Jupiter -11 Russian lens 135mm F 4.0

[Stephen]

Russian Jupiter-11 135mm F4.0 Telephoto lens.



From an ebay seller, a very cheap "Russian Lens" described as "maker unknown", and for spares or repair, but it is a Kazan Factory made Jupiter-11 135mm F4.0 lens, M42 fit, and complete with Kazan made original plastic lens cap.



These USSR made 135mm Telephoto lenses were originally built from German made Zeiss Sonnar glass parts removed to Russia at the end of the Second World war, manufactured by the Russians in a body form to suit the Zorki and Fed Leica mount, and the Zeiss Contax original mount for the Kiev Contax copy. These are aluminium finish lenses in the slim version.

The Russians started making the Sonnar formula pattern glass elements themselves in the late 1940's, and developed this version that was introduced in the 1960's to fit the Zenit M42 mount, without any Leica rangefinder cam needed, of course.

The lens body was produced in a heavier form, with improved focus helical diameter, to suit the Zenit SLR body, and was by then usually supplied in black finish, with brass and aluminium construction. Versions with the larger body were made for the rangefinder cameras as well.

The problem with this one was quite simple, a missing grub screw on the focusing ring, which left it loose and in the wrong relationship to the focus scale. Possibly been taken apart, but not damaged. I have fitted a cross headed screw to replace the grub screw, which will need shortening, and the head countersunk to hide it. The other screws are OK and just needed tightening up.

Despite the usual wear and tear of 50 odd years, it is in excellent condition optically, the glass is clear and clean, no fungus or haze, and the aperture ring and iris works correctly.

Very usable, despite the F4.0 max aperture, the first test on the Periflex focus checker shows it is very sharp, so some test shots tomorrow on digital, with the Olympus PM-1 camera and adapter. The F4.0 Jupiter usually works better than the Russian Tair 135 F2.8 on sharpness and has a higher contrast.

Stephen.

[genazzano]

Complimenti, Stephen.

[Stephen]

Test view across River Medway with Leitz Hektor 135 on Olympus PM-1 (F11)




Test view across Medway with the Russian Jupiter 11 on Olympus PM-1 at F11.....

The above shot shows the Russian version of the Zeiss Sonnar is better than the Hektor of about the same vintage. It is as sharp or sharper, and has better contrast. A most satisfactory lens and only £12.50....you cannot buy a Leica lens cap for that sort of money.

It also close focuses better to 1.4 metre, and the infinity setting was completely correct on the lens plus adapter for micro 4/3rd.

Both lenses are acting as 270mm telephotos in the test shots.

Stephen.

[hansz]

Ah... As a diehard Zeiss fan, your conclusion is hardly surprising :-)
Hans.

[truls]

Those russians are impressive, very sharp and lovely contrast. Also the price.. Stunning!

[Stephen]

Maybe the comparison is unfair in a way as the Hektor was not Leitz's brightest lens design moment, it had a notoriety to softness, but is OK at F11, which is why it was used to compare the two.

Both the Leitz and the Sonnar Jupiter are four glass element types, but the Sonnar is a telephoto, and the Hektor a long focus lens, the difference is the centre of the formula is moved in true telephoto to minimise the back focus, giving a more compact lens with the Jupiter, it almost half the length of the Hektor.

Leica took the course of making the Hektor, an Elmar type, due to the patent situation in pre-war Germany. German companies were forbidden to take patent action against each other, only against outside makers, so optical ranges did not duplicate designs.

The Sonnar lens was far more difficult to make, the third element is thick, with a concave front, difficult to grind due to the thickness, so seems a strange design for the Russians to follow, except that they got the glass and machinery from the Zeiss company as war reparations.

As usual, with USSR lenses, it is somewhat pot luck as to performance, but there is little to go wrong with the Sonnar 135mm/F4 design, and I have rarely found bad examples during the time I sold lenses etc., but plenty of bad Zenit owners!. These 135mm lenses always seem to work better on the Fed, Kiev, and Zorki rangefinders, add the mirror induced shake on the reflex version, and add an inexperienced photographer, and they appear a mediocre lens.

