, produced at different times:
- MS Jupiter-37AM 3,5 / 135, 1990-2002 (prefix 'MC' is placed before the lens name)
- Jupiter-37A 3,5 / 135 МС, 1983-1986 (the prefix 'MC' is placed after the lens name)
- MC Jupiter-37A 3,5 / 135, 1986-1989 (prefix 'MC' is placed before the lens name)
- Jupiter-37A MS-N-30 3.5 / 135, 1983-1984, very rare
- Jupiter-37A 3,5 / 135since 1978
- Юпитер-37AМ 3,5/135, 1990-2002
- MC Yu-37A 3,5 / 135, from about 1978
- U-37AM 3,5 / 135 MS
Catalog modern brand lenses 'Zenitar' и 'Helios' can look at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment.
Final World
Jupiter 37A 3,5 / 135 - good lens. The lens has a pleasant background blur and excellent sharpness starting at its widest aperture. Jupiter-37A is one of the best Soviet portrait lensesIt is easy to install on modern DSLR cameras with an interchangeable shank system.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval.
Portraits.
Second.
I shoot landscapes with the Moon only with this lens.
Vitaly, did you use any filter on the lens when photographing the landscape? For some reason, when I try to take a similar landscape, either the moon simply brightly illuminates the frame as a spot (but the other objects are visible), or, if I make the shutter speed shorter, the moon becomes clearly visible, but everything else “disappears” from the frame. Because of the too large difference in contrast of the objects. Or did you take this photo when it was lighter than what is visible in the frame?
I try to take photos of the Moon at dusk, when the sun has just set. Then both the Moon with its “face” and terrestrial objects are visible.
Thank you, Vitaly! Now everything is clear!
Thank you, Arkady!) For the encyclopedic approach and creativity.
Thanks for the review! I recently bought this lens (Olympic) from someone else. At first I was upset that the sample was defective (more or less sharp photos could only be obtained by accident). But it turned out that the focus was missing (I use it on a Canon 550D). I reprogrammed the focus correction value on the adapter (using a target) and after that I liked the lens. But it seems to suit me specifically for calm, leisurely shooting. I couldn't keep up with the squirrels with it :)
Here is my first photo on the configured Jupiter-37A (there is still some work to do, I need to gain experience).
But maybe someone will advise - is it worth chasing Jupiter-37A MS if there is an "Olympic" version without multi-coating? Sometimes it happens that at a price one and a half times more expensive than the usual one with a single-layer coating you can buy it, but will the difference be visible?
There is no point in chasing the MS version. It is much more useful to disassemble this one and blacken the space between the diaphragm and the rear lens with matte paint or soot.
Rodion, thank you for your reply! I looked at my copy of the lens (without disassembling it yet): the body walls between the diaphragm and the rear lens resemble blued steel in color, i.e. quite black. Do I understand correctly that this is not enough and needs to be tinted more black? I had to disassemble more modern plastic lenses many times (either to change cables, or to do minor repairs to the mechanics), but I just can't bring myself to open the Jupiter :) I constantly struggle with dust getting on the lenses during assembly, I have to clean them many times at each stage (and no amount of cleaning around helps).
Yes, this part should definitely be blackened. It is shiny. As for dust, try compressed gas (the so-called compressed air), it helps. Plus, wet cleaning can be done before disassembling - it also reduces the amount of dust.
I recommend removing the lenses and going over them with a match to fix the area. The soot from the matches does not fall off on its own. There is also a special paint called Musou Black, but it is very expensive.
Rodion, thank you for the detailed answer! By the way, I often use soot to clean optics: I “fry” a stainless steel spoon with a match, and then collect it on microfiber - it removes greasy marks perfectly and, in general, yes, it did not fall off the spoon by itself, so I think it should hold on to the lens too, if you go over it with a match.
Some time ago I did chemical bluing (without high temperature), I managed to get a fairly black color on steel, but I’m not sure that would work on a lens.
In general, I have something to think about and maybe I’ll take it on after all.
Thanks again!
The lens bodies are made of aluminum alloys, there is only anodizing. But I have never seen anodizing as black and matte as soot.
Rodion, I understand, thank you! Here, perhaps, there really is no simpler option except soot. I saw that it is quite easy to disassemble this Jupiter (to get to the necessary lens), so it is quite possible that my hands will get to disassembling this lens.
It makes sense to look for the MS version if the price is not 25-30% higher than the regular version. The contrast is slightly better, you can see it on the histogram. It is noticeably more glare-resistant, but even the MS version is no match for modern lenses.
Thank you! I'll keep an eye on it, if I come across such an option (MS) for a low price, then maybe I'll buy it.
By the way, I photographed moss here (photo without processing, only crop). It looks like there are chromatic aberrations slightly to the right of the center (between the pine needles)? If that's it, will the MC version also photograph or can we expect less CA?
The photo didn't insert, I'll try again.
And do you like the result?
Gregor_S, to be honest, I find it difficult to answer this question :) I have a feeling that this lens can produce a better picture. Or I'm already demanding too much from it and it's all about the "photographer".
I mean that the photo you showed,
as for me... it's soap with a bunch of artifacts
Are you sure your lens hasn't played football?
