JUPITER-8M 1: 2 F = 5 cm. Review from the reader Radozhiva

Overview of the lens JUPITER-8M 1: 2 F = 5 cm specifically for Radozhiva prepared Misha mieshcherinov.

JUPITER-8M 1: 2 F = 5 cm

JUPITER-8M 1: 2 F = 5 cm

JUPITER-8M 1: 2 F = 5 cm (hereinafter simply referred to as Jupiter 8m) was produced from 1959 to 1962 at the Arsenal plant in Kiev. This copy was bundled with a Kiev 4 camera. The lens was made with a Contact-Kiev lens mount (aka Contax RF). This lens does not have an internal focusing mechanism, and focusing occurs using an external focusing module located inside the carcass of the camera. This mechanism has a threaded structure, and focusing occurs by moving the mechanism forward or backward along the thread. It is noteworthy that lenses created on a Contax RF mount, with a focal length other than 50 mm, have their own internal focusing mechanism, and attach to the mount differently.

Adapters for this system are not available, and the only option is to create the adapter yourself by attaching the focusing mechanism of the Kiev camera to the adapter on the m39. For this review, a homemade adapter to the Fujifilm FX system is used, while maintaining all focusing distances, including infinity. The photos in this review were taken with a Fujifilm x-t1 camera.

Features of this adapter

The minimum focusing distance, originally thought out in the Kiev camera, is 0.9 meters (which is very impractical). A small bolt located inside the mechanism is responsible for stopping focusing at 0.9 meters (it is not visible from the outside, since it is covered by the housing of the M39-FX adapter). If you unscrew this bolt, you can get smaller focusing distances, but at the same time, while focusing at close distances, you can completely unscrew the front of the mechanism (to which the lens itself is attached). My adapter has a limit of 0.9 meters.

Feedback about the lens

Jupiter is small in size, lightweight, and has a fairly solid structure. The lack of a focusing mechanism has significantly reduced the size and weight of the lens, as well as make it more protected from dust. The lens has 9 aperture blades. At an aperture value of 4, the aperture creates an unusual pattern (seen in the photographs). The aperture has clear values ​​(2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22) without intermediate values. Single-layer enlightenment is used, a little yellowish (the color of enlightenment varies depending on the modification, options with greenish and blue enlightenment are known). The color of enlightenment does not affect the final picture. The lens gives an interesting circular bokeh (although the diaphragm does not give an even circle).

Jupiter 8m has an optical design such as Carl Zeiss Sonnar. This scheme is popular, but mainly for focal lengths over 50 mm. The Sonnar circuitry in the 50mm lens is very rarely used, and the main circuitry for the 50mm lens is used by Planar (and is still used in standard portraiture models). Jupiter 8 m has a rather low level of chromatic aberration, which some modern lenses (e.g. Canon 50mm f1.8, Sony FE 50mm f1.8) can envy. But in spite of this, Jupiter 8m has low contrast and color saturation, which by today's standards are worthless (I had to set the saturation and contrast to the maximum in the camera to bring the result to an acceptable level). Despite this, this lens, as for me, gives a better picture than Helios of the fortieth series (which are so popular among users). Perhaps this is the disadvantage of single-layer enlightenment, which is used in these lenses. Also, this lens gives strong light from back and side light.

At aperture value of 2, the lens is relatively working, since the sharpness, contrast and saturation are very low, as well as the lens is highly sensitive to light. At aperture of 2.8 the picture becomes better, but still, to obtain at least some acceptable sharpness, it is better to close the aperture to 4. Also, at aperture values ​​from 4 to 22, the lens becomes much more tolerant of backlight.

Sample Photos

Personal experience

Jupiter 8m shows a good result, both for a Soviet-made lens, especially taking into account age. But still, like most Soviet optics, it gives low image contrast, weak color saturation, and there is also a strong sensitivity to light. This lens can be used for photo experiments, or to enjoy the process of creating photographs, but, unfortunately, foreign analogues of the same years give a picture many times better.

Reviews of the lenses of the Jupiter-8 series:

  1. JUPITER-8 1: 2 F = 5cm П | Arsenal | Contax-Kiev | 1956
  2. JUPITER-8М 1: 2 F = 5 cm | Arsenal | Contax-Kiev | 1961 | reader's review
  3. JUPITER-8М 1: 2 F = 5cm П | Arsenal | Contax-Kiev | 1963
  4. JUPITER-8М 2/50 | Arsenal | Contax-Kiev | 1977
  5. JUPITER-8М 2/53 | Arsenal | Contax-Kiev | 1978
  6. Jupiter-8 1: 2 F = 5cm П | KMZ | M39 | 1958 | white
  7. Jupiter-8 2/50 | KMZ | M39 | 1962 | white
  8. Jupiter-8 2/50 | KMZ | from the TV camera 'Electronics L-50' | 1965
  9. Jupiter-8 2/50 | KMZ | M39 | 1974 | black | review from Rodion Eshmakov
  10. Examples on JUPITER-8 2/50 (black, M39)
  11. 500PX Gallery
  12. Video about Jupiter-8

Jupiter-8 also exists in early versions under the names:

  1. ZK 1: 2 F = 5cm P | KMZ | folding frame | ~ 1948 | M39
  2. Vigilant ZK 1: 2 F = 5cm P | KMZ | white with ears | ~ 1949 | M39

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.

Add a comment:



Comments: 21, on the topic: JUPITER-8M 1: 2 F = 5 cm. Review from a reader Radozhiva

  • Bogdan

    The quality of the image of the asset is quite good, the sharpness on the screen is low, the dekhto is like a picture of a bean. The nature of the bokeh is specific, trochas of striving. A bad option for video, at 1920 × 1080 it doesn't look so weak. The colloid transfer at the asset is correct and correct.

