Jupiter-3 1: 1,5 F = 5cm P (ZOMZ, 1963) for Contax RF / Kiev. Review from Rodion Eshmakov

Review of the lens Jupiter-3 1: 1,5 F = 5cm P specially for Radozhiva prepared Rodion Eshmakov (instagram).

Jupiter-3 for Contax-RF in a homemade adapter for Sony E.

Jupiter-3 for Contax-RF in a homemade adapter for Sony E. increase.

Jupiter-3 50 / 1.5 is a very famous Soviet super-aperture fifty-kopeck piece, the only truly mass lens of the class "50 / 1.4" produced in the USSR. It is important to note that this lens was intended only for rangefinder cameras, i.e. for DSLRs in the USSR, such a lens simply did not exist (with the exception of rare small-scale / experimental Helios-123N, Era-6M, Wave 4 и Wave 8.

This lens is recalculated (I must say, this was done not only in the USSR, but also in Japan: Nikkor-SC 50 / 1.4 was also a recalculated copy of Sonnar 50 / 1.5, moreover, noticeably worse) in 1954 [source] to the Soviet glass palette Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50 / 1.5 arr. 1932 (L. Bertele). Until that time, the lens was apparently made of German glass. In addition, there were ZK lenses, which, most likely, use ready-made German lens blocks. In the USSR, Jupiter-3 was produced until 1956 at the KMZ, after which the Zagorsk OMZ (now Sergiev Posad) and, since the end of the 1970s, the Jupiter plant in Valdai were engaged. Thus, the largest number of Jupiter-3s were produced at ZOMZ, KMZ lenses are much rarer, not to mention ZK, which sometimes costs more than the original Sonnar 50 / 1.5 T.

Jupiter-3 was produced in two versions of frames - for cameras with M39 mount and for cameras of the Contax / Kiev family. The lens blocks of these versions are completely identical, although the design has changed towards simplification over time. In addition, the enlightenment used also changed, although it was single-layer throughout the entire production time. There are several main modifications of the Jupiter-3 lens:

  • ZK F = 5 cm 1: 1.5 (KMZ, since 1948) in a frame for Contax / Kiev cameras, the frame practically copies the frame of the original CZJ Sonnar 50 / 1.5;
  • ZK F = 5 cm 1: 1.5 (KMZ, since 1948) in a frame for cameras with M39 thread (Zorkiy, FED), the frame almost perfectly copies the frame of the original CZJ Sonnar 50 / 1.5;
  • Jupiter-3 F = 5 cm 1: 1.5 P manufactured by KMZ (1951-1955), yellow (!) Or violet enlightenment, for Zorky / FED cameras, frames of both Zeiss type (“with ears”) and more new "Soviet";
  • Jupiter-3 F = 5 cm 1: 1.5 P manufactured by KMZ (1951-1955), yellow (!) Or violet enlightenment, for Kiev / Contax cameras, frames of both Zeiss type (“with ears”) and more new "Soviet";
  • Jupiter-3 F = 5 cm 1: 1.5 P manufactured by ZOMZ (1956 - 1960), in a frame for FED / Zorky cameras with M39 thread. Lens block design with a twisting back part. Violet enlightenment;
  • Jupiter-3 F = 5 cm 1: 1.5 P manufactured by ZOMZ (1956 - 1961), in a frame for Kiev / Contax cameras. Lens block design with a twisting back part. Violet enlightenment;
  • Jupiter-3 50 / 1.5 manufactured by ZOMZ (1962 - 1972), in a frame for FED / Zorky cameras, M39 mount. Design without a twisting rear lens unit. The old type of marking (with the letter P) had lenses manufactured in 1962-1963. Bright blue, yellow, or combined illumination;
  • Jupiter-3 50/1.5 manufactured by ZOMZ (1962 - 1972), in a frame for Kiev / Contax cameras. Design without a twisting rear lens unit. The old type of marking (with the letter P) had lenses manufactured in 1962-1963. Bright blue, yellow or combined (this article) enlightenment;
  • Jupiter-3 50 / 1.5 produced by the Jupiter plant, Valdai (1973 (?) - 1980s), in a frame for FED / Zorky cameras, M39 mount. Design without a twisting rear lens unit. Yellow or combined enlightenment, black body.
  • For the Lomographic Society, KMZ for some time serially (since 2016) produced the New Jupiter-3 + lens, made in a chrome-plated brass body (similar to the German optics of the 30s), with MDF reduced to 0.7 m and multi-coated optics. The optical design appears to have remained unchanged. Thus, the good old Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50 / 1.5 in its own form and in the Soviet-Russian incarnation lived for at least 84 years.

