Television lens Jupiter-21T 200/4, KMZ (1968). Review from the reader Radozhiva

View of the Jupiter-21T 200/4 lens, examples of photos from it, and the review itself especially for Radozhiva, prepared Rodion Eshmakov.

JUPITER-21T 1: 4 F = 20cm

JUPITER-21T 1: 4 F = 20cm

Because historically, Jupiter-21T was developed earlier (in the late 50s) than Jupiter-21A, it is appropriate to indicate the characteristics of the Jupiter-21 lens without additional designations (year of development: 1957).

Characteristics of Jupiter-21 [1] :
Focal Length: 200mm
Relative Hole: 1: 4
Field of view angle (full frame): 12 degrees
Designed for frame: 36x24 mm
Back segment: 93,68 mm
Optical design: simplified Zonnar 4/3 (see diagram drawing)
Resolution according to the technical specifications (center / edge): 40/30 lin / mm
Light transmittance: 0,8
Aperture: 15 blade, blackened, without preset mechanism, F / 4-F / 22
Filter thread: 60 * 0,5 mm (exact pitch unknown)
Mount: special bayonet mount (working distance ~ 40 mm)

Jupiter-21T is a rare television lens that has been produced at the Krasnogorsk factory since the late 1950s.

Design and features of Jupiter-21T

Unfortunately, my copy has a very beaten appearance (damage to the gluing of the gluing, scratches on the body, slight scratches of the front lens, some screws have been lost) and does not have a complete hood that has a length of 2/3 of the lens. However, these are not so serious damages as to significantly affect the result.

Like most Soviet lenses, Jupiter-21T consists of two parts - a lens unit with a diaphragm and a helicoid with a mount to the camera. To disassemble, you just need to unscrew the lens:

Jupiter-21T

Jupiter-21T

It is worth noting the presence of adjustment rings, with which you can adjust the working segment of the lens. Another interesting point is the presence of locking screws on the cover ring and the rear lens unit - do not forget to unscrew them before disassembling!

Jupiter-21T

Jupiter-21T

Most lens surfaces are coated with purple or pink coatings. The front lens carries orange enlightenment:

Jupiter-21T

Jupiter-21T

Jupiter-21T lenses have well-blacked ends, but the “insides” of the lens are blackened out with bad shiny paint.

Jupiter-21T is the owner of a chic matte 15 blade aperture, which distinguishes it from other lenses in the line (Jupiter-21A - 10 petals, Jupiter-21M - 8 petals). Such a diaphragm makes it possible to level the effect of nuts in the bokeh to zero.

The biggest drawback of the lens design is the helicoid. It provides MDF as much as 3 meters! This is a lot even for a 200 mm lens (for comparison: Tair-3A has an MDF of 2,2 m at 300 mm FR). Even removing the stopper of the helicoid, I did not achieve a significant reduction in MDF - the helicoid simply does not have “reserves”.

Jupiter-21T

Jupiter-21T

Jupiter-21T

Jupiter-21T

When focusing, a lens with a stopper in the helicoid does not rotate the front lens, without a stopper, the entire lens block rotates.

The adaptation of the lens mount is extremely simple: the bayonet mount is removed, the flange with the desired mount is installed (I had a back plate from the Telear 200 / 3.5 with M42 thread in stock), with the help of adjustment rings “infinity” is set. The lens will be very easy to redo even for the F mount.

Optical properties

The first thing that catches your eye is color rendition. For this lens, it is somewhat incorrect, with the traditional approach to the yellow-green area traditional for old Soviet lenses. Most likely, this is the merit of enlightenment and, possibly, lead glasses. To evaluate the scale, you can compare the colors of Jupiter-21T with the colors of Tair-3A, which has no problems with color rendering:

Tair-3A, F / 4.5, without treatment

Tair-3A, F / 4.5, without treatment

Jupiter-21T, F / 4, without processing


Jupiter-21T, F / 4, without processing

Well, the effect is very noticeable. This is non-fatal, but will force some more color correction when editing images.

