This review shows the lens JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P s external mount Contax-Kiev RFmanufactured at the Arsenal plant, Kiev, Ukraine, in a 'white' metal case with serial number 602031.
Overview of JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with Contax-Kiev RF mount
Radozhiv already has a review of such a lens, but in its other modification - JUPITER-12 2,8 / 35.
Lenses JUPITER-12 2,8 / 35 and JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P differ only in trifles:
- different release times.
- different color of the frame of the body, different frame of the rear lens unit, different style of marking with the aperture values, different spelling of the lens name.
- different factories manufacturers. The lenses JUPITER-12 2,8 / 35 in a black case were produced at LZOS, JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P lenses in a white case were produced at the Arsenal plant. There are many more different modifications of Jupiter-12, released in other factories, with different body frames and not in bayonet version.
- different optics enlightenment (see visual difference). This distinction is considered one of the most important. Later 'black' lenses have better color rendering and better contrast than 'white' ones. Despite the absence of the red letter 'P' at JUPITER-12 2,8 / 35Both lenses use simple chemical enlightenment.
On the copy from the review, the diaphragm ring rotates very tight, most likely due to its damage. But still I want to note that the assembly at the white JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P of the Arsenal plant is better than the black JUPITER-12 2,8 / 35released at LZOS. At the same time, the image quality isblack'options are better.
Sizes of JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with Contax-Kiev RF mount
JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with mount Contax-Kiev RF
JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with mount Contax-Kiev RF
JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with mount Contax-Kiev RF
JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with mount Contax-Kiev RF
JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with mount Contax-Kiev RF
JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with mount Contax-Kiev RF
JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with mount Contax-Kiev RF
JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with mount Contax-Kiev RF
JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with mount Contax-Kiev RF
JUPITER-8 1: 2 F = 5cm P and JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with a Contax-Kiev RF mount
Two modifications of the JUPITER-12 lens with the Contax-Kiev RF mount: JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P and JUPITER-12 2,8 / 35
JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with a Contax-Kiev RF mount on a Sony a7 camera
Two modifications of the JUPITER-12 lens with the Contax-Kiev RF mount: JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P and JUPITER-12 2,8 / 35
The lens is very weak at F / 2.8 in terms of sharpness, especially at the corners and edges of the frame. The sharpness at the edges returns to normal only after a strong close of the diaphragm. There may be a loss in image quality, including sharpness at the edges and corners of the frame, due to color shift. Like 'black' version lens, JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P is very afraid of flare.
Source files can download from this link (32 photos in the '.ARW' format, 728 Mb). All photos were shot on F / 4.0. On camera Sony a7 I used a lens with a homemade adapter without any problems. Part of the photo was taken in APS-C cropping mode.
JUPITER-12 1: 2.8 F = 3.5cm P with a Contax-Kiev RF mount on the camera Sony a7
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. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
I wonder what practical value are reviews of such a technique? For twenty years no one has been using such devices, with the exception of techno-freaks and similar originals, so they will not read these reviews, and so in this life everything is already clear to them, unlike us sinners. And about these Sovdep lenses ... like that it is doubtful that for devices from a thousand dollars. and put similar glasses higher ... if only for the sake of bare theory, for science's sake :-)))
"And what practical value do reviews of this technique have?" The value of cich oglyadov is small. Stink of rozrahovani on unassigned juveniles, yak in her hands did not trim sovets optics and thought, well, I should be aware of it.
They are good optics of classical schemes at a low cost.
It's a pity that the optics are often crushed from the cheap dance floor and selected not too badly. Yaka price - such a yakness!
This is for me. I’m learning to photograph on such lenses. Why spend more? In any case, at the initial stage. On Nikon, D300 took Jupiter-37 and while in awe, looking for something new in the old😉
Judging by the latest reviews, it is clear that Soviet rangefinder optics are far from ice. If so, maybe it doesn't make sense to review countless modifications of the same one?
Maybe with foreign rangefinder glasses it will be more interesting? (leica, for example)
And I also want more simple and understandable tutorials with your comments and tips on different types of shooting (reporting, night, studio, fashion, planair, timelapse, light (flashlight in the dark), video shooting, etc.).
And as for me, I categorically disagree with the fact that such reviews are not necessary for anyone and are not interesting, on the contrary, they are very, very interesting, and suddenly, among such a pile of sometimes flea-glass, it’s really for a penny, it will be something that this or that person liked or just lies on a shelf, and then I saw a review, looked at a drawing of one or another glass, and found for myself exactly what he was looking for, or for example, even for the story of what happened and what is now!
And the glass is cool ... and interesting pictures of Vinnitsa and ...
The bottomless bucket of Soviet junk is over. There will be other reviews.
We look forward to other reviews :)
Arkady, since you are already doing reviews that hardly anyone will use on a massive scale (except for a couple of enthusiasts who could not break the effort to create such a specific adapter with focusing), then add something else to the review. Well, for example, how will such a lens behave as a makrik, macro attachment, or "flip-flop"? So that there was at least some practical benefit from the review, and not just an excursion into the history for gourmets)
Arkady, junk is not junk, but will last longer than your super-modern glass-stuffed electronics. Or do you have a biased attitude towards everything Soviet? Or it seemed to me? :)
There were good lenses in the bucket of junk :) And the attitude is quite concretely formed based on their capabilities. Manufacturers have made my super-stuffed with electronics 'glasses', Soviet optics have made a tombstone.
Yes, it seems like many glasses, but you can't want too much from them. In skillful hands ... You can also shoot on a tin can) Your know-how?
Good day to everyone. Arkady, I want to throw you a topic. Today I bought a light meter that is antique in the literal sense. There are also almost new recent models (of the 90s of course). Maybe you can use them somehow. Write an article, if possible , We, your readers, will be very grateful. I generally abandoned my whale, only manual ones.