    Z plus_v:
    - Easy
    - Compact
    - Visoka svitlosila
    - Garna color transfer
    - Average ripple
    - Torn bokeh shape
    - Minimal focus distance 1 meter

    • Roman

      Yes, the bokeh is not very pleasant, scaly, especially against the background of other oily tezonars.

  • Dim

    Quote: "but, unfortunately, foreign analogs of the same years give a picture much better." Personally, my opinion (I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth) - there is no difference against the background of modern lenses. I will say more - at one time I bought the old ones: Seitz, Agfa, Voitlander, Schneider, Isko and so on. Not all models are equally good, from the old Soviet ones, I have Helios from Zenith, for me he is an equal among equals. In this case, please, do not forget about the Price. In the USSR, there simply were not a large number of people able to buy very expensive equipment, and in fact, even now in the world it is not so that in every country there was a Zeitz or Nikon, just like on the streets of European cities, not everyone, as it is possible and not strange, go to Dolce and Gabana with iPhones of the latest reincarnation. The demand for expensive equipment is limited and it is satisfied by 1-2 companies. Soviet technology is good for its niche.

    • Michael

      Yes, something like that. The more modern the lens, the better the picture. Affects and schemes and glass and enlightenment. True, there is one point that Soviet lenses did not particularly develop, and if you compare the same Helios 89 onwards and Zeiss 89 onwards the difference will be significant) as well as the price

  • Iskander

    Judging by vyrviglazny spelling and punctuation, the author did not study in the Soviet school. Which, however, did not stop him from fooling the Soviet optical industry. While reading, I was waiting for the mention of the theft of the technology of the great Zeiss :-)

    • Trueash

      You write about ice cream

    • Not a bot

      Soviet what ???? AhaHAH .... Well, this is not stealing, this is ... Creative borrowing of "winners".

      • Iskander

        You can call it trophies if the vanquished know the word. And about unconditional surrender defeated in the know. Do you, dear, consider yourself a loser? Then they should know.

  • Rodion

    The chromaticity of these lenses appears to be masked by spherical aberration. The real scourge is the field distortions of Jupiters - the coma is very strong. Also, I don't really understand why these lenses are so low-contrast: they have few glass-to-air boundaries. Apparently, the assembly culture (blackening) was extremely disappointing. Also, the low build culture is evidenced by the large spread in the quality of Jupiter-8 (M) lenses: I have come across both very successful and low-quality specimens.

  • BB

    Since when did the “Contax RF” have a 'jumping diaphragm'? And why does a rangefinder need it in principle?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      I corrected the text of Michael

  • Mariyahox

    Good job over the internet!

  • Victor

    TO THE AUTHOR OF THIS MATERIAL: 1. If you claim that there is insufficient sharpness - ask yourself - did I take a tripod with me for testing? 2.Are you sure you have 100% vision? By the way, RF cameras have a very convenient possibility of diopter adjustment of the viewfinder. 3. If you claim that there are strong stray flares that interfere with full-fledged work in the backlight - ask yourself - did I put a BLENDA on the lens? (I give my head on clipping - that NO, because you still need to know where to look for such a blend. And, the last thing. If you draw parallels with Zeiss of that time, please, put the control pictures next to you so that the readers of your reflections have no questions (I am not a supporter or opponent of Soviet optics, but, like many, I began my photographic activity with it).

    • Roman

      Very strange claims. The author complains about the sharpness on the open. Sharpness increases as you cover, which means that the shutter speed decreases and the lubrication should be greater. Correctly?

      Although in fact it is not so much a problem with sharpness as a problem with contrast. In this case, the cover partially works like a hood, cutting off the flare that occurs not only in backlight.

      Further, “did I put a hood on” - well, actually, if one lens gives flare without a hood, and the other does not, then they can be compared without a hood and one lens is considered to be poorly supporting the backlight, and the other one is good.

      Put on your hood, take a tripod, shoot only certain scenes AND THEN THE LENS SHALL OPEN - this is no longer an honest review, but an ode to the scoop. In the style of "you should see as much as I could at twenty." By today's standards, the lens is extremely specific and problematic, no matter how much you shot with it when you were young.

      • Dim

        You can agree with some of what you said. But "Put on your lens hood, take a tripod, shoot only certain scenes AND THEN THE LENS SHALL OPEN - this is not an honest review, but an ode to the scoop." This is not an ode, but an attempt to get a more or less representative result. You don’t know in what mood the author took photographs, shooting conditions, he could simply go outside with a relatively cold lens (especially this metal one), when it’s warm and humid and get a veil, the lens warmed up after a while and please go "Sharpness", etc.

  • Nikita

    The Contax II and Contax III cameras, launched by Zeiss Ikon in 1936, were considered the most advanced small-format cameras of their time and were in serious competition with the famous Leica brand. At the time of its appearance, the Contacts had the fastest shutter, advanced pairing of the bayonet mount with a range finder of increased accuracy and convenient reloading of film

  • Sergei

    Few people know that in Soviet times, some of these lenses were assembled in the shops of the Prikordonnik collective farm, which actively collaborated with the Kiev Arsenal.
    The assembly was carried out using simplified technology, hence the strong fluctuations in product quality.

    • B. R. P.

      Noble farm)

    • Rodion

      Well, it's just the serial Jupiter for the Kiev-5 camera is relatively rare. He has an external bayonet mount, like Jupiter-12 and the like.

    • Timur

      Under an external bayonet mount. You can’t buy a ready-made adapter, it’s not worth attention (IMHO).

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2020/05/jupiter-8-m-1-2-f-5-cm-new-review/

Version en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2020/05/jupiter-8-m-1-2-f-5-cm-new-review/