Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think the "chrome" ones were better, even though their all-alumnium construction almost invariably looks shabby nowadays and despite the fact that the coatings were tres soft. The black ones make a nicer presentation in both ways, but after going through a few of those, not only did the negs look a hair softer; the RF cams weren't always consistently ground (which means that close-up and wide-open can be dicey). For the money (now about $150 for either), how can you go wrong? And where you go from the Jupiter-9: Of course, when I got an 85/2 Nikkor in LTM (over twice the $$), my perspective changed. The heavy brass construction was much-better finished and much tougher; the coatings were indestructible; the action smoother; the click-stops easier; and most importantly, it made the corners sharper wide-open without losing that Sonnar look. The Nikkor's revolving front barrel (and hence f/stops) took some getting-used to, but as a result of that (I think), it's a little shorter than the Jupiter. Then it was the 105/2.5 Nikkor in LTM (also a Sonnar variant and yet a little more) that totally blew away the 85/2. I can see from that where the 105 length became so popular. I mean geez, picking up the texture of grooved bricks wide-open from 200 feet away, even in the corners?! And finally, 52mm filters. The next quantum leap was the 90/2.8 Hexanon in M (at well... let's say 4x the price I paid for my Jupiter). Then it's eyelashes at quite a distance. Much smaller and lighter than any of the above-lenses. Its construction is Sonnar-type but older (I think it is on the 1927 Ernostar model). What I got in trying the 90/2.8 Elmarit was better, I'm sure, but not within what I could test or see. The most visible differences between it and the previous step are on the lens barrel - the Elmarit has a slower twist to the focusing and a nicer leather case. Otherwise, it is identical to the Hexanon (or should I say, vice-versa). That's 8x the price of a Jupiter. Maybe at that point it's a diminishing marginal return, personal preference, or psychology. But get the Jupiter: I guess the upshot is that every (even small) increase in performance involves spending about twice as much money. The Jupiter is a really good deal in that respect - as long as you shoot at least 2.8 or 4, you'll get great pictures. I think at f/2 it's adequate, but it really depends on the machining of that particular lens. The thing to bear in mind is that the differences between these lenses, in practical terms, is very little. Most of the time it will be f/4 or smaller, at which most (if not all) of these lenses are at their best. The resolution differences can be lost with ISO 400 film, not using glass carriers, etc. Marc James Small wrote: > I use several Jupiter-9's and mine are quite sharp, on par with my 2/8.5cm > CZJ Sonnars. The later ones seem as well built as the earlier ones, though > no better -- albeit the latest production are multi-coated. I have heard > of brass and steel mounts on Jupiter-9's but everyone I have ever seen was > in aluminium. And the aperture is adjusted from the outside. > > Marc > > msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 > Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!