Jupiter-21T is very afraid of backlight, which should fix the blackening of the inter-lens space with matte paint:

Backlit veil processed in Lightroom shot

Backlit veil processed in Lightroom shot

The veil that appears in bright light is very difficult to fix. Sometimes, under the light of the sun, the veil turns into a continuous and impenetrable "light wall":

"Light wall"

"Light wall"

Then it simply becomes impossible to shoot - the “insides” of the lens so glare.
The advantage of the lens is the diaphragm, which provides an even opening. This has a positive effect on the bokeh: it remains still soft and even.

F / 4

F / 4

F / 8

F / 8

Of the aberrations, Jupiter-21T noticeably suffers from chromatism: fringing (staining the prefocal and zofocal in purple and green) and transverse HA (rims of reddish and bluish tones along the edges of the image), and the latter are not corrected with aperture (as in Mir-20M). However, aberrations are noticeable only when you carefully examine the picture.

The diagram of the lens is responsible for drawing. And the design of the lenses with the Zonnar scheme is beautiful - as always.

In general, the lens has excellent sharpness already with an open aperture, in this, perhaps, it can compete with many modern zooms.
Apparently, the lens would have shown itself much better if its blackening were better - low contrast is the most powerful drawback.

Conclusions

Jupiter-21T is an old rare telephoto with a sharp picture, a nice pattern and a strong fear of backlight. The lens definitely needs refinement - reworking the shank (for use with cameras), replacing the helicoid (preferably to obtain an adequate MDF), blackening the lens space (in order to obtain a normal contrast). The existing shortcomings and rarity make this lens far from the most attractive in this class. I liked the result obtained from this lens, most likely, I will be engaged in the correction of his “childhood diseases” in the future.

Addition to the review: on the need for high-quality blackening of parts

One of the main conclusions we formulated in our review of the Jupiter-21T telephoto lens was the need to eliminate the glare of poorly blackened surfaces inside the lens. To test this assumption, work was carried out to blacken all the details that are in the path of the light beam in the "lens-camera" system, in other words, to cover everything with the most "black mat".

For this, the lens was disassembled, the lenses were removed from the lens block. Admire the very "legendary" zonnar gluing:

The middle component of Jupiter-21T is gluing from two lenses.

The middle component of Jupiter-21T is gluing from two lenses.

It is because of it the long-focus Jupiters have a forward center of gravity displaced forward. This is especially felt in Jupiter-36V 250 / 3.5, in which this gluing weighs ~ 800 g.

The most glare elements in the lens are:

  1. The smooth area of ​​the lens block between gluing and the diaphragm - glare very much.
  2. A smooth nut that locks the rear lens in the rear lens unit. Painted in glossy black paint.
  3. The internal space of the focuser, especially a smooth flange with a groove, painted with completely non-matt paint. However, the corrugated surface is also very shiny.

It’s also possible to give even a little attention to the insert between the front lens and gluing - it won’t be superfluous. It is worth paying attention to the safety of blackening of the lenses themselves.

All of the above parts were blackened with soot, planted on an adhesive base (PVA) - a fairly strong adhesion, very matte, very black and very accessible material. The choice of glue is due to a simple idea - not to introduce volatile substances that can settle on the lenses into the lens unit (never use epoxy and cyanoacrylate adhesives for such purposes - the former have volatile components, and cyanoacrylate itself easily flies and loves to be deposited firmly in the form of white films on any surfaces). After applying the mixture, the parts were warmed up. Then, after cooling, the lens was reassembled. Surprisingly, nothing spilled inside - the mixture worked with a bang.

After assembly, tests were conducted. Let us compare the behavior of the lens in the backlight - when the sun is in the frame and outside the frame (but in the “hemisphere of view”). Before blackening, in the first case, strong illumination from the flare of surfaces was observed, and in the case of even a slight backlight from a cloudy sky, the frame was covered with a white veil. What now?

Here is a frame on the lens with the sun in the hemisphere, but not in the frame:

Backlight shot. The dynamic range is slightly tightened - more shadows, less lights.

Backlight shot. The dynamic range is slightly tightened - more shadows, less lights.

It is easy to notice that now there is no continuous veil, as in the frame in the main part of the review. Maybe the sun in the frame will be able to kill the contrast of the lens - to give another "light wall"?
We'll see:

Frame with the sun. No treatment (removed chromatism does not count).

Frame with the sun. No treatment (removed chromatism does not count).