Technical specifications

Source, Yakovlev handbook vol. 1, p. 92
Optical design - 7 elements in 3 groups, Zonnar (1932, L. Bertele, recalculated by M.D. Maltsev);

Optical design Jupiter-3 50 / 1.5

Optical design Jupiter-3 50 / 1.5

Focal length - 52.54 mm;
Aperture ratio - 1: 1.5;
Frame format - 36 * 24 mm, covers the Fuji GFX format;
Field of view - 45 ° (native format);
Rear focal distance - 23,61 mm;
Aperture limits - 1: 1.5-1: 22;
Aperture design - 13 blades, no presetting mechanism;
Filters thread - 40.5 mm;
Light transmittance coefficient - 0.8 (not less);
Weight - 145 g;
Mount - Contax RF bayonet;

Lens barrel sketch -

Lens barrel sketch

Features - does not have its own focusing mechanism.

Design and adaptation features

The bayonet modification Jupiter-3, on the one hand, is inconvenient to use: it is a practically bare lens unit in a bayonet mount and does not have its own focusing mechanism, since it uses the internal bayonet of Kiev / Contax cameras. Adapters to modern cameras from the Contax RF mount are practically not presented on the market and are usually assembled “on the knee” from a dead Kiev carcass, a bayonet of the required system and such and such a mother. In other words, this is a compromise option when you have to trust either your own or someone else's hands. However, I prefer the Contax / Kiev mount when choosing a rangefinder lens for use with a mirrorless camera. Why? More on this below.

Jupiter-3 for the Kiev camera and a homemade Contax RF adapter - Sony E.

Jupiter-3 for the Kiev camera and a homemade Contax RF adapter - Sony E.

As you know, the main disadvantage of rangefinder lenses is their large minimum focusing distance (MDF), which is inconvenient during operation. For 50 mm lenses, it is usually 1 m - you can forget not only about the conventional macro, but even about the large-face portrait. Unlike the focusers of M39 lenses, the helicoid of the internal mount of the Kiev camera, used in the homemade adapter, has a colossal power reserve and provides an extremely small MDF (~ 30 cm): the lens unit moves 3,5 mm in 15 turns (a typical helicoid travel is 85- 135mm lenses).

A wide range of focusing distances is a killer feature of Contax RF lenses on modern cameras.

A wide range of focusing distances is a killer feature of Contax RF lenses on modern cameras.

Jupiter-3 has a gorgeous thirteen-blade diaphragm. The lens does not have a presetting mechanism, since there was no need for it on rangefinder cameras due to the peculiarities of sighting. The control is carried out by a steplessly moving thin ring on the nose of the lens - not very convenient, since the focus is lost. The same circumstance, as well as the rotation of the lens unit during focusing, will prevent the use of polarizing filters.

The diaphragm of this specimen was subjected to long and intense irradiation, as can be seen from the severely burnt out petals. Maybe they were filming nuclear tests?

The diaphragm of this specimen was subjected to long and intense irradiation, as can be seen from the severely burnt out petals. Maybe they were filming nuclear tests?

Strictly speaking, my lens is not entirely "honest" Jupiter-3 for Kiev cameras: in fact, it is a 1963 lens block chimera from some kind of industrial movie camera and a frame of a 1957 lens purchased in poor condition. The diaphragm setting ring of the early lens has a threaded mount, while the later lens unit has a smooth fit of the same diameter instead of a thread in that place - for this reason, the aperture ring is not fully seated. But the lens unit of the lens is in perfect condition, which is very rare: the vast majority of lenses on the secondary market have significant damage to their optics.

The lens block has the old marking with a red letter "P", although the emblem of the Zagorsk plant is already modern, stylized under the eye. All lenses from 1963 I met had a combined coating of blue, yellow and pink shades. Frankly, this is far from the worst option: it looks much more advantageous in terms of color reproduction and work in backlight compared to the bright blue coating of lenses of the late 60s - early. 70s, but may be inferior in classic purple and, moreover, yellow. The latter is especially desirable for the Jupiter-3 lens, since it compensates for the glass's own yellow tint.