There are no traces of "football" on the lens, and it looks almost like new (and the lenses are clean). Of course, when buying it second-hand, it is difficult to understand what happened to it before, so I can only see its condition from the outside.
Maybe I'm a photographer like that? For example, I can't get the focus (even though I seem to have set it to the target) or I need to do some kind of exposure compensation... I took photos in M mode, but I don't have any experience yet.
I seem to have already seen the chromatic aberration, but what other artifacts should I pay attention to in the frame above, could you give a little more detail?
Most likely, it’s just not a very high-quality assembly (it’s hard to tell from this photo, but there are suspicions of decentering) + when open, the U37A is not a champion on MDF in terms of image quality, especially in such difficult conditions.
In general, I liked the old Jupiter-11, 1957 KOMZ Contax-Kyiv, which I once had (in a form converted to M42), more than the Yu37A. It has better blackening from the factory, and the open f/4 is more reliable than f/3.5 of the Yu37A, and there are no questions about the assembly.
Yes, Rodion is right,
you always need to take into account the quality of the USSR assembly,
which often breaks any optical scheme
regarding your question,
just take similar photos as in the review and compare
Rodion
Gregor_S,
Thanks for the comments!
When I was choosing a U-37A, I was looking for an Olympic one, because there were a lot of reviews saying that they are usually of better quality. That's the one I bought, it looks almost like new.
Maybe I confused you by posting a crop and not the original photo? I attached the entire photo here, maybe that will clarify something. And also, there was a filter on it (Marumi DHG Lens Protect) - maybe it introduces some distortions?
Indeed, you will need to shoot in the modes that are in the examples here, especially since the article also includes examples of photos taken on a Canon 600D - I believe that, given the same hardware, I should get a similar result on my 550D with the same settings. I'll try.
Thanks for the tips!
The whole photo looks better. In any case, on MDF the U37A will hardly have a good reserve of resolution and contrast when open to crop from. I think everything is fine, although I still recommend trying the redesigned U11 from the 50s, Kontakt-Kyiv - a very interesting lens, even lighter and more compact.
Rodion, thank you! I discovered that I was taking pictures with the Jupiter-37A with a longer shutter speed than necessary (probably because I got used to doing it that way with my Sigma ultrazoom – the glass is dark, and a longer shutter speed was not a problem with stabilization). Under the same conditions, I reduced the shutter speed (to 1/800, 1/1000), slightly raising the ISO, and it seems that the result became noticeably better (but I still need to learn how to work with exposure correction).
Regarding Jupiter-11 – I looked, including how they are remade. I am interested in such glass, especially since I have a lathe. Perhaps I will buy it and put it aside for now, and when I have time, I will try to remake it.
Thank you!
Technically, the photo is not bad, even on the regular version. The sharpness is obvious, good contrast, there is blur before and after the sharpness zone. There is a slight chromaticity on glare surfaces, but this can only be treated by covering up to 4. The MS version would not have done better here.
The problem with the photo is the composition: there is no accented central object, the frame is cluttered with blades of grass that chaotically cover the frame and also fall into the blur zone. Therefore, it does not look like a masterpiece. For such shootings, the scene must be carefully prepared.
Dmitry, thanks for the tips! That's definitely a problem with the composition! Honestly, I wanted to try taking a photo in the grass, but in a hurry I couldn't find a suitable place, and I need to gain experience.
Now I have slightly mixed emotions - after all, another Jupiter-37A is coming to me, this time the MS version, since it was sold relatively cheaply. The reason for the purchase was that I tried to photograph birches in approximately the same modes as in the examples of this article (taking into account the smaller amount of sun), but I can’t get such a sharp shot (even though the cameras are essentially the same). Therefore, I decided to take the MS version and, under the same conditions, see which of the two copies would be better - and I will keep it for myself.
For such dull cloudy pictures, the MS version is the best. It has fewer parasitic shades and a slightly better contrast, which is important for poorly lit areas. In the shadows, the color will be a little cleaner and more contrasty, especially on green and blue, so it will be easier to edit the photos: the original is cleaner, there is less dirt in the shadows after post-processing.
Thank you, Dmitry! As soon as I get the MS version, I'll put the camera on a tripod and compare the version with and without MS from one point (although, of course, it still depends on the specific sample). If everything goes according to plan, I'll post the result here :)
Thanks again to everyone who responded for their help!
"was looking for the Olympic"
…omg
.
if you are looking towards 135mm
maybe it was worth taking something like this?
(probably for +\- the same money)
https://radojuva.com/2012/11/carl-zeiss-sonnar-3-5-135-mc-ddr/
It's usually more expensive. I also don't like the 6 aperture blades...
In general, the most interesting thing among Sonnars is 180/2.8. True, the large format ones need to be finished - blackened, the aperture drive spring needs to be changed (it weakens, sticks). But the old version of Sonnar 180/2.8 T with a bunch of aperture blades is just a bomb glass, I really like its quality and pattern. Even on the crop it is excellent - I managed to shoot with it on the 600d.
I took the Jupiter not so much because I was chasing 135mm, but because I liked the examples of photos from it and the price is not high.