Apparently, after blackening the ability of the lens to give artifacts from the sun, sharply decreased. This is raw (HA not counting - not about that) frame from the lens. As you can see, there are practically no problems with contrast. At first I did not believe my eyes, but - in no position of the lens relative to the sun could I bring out the contrast.

More pictures are given below:

Conclusions

It is simply amazing, but what the lens was criticized by me in the review is actually well corrected by one simple operation. Jupiter-21T seems to be transforming - it turns from a sluggish, non-contrast telephoto into a sharp lens with rich colors and good contrast. I am not afraid to say that the blackened Jupiter-21T is glass, which is not scary to photograph in JPEG.
PS Most likely, many Soviet lenseswhich have been scolded by amateur photographers for their low contrast have a similar disadvantage. Pay attention to your lens - give it a chance to show your abilities to the fullest!

Thank you for attention. Eshmakov Rodion.

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.

Add a comment: Denis

 

 

Comments: 43, on the topic: Television lens Jupiter-21T 200/4, KMZ (1968). Review from the reader Radozhiva

  • Sergey Aleksandrovich

    The posterization is very clearly visible in the photographs (where there is a comparison with the tair - especially), either Radozhiva began to squeeze it this way, or Rodion tried. It is not very good, in my humble opinion, to see such effects on the site of photographic equipment reviews.

    • Rodion

      A stepped gradient is more of a JPEG compression algorithm on a website. I don't notice the effect on the original photo.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      The usual compression method was used, which Radozhiva has been using for 7 years.
      Fixed

  • zengarden

    Rodion, why is it better to blacken the ends of the lenses and other surfaces? permanent marker leaves a brilliant mark on smooth surfaces.

    • Rodion

      The article on Lens just about this is: lens-cl ** ub ** en / articles / item / c_246.html
      I am still a black marker, if necessary. For I haven’t found such a tricky thing as in the article.

      • zengarden

        Thanks, I looked. A dubious remedy, of course.

  • Gonzaga

    Arkady never understood your reverence for bastard Ken Rockwell. He and his website are insanely annoying. A site about photography without photos. Dumb and not interesting. Especially this is his "Help mi help yu". This is not to mention how many Nikon's objectives he unfairly slandered. But he is a good family man!

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Where? If I respected him deeply, I would have included 35-70 in the list of terrible lenses, on the contrary, I praise him and do not understand Kenny. I have a little tooth on Kenny, but our audiences are radically different both in geolocation and in number of users :)

  • Gonzaga

    Rodion, 200mm after all. You would have made at least one portrait. Well, why remove these spiers? It is impossible to understand anything from them. Here is a photo of a sparrow - thanks. More less it became clear what kind of beast this Jupiter is. The lens is generally tolerable. If only portraits instead of those stupid spiers. Thanks for the review. You are a great fellow!

    • Rodion

      Alas, there was no chance to shoot a portrait. The review will be supplemented, apparently, after the lens is refined - we must show what it can do when all the shortcomings are fixed.

      • zengarden

        Portraits of girls are required;)

  • Sergei

    Thanks for the review. Interesting and informative. I think you can forgive the chromatism lens, all the same it is television, and in the late 60s not even all had b / w televisions. Interestingly, is the MDF lens somehow related to its working length?

    • Rodion

      The MDF depends only and only on the course of the helicoid (with a constant FR). The larger the stroke of the helicoid, the shorter the MDF.

  • Denis

    I liked the photo. really would be a portrait still
    and the antennas on the spire interestingly placed)

  • lynx

    Nice glass.
    And the review is pleasant.

  • Max Kotov

    Vignetting is quite noticeable, and it is already on crop 1.6. What is there in full frame? I would also add to the shortcomings.

    • Rodion

      There will be time, I’ll do a vignetting test specifically, let's compare, say, with a zoom of 70-210. Maybe it’s possible to get a FF for a couple of shots.

      • Max Kotov

        Thanks, great review! I agree and disagree about the drawing: I like it, but the chromaticity spoils on some frames this impression is noticeable. From the picture, Jupiter 37a recalls from what I tried, there, too, with aberrations and back / side light, everything is not good, but better.