I was always suspicious that people forgot to stop down, leaving the lens wide open for many shots, you could only prove it if they used slide film, where the over exposure was so much more obvious.

As the weather has improved a lot I will try a Kent countryside trip by bus and see what there is around to test out the Jupiter, and the Tamron 135mm Converto, which is also above Leica in performance.

Stephen.

[lloydy]

You've got a great bargain there, a very nice lens.

[genazzano]

I had a Jupiter 11 and gave it away but I realize that it's hit-and-miss with Russian lenses.

[Stephen]

Perhaps this was still assembled by an ex German Zeiss employee!!.. the Jupiter 11 was one of the better USSR products.
The sharpness on this one reaches the limit of the digital sensor, tiny straight lens at a slight angle show "stagger", where the minute square pixels can no longer represent a really smooth very tiny line. Only changing to a full frame sensor would stretch it, and I could not afford one!!

When an image reaches this sharpness level, to print it out at max resolution, it is better to apply an anti alias filter to the file, reducing the theoretical sharpness, but the smoothing gives a better look to tiny lines, and it can appear sharper.

Stephen.

[genazzano]

I should sell some stuff and get a D800e or even a D3200. My D70 deserves retirement too.

[julio1fer]

I have used Jupiter-11 lenses in M39 and Kiev versions. Both lenses were great. Of course a 135 is more comfortable to use in a SLR than in rangefinders. To begin with, you can see what you are framing.

IIRC the RF patch in my Zorki (or was it the Kiev) covered almost exactly the frame of the J-11.

This is a most underrated lens, as often the case with Russian glass. Good for us bottom feeders.

[hansz]

I also have the Jupiter-11 in both M42 and M39 mounts. The M42 is used, but the M39 is 'retired' due to Zenit-body problems (just have to find a decent one), and the lack of a proper EOS or NEX adapter.
L39 (Leica thread) adapters are easy to find, but you will loose infinity focus with a M39 lens.
Does anyone has a source for a genuine M39 adapter having the right flange to sensor distance?

Hans

[Stephen]

No issue with using with rangefinder, as mine is a Periflex, which entirely gets around the focusing problems, with the use of the Corfield viewfinder, or the Russian multi EX Zeiss viewfinder. It would be perfect with a full frame Digital, but the cost is still far too high.

Stephen.

[Stephen]

Jun 8, 2013 3:56:19 GMT -5 hansz said:

I also have the Jupiter-11 in both M42 and M39 mounts. The M42 is used, but the M39 is 'retired' due to Zenit-body problems (just have to find a decent one), and the lack of a proper EOS or NEX adapter.
L39 (Leica thread) adapters are easy to find, but you will loose infinity focus with a M39 lens.
Does anyone has a source for a genuine M39 adapter having the right flange to sensor distance?

Hans

I did see a Paxette fit M39 x 1mm advertised, but not on Ebay, it was a net search, and has not shown up again (or on Ebay).

Paxette M39 are 15.2mm thicker than Leica L39mm x 26TPI, at 44mm register, the Zenit 3m 39 thread is an odd 45.46mm register or 16.66mm thicker than Leica mount.

What is not available is Canon 39 x 1mm, although a Leica x 26TPI will work, the thread pitch is slightly different, but the register of 28.80 is the same, so infinity works.

I have never seen a Zenit 3m 39x TPI offered in NEX or Micro 4/3..........

So a Leica l39x 26TPI, plus extension tube of 15.2 will give infinity for Paxette lenses.
And an extension tube of 16.66 will allow a Russian Zenit 3mm to reach infinity.

All modern period,(post war), Russian lenses are 28.80 register on L39 x 26TPI matching Leica. Older Russian used a different metric pitch, like Canon, or a shorter register.

The oddity is Leica choose the Imperial pitch of 26TPI as they were used to Microscope threads, Canon were metric as were Paxette, and the Russians.

One Imperial Inch is 25.4mm therefore the pitch of Canon (1mm) is 25.4 TPI against 26 TPI

Hope this confuses you not!!!!........Zeiss disliked screw fit lenses!! ( and then fitted it to the Dresden reflexes....)

Stephen.