Glare of the anterior lens group.

Glare of the anterior lens group.

Glare from the back lens group.

Glare from the back lens group.

This sample has a strongly yellow-shifted light transmission peak, but in this respect it is much better than the sample I had in my hands and did not linger in 1972 with blue enlightenment, which gave not even a yellow, but an orange tint, like Thorium Takumars 50 / 1.4 ...

Jupiter-3 lenses often turn yellow in transmission, but versions with blue (orange in transmission) and violet (yellow-green) antireflection are especially affected.

Jupiter-3 lenses often turn yellow in transmission, but versions with blue (orange in transmission) and violet (yellow-green) antireflection are especially affected.

In addition to influencing light transmission, enlightenment also determines the color of veiling in the backlight. Lenses with lens coatings of cold shades (blue, cyan, green) often give unnatural and extremely difficult to correct color distortion due to the imposition of a veil of the enlightenment color.

In other words, choosing a good Jupiter-3 is a rather difficult task, which is complicated by incompetent (or cunning) sellers in the secondary market who hide optical defects (I repeat: most of the surviving lenses have a deplorable state of optics): it is also necessary to take into account the type of enlightenment, which to characterize clearly few can either. At the same time, Jupiter-3 remains a rather interesting version of a compact and high-aperture (no joke - F / 1.5!) 50 mm lens for mirrorless cameras.

Optical properties

Jupiter-3 at F / 1.5-F / 2.8 has an image with acceptable sharpness only in the center of the frame. The frame is heavily suppressed by a coma. At F / 1.5-F / 2, there are significant spherical aberrations, although the lens cannot be called soapy: despite the "glow" of the contours, Jupiter-3 works well on fine details (a nice feature of the lens's frequency-contrast characteristic curve). At large apertures, vignetting is noticeable in the full frame. The best resolution is found at ~ F / 8.

Despite its shortcomings, Jupiter-3 is a better quality lens than its younger brother Jupiter-8, as can be seen from the small comparison given in this article.

The contrast of the lens is highly dependent on the type of coating. This version works well under normal lighting conditions, but is prone to backlit blue veiling and all sorts of iridescent rings and highlights. To combat the drop in contrast, you can use a hood - even if you cover the lens from the light with your palm, the result is noticeably improved. Color rendition is noticeably shifted to the warm area. To a certain extent, these shortcomings can be considered a feature, not a bug.

Shielding the lens from the light with your palm, you can achieve a much more contrasting picture.

Jupiter 3 has a very distinctive, bright bokeh. For fans of cream blur, the lens is clearly not suitable: here there are “bubbles”, and “scales”, and spherochromatism - everything from which people spit in public, but which photography lovers sneak peek at. It is unlikely that any lens other than the good old seven-element Zonnar can create a similar image. Among modern lenses, the direct successor to Sonnar 50 / 1.5 Bertele Carl Zeiss Sonnar T * 50 mm f / 1.5 ZM and, perhaps, 7artisans 50 / 1.1, made according to a zone-like optical scheme, have a similar picture. The first is an order of magnitude more expensive than Jupiter-3, the second is “only” 3-6 times more expensive on the secondary market.

Below are sample photos taken with Jupiter-3 and a Sony A7s full-frame mirrorless camera (shooting in RAW, processing in Imaging Edge).

Conclusions

Of course, Jupiter-3 is far from the best quality lens from a technical point of view. However, it creates a truly distinctive image. Unique? - Yes! Like? - You decide. For me, the great value of Jupiter-3 is its quite working large aperture with modest dimensions. It is unlikely that a classic seven-element 50 / 1.4 lens for a mirror system from the 3th century would provide significantly better image quality, but it would certainly be several times larger on a mirrorless camera. This is probably why Jupiter-XNUMX has taken root well in my constant set of lenses.

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 44, on the topic: Jupiter-3 1: 1,5 F = 5cm P (ZOMZ, 1963) for Contax RF / Kiev. Review from Rodion Eshmakov

  • Michael

    Bubbles noticeably) And double vision and background twisting (again corrected vignetting?)