The lens is mediocre, the pictures are super. In this, the whole Arkady can not be added, not reduced. The impression is that the Soviet rangefinder optics are inferior to the Soviet mirror. All the same, mirror lenses are quite solid. Although I personally really liked this lens, cover the aperture and shoot landscapes. Leica certainly would have looked more interesting on Sonya, but someone would send it in my opinion for used several thousand green ones are asking. But in any case, reviews of Soviet rangefinder optics are informative, even if this does not have practical significance
kpi))
Recent reviews are simply meaningless, I understand that Arkady has a camera on which you can wind anything, but for most, it is useless, especially since such lenses are of no value, helios are much better.
Arkady ran out of inspiration. Anything that seems to be interesting, but describes junk. I followed the development of his blog with great pleasure, it was very interesting, but now ... It's regrettable. Articles for articles and nothing more. I understand perfectly well that not every week someone will send something, but in my opinion it's not worth writing about nonsense. Again, I understand that this is all on sheer enthusiasm and it is simply unacceptable to want / demand something, but as other people have said before, Arkady put himself at the proper level, and very much that after such an article on the topic “here is another , with a different color of letters in the inscription the same lens ”somehow no longer look against the background of previous interesting articles. Excuse Arkady if he said something wrong, but, alas, it became uninteresting to come to you.
Well, here it’s not entirely true, many have mirrorless mirrors with interchangeable lenses and for them this article is very useful, but all the articles are about rangefinders. If I had a Sonya without a mirrored ear, how could I turn around on such lenses, taking into account the cost and real focus on the screen
And you, Dear, “start” your blog and write there, about what you “think is necessary” ... To a strange monastery ... there is no reason ... to blame !!!
I do not agree. With the advent of mirrorless mirrors and their victorious procession, reviews of Soviet rangefinder optics are very relevant. Arkady, well done.
it would be interesting to see the same plot shot by this lens and say Kitov Nikon 17-55 at the same focal length, I think that Nikon’s plug would have won
Nikon does not have a whale 17-55.
And I like these reviews.
And I read them with interest, because it’s how simple, accessible, and most importantly, clearly.
Comparing such things with modern products is ridiculous.
But it was also filmed on them. And there was not only this lens, but also others.
Now what are we doing?
... that's the same.
I wish Arkady not to lose inspiration and impartiality.
In the picture, this lens resembles LENSBABY. Sharpness only in the center.
Gentlemen, comrades, send a decent technique in your understanding to Arkady for a review, and I think he won’t follow it. There are not so many articles and videos about all kinds of techniques and methods of filming in a pond-pond network, but there are not so many real readable reviews of equipment, old, battered by time. This is often done on bare enthusiasm. You personally, Arkady, thank you for your work! I regularly read your reviews. I re-read some articles. Although I myself use Canon technology, I read reviews of other brands with some interest. Peace to all of us and creative success to you personally!
Arkady, thanks for the review.
Please continue to publish articles, not paying attention to unconstructive criticism of the content.
It was thanks to your reviews that I bought the first Soviet lens - Jupiter 37A, despite the presence of excellent modern autofocus lenses in my arsenal.
I will take a few more, and again, here I can find answers to my questions of choice.
It's nice to see reviews of rangefinder optics with their capabilities that have passed from relatives :)
According to your articles from the section “Articles about photos”, I have mastered the technical side of working with the CPC.
With sincere gratitude for your work !!!
And for example, I’m not interested in reading reviews of modern plastic crafts, who have any sharpness and distortion. Almost no decent reviews of old lenses can be found on the network, so the work is definitely done for good reason. Thank you Arkady!
Arkady, thanks for the review!
Yes, the lens is not very. And I agree with previous speakers for the Soviet rangefinder. Although the Yu-9 is praised precisely for the rangefinder option.
I also noticed that this specimen is noticeably “green”. Although the picture comes out like from old magazines of my childhood.
Vinnitsa in the photo?
Part of the photo - yes.
Thank you, for me a very interesting and necessary test. Such is the black LZOS m39 Jupiter, on alpha 7 I really liked it. First of all, the size, price and picture. But about Kiev - I did not find information.
I would really like to know how the old rangefinder optics work on other systems (Sony a7 not everyone can afford, but 4/3 is very affordable). Is it worth using similar lenses taking into account crop factor 2?
What is there to know - it works considering the crop. For example, just cut corners from sample photos from this review and there will be an exact copy of what will come out of any crop. Moreover, even here part of the photo was taken in APS-C mode (Sony a7 allows you to change the crop factor).
Thanks to Arkady for the reviews of Soviet optics. I bought Jupiter 37a for my Nikon D7000 based on the review and never regretted it. I got an excellent portrait lens, quite sharp. Thanks to the rangefinder on the camera with which it is easy to focus, as well as the “lens without CPU” function, it was very easy and simple to operate this lens.
Very useful and necessary reviews, who are not interested in them - do not read, write your own))
Photo with a girl with an umbrella Pts beautiful :)
This umbrella is simply designed to take pictures on cloudy days in the gray reality of being.
thank you
Thanks for the unbiased reviews! Of course, from the available samples, there are far from the best and not the worst. The sharpest Helios, for example, with matches instead of bolts, I bought for 12 rubles ... And I went over a lot of them, the same with other lenses of the Soviet period.
As for the “dissatisfied with reviews of junk,” two questions arise: Why are you coming here? and why don't you write, what are you doing and what are you shooting for ?! (I doubt they were holding anything better than a Chinese soap dish) ...
Arkady, success in your hard but interesting work!
Sincerely, Vladimir.