The transition between in and out of focus is pleasant. Best subject pop happens around f4 but you can get some pop from f2.8 till f5.6. There's isn't a massive pop but you can get a good looking subject separation. The bokeh looks like a dream on black and white film but it's also great in color and digital. Sonnar lenses are famous for their great, smooth bokeh. Most of this comes from the lens that Jupiter-8 was copied from - Zeiss Sonnar. Even f8 will deliver a great out of focus area as long as there is one. It also doesn't matter what aperture was used. Out of focus areas look fantastic! Very smooth but with a good character. Let's start with the best thing about this lens. I didn't like the results at first glance but even a day later my thoughts improved. When I shot with Jupiter-8 again for this review my experience was similar. Then, some considerable time later, when I looked at them again I was actually well pleased with some photos. When I first shot the lens and saw the results I wasn't impressed. I have conflicted thoughts on the lens rendering. If anything the light size will make it feel like the reverse of front-heavy. Because of the light size the camera won't feel front-heavy unless you use A4 paper as your camera. The size is good and doesn't block the viewfinder in any meaningful way. There is a Jupiter-8M which does have a clicked aperture but it's only available on a Contax mount.Īll controls are easy to understand and there's also a helpful hyperfocal distance guide.įocus throw is around 180 degrees and aperture goes from f2 to f22. It's very easy to knock it ouf of where you placed it.
Even ignoring the clickless thing, it needs more resistance. I've ranted about clickless apertures before so I won't go into it again. Aperture ring is also on the smooth side but that isn't such a good thing as it means that it's clickless. Some versions of Jupiter-8 do have a tab from what I've seen. Actual focussing is quite smooth although I would've liked a focus tab. In use it somehow manages to not feel too bad considering all the rattling. The black lens is better built and doesn't rattle as much but it's still not great. It's easier to carry around than a heavier one. A light lens isn't inherently a bad thing. It's not built from plastic but it feels like it is. My silver Jupiter-8 is a true rattlesnake.
I like things that sit together well, feel good to use and don't rattle all over the place. There aren't many changes but they are certainly not identical. Whilst optically there are no differences ( at least intentional ones ), Jupiter-8 lenses have slight changes depending on when they were made. I prefer black lenses most of the time but Jupiter-8 looks better in silver / chrome. The other one came with a Zorki 4K camera that I got for pretty much nothing. It's in silver and looks very good on the Canon P. First one I bought to mount on my first proper rangefinder - the Canon Model 7 - whilst I was waiting for the Canon 50mm f1.8 to arrive. Or you might be hit on the head with it as someone throws it out of the window whilst cleaning the house from junk. In former Soviet Union countries you can get this lens for cheaper. Because of the whole sample variation thing. More expensive ones might be confirmed as "being good". Really though there isn't much of a difference between them in price. The Contax mount version is a bit cheaper as it's more difficult to adapt to modern cameras. Jupiter-8 was a standard lens for some Zorki and Kiev cameras. At least in Europe and especially around former Soviet Union countries. com ) which was available on a Contax mount. Jupiter-8 is a copy of a cool lens - Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f2 (. They are pretty much identical from the optical perspective. There's also one for the Contax / Kiev mount. It's the first 50mmf2 (.com) lens that I'm reviewing here! My copy is in LTM / M39 mount. With my biases out of the way - let's look at the first Soviet Bunker subject - Jupiter-8. And even the good copies don't actually feel good although they can still deliver good results.
Lastly the quality of soviet photography gear is quite bad. Then again the Soviet Union weren't the only ones copying lenses. If possible I like to support and get the original. I also don't like that a lot of it is copies of things. I'm not supporting it by buying and using things made there as it doesn't exist anymore but it still feels icky. Firstly I don't like the Soviet Union as a thing. I don't like soviet gear myself that much. That's because soviet gear is often copied from good cameras and lenses and was made in large quantities. It can deliver good and sometimes amazing results with low money investment. In the classic photography gear world soviet stuff is quite popular. Since I live in a country that was once part of the Soviet Union, I have some soviet gear pieces that I would like to review.
0 kommentar(er)