    • Rodion

      Background swirl is not a vignetting correction, but vignetting is introduced to reduce field aberrations. Essentially, vignetting is a reduction in geometric aperture from the center to the edge. Those. in the center, roughly speaking, it behaves like F / 1.5, and along the edge - like F / 2, due to which everything becomes not as deplorable as if there were no vignette.

      • Michael

        Well, yes, I didn't say so

  • Pavel Gorbunov

    Thanks to Rodion for the excellent review!

    For my part, I want to note that the quality of the image created by Jupiter-3 depends not only on the year of its release and enlightenment, but also on the manufacturer (different culture of lens grinding and housing assembly) and, possibly, on different types of optical glass, which has been used by different manufacturers at different times.

    • Rodion

      The type of glass changed once - during the transition from Schott to Soviet. But the design of the lens unit and, in general, the quality of its manufacture and assembly did change over time. Therefore, Jupiter-3 objectively has a strong spread in quality, I managed to notice this when trying different lens blocks.

      • Pavel Gorbunov

        Subjectively, the white Zagorsk (ZOMZ) Yu-3 are the best in terms of picture quality. They turn a little yellow, but this gives the picture a retro charm. But on the open one there is no soap, just barely noticeable software.

  • Alex

    the drawing is far from perfect, but the pictures in the material are very nice!

  • Igor-K

    Very decent review! Thanks to Rodion and Arkady!

  • Eugene

    But I have a black Ju-3, 1986, for M-39 threads. Do I have to assume that I have the worst possible option?
    And one more question for connoisseurs - if you put lenses with M-39 thread on a digital M9 Leica, will the “aperture priority” mode work, i.e. Will the matrix measure the exposure based on the change in "lightness-darkness" or will it be impossible without electrical transmission of the aperture value?
    Thank you in advance.

    • Jea reth

      I have not come across the M series watering cans directly, but in the bayonet, if I imagine correctly, there is no electrical or mechanical interface to transfer the degree of closure of the diaphragm to the carcass. There is no corny need for this - you are still not observing the picture through the lens. And the installation of the diaphragm on Leukovo glasses is most often done like 70 years ago - a simple ring at the front of the lens.
      Therefore, I will assume that metering will work in the same way as on the Canon EF system when installing threaded glasses there.
      There are electrical contacts in the M mount, but they are responsible, as far as I heard, for identifying the installed glass with the camera and selecting the correct frame in the viewfinder.

      • Eugene

        Thank you, but I don't know anything about Canon, and I'm not interested in this camera at all. I only admire the timeless classics of Leica, with its beautiful forms and reasonable functionality.
        Does it mean that the exposure in the “priority” mode of the aperture will be determined, since there will be no problems in the fully manual mode?

        • Jea + Reth

          If I correctly imagine the operation of the automatic watering cans, the aperture priority modes are implemented there exactly as on the first cameras with automatic automatic devices. It's just that the light reflected from the shutters is measured through a lens with a deliberately closed aperture.
          If you respect watering cans so much, then you should definitely understand the issue better than me) I dealt only with threaded ones, and I threw my IIIg on the shelf to gather dust when I bought it on the occasion of Fuji X100. There is not much to sigh about there: watering cans are cameras like cameras.

        • Novel

          It hasn't been on Pornhub yet ...

          • Jea + Reth

            To each his own.
            Some people like watering cans for their shape. Although they take doubts that someone in general held them in their hands.
            And someone takes pictures of cats on SF through ten different helios.
            Costs of the modern world ...

            • Novel

              - Let's take SF and let's go shoot cats with helios!
              - And narrow-gauge railways?
              - And narrow-gauge railways!

              • Pokemon

                Roman, why not?
                And even better if it is a 6x7 or 6x9 film and also Kodak Ektahrom to the heap.
                PS> Apparently the owner of GFX impressed you so much that after 2 weeks you still remember)
                PPS> Sorry there are no emoticons)

            • Trueash

              Exactly. At least on the mailbox with grandmother's glasses, anyway the picture turned out to be interesting

              • Novel

                Snapshot? What shot? Why take a picture when there are FORMS?

              • Jea reth

                In this case, the main thing is that the picture is interesting not only because it was taken on the mailbox using grandmother's glasses.