Sonnar... but their price is 5-10 times higher. Still, I haven't grown up to the point (in terms of experience) to buy a manual for such a price.
P.S.: I have already posted the whole photo above instead of a crop - does it also raise suspicions of a bad copy? Or is it impossible to tell from such a photo? Honestly, I cannot see what exactly the defect is - it seems to me that I did not get into focus (and/or the distance was too small), but it seems that I do not understand something.
The MC version is also chromatic when open. The coating improves the overall contrast, which is good for shadows, and makes the highlights less dense and more transparent in hard backlight. To avoid chromaticity, like in the photo with moss, cover up to 4.
Dmitry, thank you!
A good Soviet reportage portrait. Too sharp for artistic, separates the subject too much from the background. I like Helios better, but at that time it was easier to get into focus on Jupiter.
Maxim wrote: “I have already posted the whole photo above instead of a crop – does it also raise suspicions of a bad specimen? Or is it impossible to tell from such a photo?”
I had the same problem at first. I thought the lens was of poor quality. Then I started focusing on the screen through a magnifying glass. The sharpness became perfect.
I love shooting landscapes with the Moon with this lens. The size of the Moon in the frame is just right. I rarely crop the frame.
Beautiful shot - I liked the landscape itself, the Moon, and its reflection on the water!
Month ago.
Hello everyone! Below I am posting a photo for comparison of the Jupiter-37A version with multi-coating (MS) and without it. I apologize for the way the photo shoot was conducted - the tripod is very flimsy and there was nowhere to stick it, but I tried to take pictures from one point. Which version did you like more? It seems that with a closed aperture the MS version will be brighter.
(exposure 1/640)
2. (exposure 1/640)
3. (exposure 1/320)
4. (exposure 1/320)
5.
6.
What I wrote, a little higher contrast in the shadows, especially on green and blue. This is more visible on the histogram than on the photos posted above. Also, if you look closely, the birch trunk on the MS version is really white, and on the regular version it has a greenish parasitic tint. Otherwise, the difference is insignificant, so it makes sense to overpay a lot for the MS.
Dmitry, is this your copy of the lens? You posted the photo in one of the comments of another review. If it is yours, then these many dots on the lens - is it dust or something else? For some reason, on the front lens of the MC version (mostly on the inside) there are a huge number of dots (visible at a certain angle), as if sprinkled with glitter, a bit like what is in this photo. It does not look like a web of fungus, and nothing can wipe it off (and these are not traces of condensed grease). At the same time, if these are bubbles, then there are too many of them. There are also some on the rear lens (and they also cannot be wiped off), but much less. I thought, maybe your lens has a similar story...
The photo was inserted in a small size. Here is a larger one:
My God, where did you dig up this photo? I already forgot where I posted it:)
Yes, on the front lens it is dust. If you have the same, do not rub it under any circumstances: the coating is delicate and scratches. Only blow it off with a bulb or a degreased brush. Then screw on the UV protective filter and do not remove it. Protect the rear lens more than the front one: defects on it can affect the photo. If the dust is inside, you can disassemble the subject and blow it out (do not rub, no liquids), there are few lenses, most likely you have dust (or shavings) between the first lens and the second glue). But usually the dust inside does not participate in the creation of the image, only obvious defects of the rear lens can affect the picture.
This is a photo from the comments of the review of the MS version of the same Jupiter :)
But I have already managed to disassemble and “rub” the lens :( I tried not to use aggressive substances (I tried isopropyl alcohol, lens cleaning fluid, soot), it didn’t get worse, but at the same time nothing changed for the better either – the dots remained. There was just so much garbage there that the focus and aperture rings crunched – I disassembled, cleaned, lightly lubricated where necessary. I also wiped the lenses at the same time. I think if there was fungus, it should have at least partially disappeared, but nothing changed. And it doesn’t look like fungus.
So, bubbles inside the glass or defects on the coating. Doesn't affect the picture, use it as is: it's just a cheap lens for 50 Baku to play with, it's not Zeiss Otus or Noct, which is what makes sense to shake and blow off dust particles.
“I’ve already managed to take it apart and “rub it”
.
Well, if you removed the dust from the inner surfaces, then it’s strange,
there seems to be 4/3, you also figured out the gluing)
But in general, I think Dmitry is right, it’s not worth it.
Thanks for the answers! I didn't disassemble the glue, of course, but I did remove all the lenses. I just had to shake out all the dirt and lubricate it, because the focus and aperture rings were turning with a crunch. By the way, the glue has those same bubbles in the lenses, which definitely look like bubbles :) But the front and, to a lesser extent, the rear lens of the lens seem to have a surface defect - maybe at that time, the coating was made of such quality during the night shift...
1) “the focus and aperture rings were turning with a crunching sound”
2) “the glue has those same bubbles in the lenses”
3) “the front and, to a lesser extent, the rear lens of the objective have what appears to be a surface defect”
.
it's fine
Gregor_S, thanks for the “support” :D
By the way, I haven't seen this reflected in the resulting shots yet. I'll try to look at it in backlight and compare, but I don't think there will be any problems.