Jupiter 8 and industar 61LD

Sorry if there's a thread about this already, but I've done a search and can't find it.

What I'd like to know is, from what I've seen written about these lenses, the I-61LD is a 4 element in 3 groups design and the J-8 is s 6 element in 3 groups design, and yet it seems the I-61LD is a little sharper than the J-8.

How Could this be? Is just the Lanthanum glass?

I've also read that the I-61LD is a bit more contrasty than the J-8. Could this be the reason why the I-61LD seems to be sharper?

So is it sharper or does it only seem so?

Sharpness usualy varies from one exemplar to another.
Also need to keed in mind that Jupiter-8 has max apperture f2 whereas Industar-61 - f2.8. I'm not sure I-61 is sharper than any Jupiter-8 @f2.8.
Lantharium glasses helps yes.

Number of element/groups does not necessarily correspond to sharpness. Industar is a Tessar scheme, Jupiter is a Sonnar. Tessars are known to be sharp. But in practical terms this is irrelevant. Both are excellent lenses if you find a good example. As Moxies said, quality can vary wildly, but at least they are still dirt cheap to get.

as far as I know, the number of groups is more important than the number of elements. it's the outer surfaces of a group that create reflections which means less contrast. coating however could help a lot. in general, less groups and more modern coating is the best for contrat and sharpness.

I have tested several of both. moxies is right, at f2.8 they are both good and equal. if the j-8 is a bit soft at f2, at least you have f2 as an option.

just recently I tested several versions of the helios-44. it confirms that modern coating helps a lot.



www.a7camera.com www.120folder.com www.instantphoto.eu

Thanks for the replies everyone.

A website I've seen (could I find it again? Fat chance), which mentions the 'official' LPM design parameters for the J-8 and I-61LD, (which says the LPM figures are higer for the I-61LD), also mentions the I-50 f3.5. It seems it's figures are alittle higher than the J8!

I fully understand the 'particular example' problem, and that how a lens is used and steadiness of hand play a big part, but I'm still interested in this sort of thing.

I read somewhere that they still make I-61LD's. I was wondering if these later ones use modern coatings, or do they retain the old ones? Also, if they do still make them, what serial Numbers would the start with? Is the year still the 1st 2 digits?

FED doesn't produce camera and lenses anymore afaik. I think they stopped the production at the end of the 90's.
Here is about FED
http://plantfed.all.biz

Yes that is correct, FED and LZOS (Some I-61's were made by them) are no long producing them, unless Lomographic Society is cooking something up. The only active lens manufacturer on the territory of FSU is KMZ making the Zenit lenses (former Zenitar, Helios). There may be some lenses made by some special order by LOMO but those are either cine lenses or ones made for Lomographic society.

Cheers,
Vlad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vlad

Yes that is correct, FED and LZOS (Some I-61's were made by them) are no long producing them, unless Lomographic Society is cooking something up. The only active lens manufacturer on the territory of FSU is KMZ making the Zenit lenses (former Zenitar, Helios). There may be some lenses made by some special order by LOMO but those are either cine lenses or ones made for Lomographic society.

Cheers,
Vlad

---

I don't know if they are still active, but they also produce(d?) lenses :
http://www.focusinc.ru/indexr.htm
Catalog : http://www.focusinc.ru/forcameras.htm

Or maybe it's part of LOMO? Most of their lenses were before produced by LOMO.

Curious.
On the official site: http://www.fed.com.ua/ , also in English, there is nothing about Fed lenses...

I thought that production had completely stopped in the nineties, to turn towards aeronautic stuff.

What they exactly say :

From 1995 to 2005 it was the reorganization of the a scientific production association FED into JSC “Corporation FED”, and at the same time plant finished production of any types of cameras. Upgrading of the pump – regulator NR-3VM (VM-A) into NR-3VM-T, (VMA-T) for using in tropical climate for the engines TV3-117VM (VM-A). Mastered production of aggregates GP26, ND450 for engine AI-450, aggregates NDMS2, AUKPV-MS2, for engine AI-450MS, aggregate DT-400 for the engine MS-400

Thanks to everyone for the replies and the info.

Hmmm. I presume that even the last Industar lenses they made don't have modern coatings.

Yes, the Industar 61 LD had modern coatings: they used lanthanum coatings (yellow tint) which were considered as excellent.
But frankly I don't think they could compete with a good Jup 8, even if some users found them better.

Jacques.

@Jacques M, thanks for the reply. I thought the Lanthanum was the type of glass used?

@xya, I've just spent about 30 minutes looking at your lens tests. Quite interesting. Anyway, you may think your testing wasn't all that scientific, but a magazine called 'Amateur Photographer' in Britain used to do their lens tests by photographing a ship with the bow and portholes in the centre and at the edge, and showing cropped sections of enlargements. This gave a more realistic idea of a lens than the 'LPM' graph used by 'What Camera Weekly', which was it's main rival.

quote:

---

Originally posted by seany65

@Jacques M, thanks for the reply. I thought the Lanthanum was the type of glass used?

---

Yes, I was too fast. Lanthanum was included in glass to improve the contrast. Considered as excellent, but the photos I made were not completely convincing. Single coated, if I remember (?)

Agreed - I tested a Industar 61 LD and Jupiter 8 on a FED4; the Jupiter 8 was better. I had a few flare issues with the Industar, unfortunately there was slight damage (fungus) to the front element which could have caused this. That said, the best of the images were very pleasing, it seemed to perform well at F2.8

Steve

I have tested recently a few M39 lenses. They were selected from a few items of the same type. E.g Jupier 8 was selected from about 5 pieces. I'm really surprised how good is Industar 50.

Hmmm. It seems the J8 has 4 advantages over the I-61LD:

1) The J8 has less 'vignetting' in the corners at full aperture, which I presume get's less at f2.8, which I think would 'show up' the I-61LD quite badly in comparison.

2) The J8 can go to f2, a 'bit of a stop' wider, (dunno exactly how much that works out at, though). Even though t's a little 'soft' at f2, does give the option if sharpness isn't too important.

3) The J8 can go down to f22, which is a good option in very bright light.

4) The J8 has lines on it going from the f numbers to the distance scale, giving a better idea of depth of field than just having the f numbers being adjacent to the distance scale.

The I-61LD has one advantage over the J8:

1) When turning the aperture ring of the I-61LD, the focus ring won't move. :-)

Why couldn't they sort that out on the Jupiter?

@Alfa2, how does your I-50 compare to the one tested by xya? If you haven't already done this, I'd say look at the lens tests done by xya. Just click on the "a7camera" link in xya's post, and then click onthe 'apha7 comparison page' link.

I keep going pback to that page. It's rather interesting.

Thank you Sean for showing me the link. I haven't seen this test earlier. Results of my tests are similar. Maybe my I50 is little bit better.
I have compared 50mm lenses for M39, mainly collapsible.
Prewar I 10, postwar coated I 10, I 22, I 50, coated Elmar 3.5/50, not coated Elmar 3.5/50 and Jup 8.

quote:

---

Originally posted by seany65



The I-61LD has one advantage over the J8:

1) When turning the aperture ring of the I-61LD, the focus ring won't move. :-)

Why couldn't they sort that out on the Jupiter?

---

It's only on later Jup 8 that the whole front body rotates when you focus. No problem on the Jup 8 from 1950 to 1970. A different build probably for economical reasons.

@alfa2, Glad to be of use. :-)

@Jacques M., Thanks for the info. I presume this means the aperture ring won't move the focusing ring when changing aperture? Interesting. wonder if they even thought about that 'porblem' when changing the design?