            • Eugene

              You are right, you haven’t been able to hold it yet. Prices are not humanoid. Nobody will let you just hold on. Neither check the automatic modes, nor caress the forms))))
              But thanks to your explanations, you can try and save some money for a used version in good condition. Knowing that you can put a Yu-3 lens on it, and then in the semiautomatic mode set the aperture priority mode - and calmly shoot.
              And cats, cats of course)))
              Well, but seriously - thanks for the opinion.

              • Rodion

                As for the glass part, you must have one of the successful versions of the lens. Late black Jupiter Jupiters had good enlightenment and, if the build accuracy and finish quality do not disappoint, the lens should be significantly better than the older versions. But this is only “if”.

              • Jea reth

                Rumor has it that the photograph was invented by mankind exclusively with the filing of cats.
                If you really need an opinion, then it is this: you should not buy a watering can from the M series in order to put threaded, and especially not native, glasses on it. From a practical point of view, Mki make sense only when paired with original glasses. And this also applies to threaded watering cans.
                First, you will lose a fair amount of the potential of this system. Everything there rests on the fact that the closed nature of this system is equal to the imprisonment of all its components for each other. I have an acquaintance with a digital Mka. He told me clearly that the camera works really well only with native glasses.
                Secondly, our threaded glasses for М39х28,8mm often have discrepancies with the travel of the pushers of Leukov lenses - the rangefinder will lie to you. Moreover, in different ways at different focusing distances. I myself ran into this problem on my IIIg when, for the sake of a joke, I stuck there Jupiter-8 that was lying around me, and it was not about the floating focus when the aperture was closed.
                Thirdly, metering systems for watering cans require knowledge of the zone system. And best of all, the camera realizes itself only in manual mode. The light meter there is intended to give you information for the correct choice of YOUR expo-pair, and not to do everything for you.
                There are much easier ways to shoot your beloved U-3, if that's the goal.
                If the goal is to own a digital watering can simply because you want a watering can - and this is a quite serious desire that has the right to life, why not - then I see no obstacles, besides the economic issue.

  • Eugene

    Yes, thanks to Jea Reth, that's right. Everything rests on the economic issue. Here it is a problem to take the camera itself, and even native glasses to it are completely oops ... Therefore, the point is not to attach the U-3 and shoot on it. And all these twists are only out of wickedness. All questions about how to find a possible compromise. Well, who in their right mind would give up branded glass in favor of ours? Vaughn Dorenko (now deceased), boasted in his time that it is better than the M9 + NOCTILUX-50 / 0.95 system, which allows you to shoot at night by candlelight, nothing can be. And this is truly so. But this is the income level of Dorenko and Medvedev (who also has a Leica with a ruler), therefore, about the advantages of the system, these are meaningless conversations.
    Therefore, U-3 is only a temporary compromise, although the temporary will last a long time. If everything was more or less accessible, then there would be no need to solicit conclusions on the forums.
    By the way, by the way, why not go to the mechanic with Leika and Yu-3 to make a fit for this particular glass? If the changeover of optics is not planned? Then the rangefinder problem is removed?
    And yet - is it possible to put a Yu-12 (shirik) as a permanent lens (again with a rangefinder adjustment)? Or his protruding rear lens unit, in relation to Leica, will not allow this?

    • Jea reth

      I perfectly understand your situation.
      It is possible to approach a mechanic, but depending on the design of the lens, it will either be impossible to do something technically, or it will require a highly qualified mechanic to know the course of the theory of machines and mechanisms and experience in analytical profiling of cam mechanisms. It would be fine, like ours, the profiled cam was used: replaced the cam and forgot. And the watering can uses the roller at the end. The entire mechanism of the rangefinder is the darkness of the higher kinematic pairs according to Assur ... Believe me, if you do everything conscientiously and in the right way, then this is a very difficult modification.
      The Ju-12 is probably the most insidious lens that we have ever produced for rangefinders. To get up then he will almost certainly get up. But there are a couple of "but" ... You see, the exposure in the watering cans is not measured by the matrix, where the shutter is initially closed. The light is measured by a sensor aimed at the shutter curtains, which are colored in different shades of gray. If the rear element does not block the sensor, then everything will be fine.
      But there is also such a question that a short segment from the back element to the matrix can lead to a solid color shift and soapy corners due to the non-parallelism of the central axis of the edge light beams. On film this is not so noticeable, since there is no buyer filter, but there are also such problems there due to the multi-layered color films. This may or may not make itself felt. I heard that Leica performed some kind of miracle in its sensors, and now it is one of the best systems for working with shirikam.
      In general, there are actually a lot of pitfalls.
      Maybe it's better to buy a Fuji X-PRO 1 and a 35mm native fix, which is equivalent to 50? The price tags on these cameras have already dropped below any psychological plinth. I myself changed the watering can for fuj, even simpler. Believe me, I have never regretted it.