        • Jury

          I have Jupiter 37a without ms, so it doesn’t show significant HA in the backlight, although the rest is almost not visible :)

          • Max Kotov

            Something like this

            • Jury

              I deleted all the old unsuccessful photos from the U37a (not MC) - there is nothing to show, but if a bright sun enters the frame, the frame can be thrown away, there is no bright light in your photo, therefore HA are visible, but they are not the strongest, the LR easily rules :)

              • Max Kotov

                So I say that 37a is slightly better with this

        • Rodion

          I deliberately did not rule any aberrations to show the lens as it is. Only contrast rules - otherwise there would be nothing to show.
          Jupiter-21 is a very old lens, much older than the same Jupiter-37A. It is quite possible to forgive him for chromatism, besides, it is also longer (200 and 135 is a big difference).
          But the aberrations of Jupiter-21 can be corrected very easily - one click in Lightroom removes the transverse HA, two more clicks will deal with fringing. Jupiter-21 is much better in chromatism than Tair-3A.

          • Michael

            If it’s no secret, how do you remove the frigging in two clicks?

            • Rodion

              Oh yes, in 4)
              Click on the eyedropper - click on the image; on a pipette and on a picture)
              Sometimes, of course, sliders and handles are worth moving.

              • Michael

                You clean it with the same tool as for the transverse ones ... Why then in two sessions? I just moved the sliders at once and that's it. No?

            • Rodion

              Not at all.
              In Lightroom, transverse CAs are ticked off - this is the algorithm for recognizing them.
              But for the longitudinal there are these sliders.
              Why can't you remove both transverse and longitudinal sliders? Because, for example, in this case, the transverse HA are red / blue conditionally, and the longitudinal ones are of the characteristic purple and green colors.
              Those. you will have to capture the entire range from blue to green and from purple to red, unless you use a special tool to suppress transverse HA.
              And this, accordingly, will greatly weaken the entire captured color scheme.
              Moreover, fringing and other CAs manifest themselves with very different intensities: by suppressing some, others can be underestimated. Or, conversely, overdo it and “eat” extra colors.

              • Michael

                Yes you are right. Now I tried and realized that these are two different tools, and not one, as I thought before)) Thanks for the clarification.

            • Rodion

              On health) I was glad to help.

  • Valery

    Information for the author: the photo shows a 1968 lens ...

    • Rodion

      Information for the Reader: the author is aware at the time of writing the review (read: “Television lens Jupiter-21T 200/4, KMZ (1968).”) ...

      • Valery

        I didn’t see a quarrel, tell me, where did the information come from that this lens was produced since 1950, can you indicate the source?

        • Rodion

          The link is given in the characteristics of the lens, whether it was added yesterday or even the day before yesterday - it turned out to be inactive at first.
          But the text, nevertheless, it seems, you have not read, alas. There is no information about the release “since 1950” anywhere in the text. The year of development of the Yu-21 (“development year: 1957”) and the period of time in which, according to the given source, the Yu-21T was developed (“late 50s”) are indicated.

  • anonym

    "" Designed for frame: 35x24 mm (APS) ""

    35x24 and APS are different formats (it is not clear why 35, not 36?).

    • Rodion

      Wrong, yes. Of course 36 * 24.

    • Rodion

      And about the APS too, we need to fix it. For some reason I still thought it was the equivalent of a film shot ... Thank you.

  • Rodion

    The review has been updated - you can see what has changed after the lens blackened.

  • Alexander

    cool! I almost caught up with 21A, at one time I was thinking of selling my own, but I realized that it’s a sin to part with such optics.

    • Rodion

      Yes, this lens, even in this state, made the light Viv S1 70-210 / 3.5 both in terms of optical properties and aperture, taking into account light transmission (T-stop). So that…

  • Rodion

    Added new photos to the review.

  • Konstantin

    I repair my 21T. I transplanted a new one from the white Jupiter 9 to the place of the diaphragm that was killed in a lump. I assembled the lens block, but when focusing it rotates only without a stopper. Sopor wedges the rear ring with guides, which runs tight in the holder of the helicoid. What can be wrong?

    • Rodion

      I remember it was such a thing. But in general, I removed the stopper so that at least a bit of MDF can be reduced.

  • Yang

    I was lucky enough to collect this jupitar-21ㄒ 30 years ago! (m42 screw mount)That hood is almost as long as the lens body and is still attached to the lens.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2017/01/jupiter-21-t-kmz-1968/?replytocom=144831

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2017/01/jupiter-21-t-kmz-1968/?replytocom=144831