    • Pokemon

      2Eugene:
      In addition to Leeks, Dimon Medvedev had D3X, Canon 5DSr and something else from the expensive (once cameras).
      It seems to me that he buys (or is presented with) the most technically advanced cameras.
      It would be interesting to look at his collection.
      In general, it would be better if he was the President, maybe life would be easier ...

      • Michael

        And his photos do not become good from all this)

  • Eugene

    “The darkness of the higher kinematic pairs according to Assur ...” you simply killed all my hopes and dreams ... it is clear that no one will undertake such work.
    And now Leica is not worth buying and where how can I use my lenses? It's not the right to shoot on film. No, if there were replicas of the Lake M9 from independent manufacturers that would accurately reproduce its classic forms, it would be half the trouble. But putting these lenses on some kind of digital SLRs with a soapy design, and even not full-frame ones, but increasing the focal length, well, it just sickening to the point of nausea.
    Oh ...
    Why did you change Lake to Fuj?

    • Jea reth

      Lenses? Use on your native system. Where there is no difficulty in using them. And let it be a film, if specific glasses are so important to you, why not?
      I gave up the watering can because I was tired of taking pictures with a film camera, transferring money to film and development, carrying an exposure meter with me everywhere and enduring other difficulties just for the photo to be taken with a watering can. These cameras, even though they are so expensive, do not take pictures immediately as a masterpiece. Moreover, I once had the first Vigilant. So I didn't notice any difference with the watering can. Only the watering can is made of a slightly higher quality, which can be completely leveled by its condition.
      So I made some money and bought myself a fuj. Which makes pictures much better and easier than any film watering can.

      • Eugene

        There is really no difference between mechanical Leica and FED-Zorkiy. And there is already an abyss between them and the digital Leica. The film cannot be pulled now precisely because of the reasons that you yourself have listed here. And not for the film Lake was lust, but for the digital.
        And the desire for digital Leica is not at all because of the hope of getting a masterpiece from her (only a child can hope for this). And the reasons for love for specific equipment are not at all reduced to their technical parameters. The digital Leica is made like a film Leica, like FED-Zorkiy, and this explains everything.
        I respect Fuji products, but precisely because it develops cameras of the so-called film design. I really like Fuji-X-100. But this camera has a built-in lens, and the rest are cropped with all that it implies.
        П

        • Eugene

          Therefore, the digital Leica M9 has no alternative in the classics.

          • Jea reth

            Then I do not understand why these questions were here and what hopes and dreams have I killed? You yourself at the end say that, they say, in this world for you in any case there is only a watering can and you do not agree to anything else.

            • Novel

              Recently I came across a watering can at the Epicenter for 79 UAH. Nothing like that, green, the shapes are appropriate. I think it would do. I'm not sure if Jupiter can be inserted into it, but if you try ...

              • Jea reth

                With Jupiter, as we have already seen, there can be barely noticeable software. Moreover, such a watering can is already an SF at least. And there, as we have seen again, narrow-format fifty rubles are working.

            • Eugene

              “… Our threaded glasses for М39х28,8mm often have discrepancies with the stroke of the Leukov lens pushers - the rangefinder will lie to you. Moreover, in different ways at different focusing distances ”(post from 05.11.20)

              "With Jupiter, as we have already seen, there may be subtle software."

              So, please clarify what will happen in the end with the use of domestic M39 - a small (and what?) Deviation in determining the distance (well, okay) or will the rangefinder completely lie? Or focusing on infinity or on the minimum will be impossible?

  • Photographer-enthusiast

    It is better to take the U8 with the letter P white than it, compared both, the U8 will be better and the price is acceptable.

    • Rodion

      My observations give the opposite conclusion.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2024

Russian-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2020/11/yupiter-3-1-5-f-5-sm-p-zomz-1963/

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2020/11/yupiter-3-1-5-f-5-sm-p-zomz-1963/