Adapting Jupiter lenses on a Leica M digital

[Besprosvet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I'm going to buy a Leica Monochrom, and I'd like t pair it up, at least initially, with some old soviet lenses (Jupiter-12 and likely Jupiter-3). I read that those lenses M39 mount is slightly different from the one's Leica had. So a M39 to M adapter may not be enough, they would need "shimming", which I'm not sure I understand what it means. Is it something easy I can do on my own? Is there any way to fix this in any diy way?

 

Thank you

[pippy]

The lens-flange to 'film-plane' (sensor plane) distance of the FSU cameras is different to that used by Leica. This means that the image back-focus plane of the Russian lenses is not at the same place as it is on the German lenses.

A shim can be utilised to change - physically - the plane at which point a Jupiter (etc.) lens will focus when used with a Leica body.  I wouldn't trust myself - and not by a long way - to carry out the change on a digi-Leica body.

IMX with my own (1975) J-12 used on a digi-M there is no appreciable difference in sharpness whatsoever - it's a rather wonderful lens rendering, unsurprisingly, in the classic Zeiss Biogon manner - but things change completely when going to 50mm and beyond. J-8 / J-3 / J-9 / J-11 lenses I own ( as well as an assortment of FEDs / Industars and the like) are useless with a digi body due to incorrect focus. It is, of course, possible to have these lenses shimmed correctly by a professional but any monies saved by buying a 'cheap alternative' lens would be swallowed-up by the technician's fee.

Oddly enough none of my '57-'60 (silver colour alloy-bodied) J-8 lenses as far 'out' as are any of my later post-'67 black-chrome examples. No idea why that should be the case.

You could, of course, try to shim the lenses out yourself. Not entirely how you might do that in a competent and reliable manner.

Good luck.

Philip.

Edited October 21, 2022 by pippy

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

16 minutes ago, pippy said:

The lens-flange to 'film-plane' (sensor plane) distance of the FSU cameras is different to that used by Leica. This means that the image back-focus plane of the Russian lenses is not at the same place as it is on the German lenses.

A shim can be utilised to change - physically - the plane at which point a Jupiter (etc.) lens will focus when used with a Leica body.  I wouldn't trust myself - and not by a long way - to carry out the change on a digi-Leica body.

IMX with my own J-12 used on a digi-M there is no appreciable difference in sharpness whatsoever - it's a rather wonderful lens rendering, unsurprisingly, in the classic Zeiss Biogon manner - but things change completely when going to 50mm and beyond. J-8 / J-3 / J-9 / J-11 lenses I own ( as well as an assortment of FEDs / Industars and the like) are useless with a digi body due to incorrect focus. It is, of course, possible to have these lenses shimmed correctly by a professional but any monies saved by buying a 'cheap alternative' lens would be swallowed-up by the technician's fee.

Oddly enough none of my '57-'60 (silver colour alloy-bodied) J-8 lenses as far 'out' as are any of my later post-'67 black-chrome examples. No idea why that should be the case.

You could, of course, try to shim the lenses out yourself. Not entirely how you might do that in a competent and reliable manner.

Good luck.

Philip.

Legend is that some of the silver lenses were still made out of Zeiss materials even if they were branded differently. Maybe you have some of these items 

[spydrxx]

Monochrome aside, they should focus fine on any mirrorless camera/camera with live view.

[pippy]

24 minutes ago, TheGodParticle/Hari said:

Legend is that some of the silver lenses were still made out of Zeiss materials even if they were branded differently. Maybe you have some of these items 

Not my lenses, Hari, but the story is absolutely based on fact. After the end of hostilities the Zeiss / Contax workshops were stripped of all the 'plant' as well as all parts / spares and, believe it or not, a number of Zeiss' senior technicians which were all shipped to the ancient Arsenal plant in Kiev in the Ukraine. Thus the earliest post-WW2 Kiev 2 cameras and associated lenses were assembled using genuine Contax parts. As time went by the parts bin became depleted but the Kiev plant had already started to manufacture their own copies of the authentic articles and these were introduced as the existing Contax bins ran dry.

The big problem, however, was that the Russian / Ukranian glass compounds had different refractive indices (etc.) in comparison to the German glass-types so a certain amount of optical redesign was essential.

FWIW my oldest Kiev body - which dates to 1950 - has at the very least a few left-over Contax parts as evidenced by the exposure dial featuring the German DIN (as opposed to the Soviet ГОСТ) scale engravings but by all accounts the vast majority of Contax glass was exhausted by c. 1948/'49 and internal parts shortly thereafter.

Incidentally any KIEV 2 pre-dating 1949 is - if original - a much sought-after camera!

Anyone with an interest in such stuff might enjoy spending a few hours going through this web-site;

http://www.sovietcams.com/indexf821.html?tmpl_into=middle&tmpl_id=266&_m_e_id=24&_menu_i_id=193

Philip.

[Ecar]

What Philip says.

I'd avoid any of the later black lenses (except the I-61, see below), as manufacturing tolerances were all over the place.

Pre-1960 lenses are usually preferable, although they do indeed also require adjustment (aka "shimming") to achieve the required distance to plane and focus properly with the RF. Also, the earlier lenses are apparently easier to adjust across the entire focus range, as shims between the optical groups can be added in more places (never done it myself, but was told so by the technician who sorted some of mine). IMO, having a good Jupiter copy properly CLA'd is worth the investment: FWIW, my "best" J-3 is very nearly on par with my "best" coated CZJ Sonnar 50/1.5 in terms of IQ.

If you want to take the DIY route, here is a tutorial for the J-3 written by Brian Sweeney, a Sonnar expert and also a member of this forum.

ZK lenses (marked "3K" in cyrillic) from the 1948-1951 period are those most likely to contain Zeiss glass and/or internal components. Some leftovers might still have been available for the earliest 1951 Jupiter lenses.

Lenses manufactured by the KMZ plant (and its LZOS satellite) are usually, but not always, more reliable than those made in other Soviet plants.

The dirt-cheap, FED-made Industar-61 L/D is plasticky, slower and a tad longer (53 or 55mm) than the J-3 or J-8 but can be surprisingly good for the money. Also, because of its max. f/2.8 aperture, any focussing issues are less apparent. Due to sample variability, I'd buy more than one if possible (they can be bought "in bulk", although I just noticed that eBay prices are somewhat higher than they used to be).

Edited October 22, 2022 by Ecar

[wda]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Besprosvet said:

Hi,

I'm going to buy a Leica Monochrom, and I'd like t pair it up, at least initially, with some old soviet lenses (Jupiter-12 and likely Jupiter-3). I read that those lenses M39 mount is slightly different from the one's Leica had. So a M39 to M adapter may not be enough, they would need "shimming", which I'm not sure I understand what it means. Is it something easy I can do on my own? Is there any way to fix this in any diy way?

 

Thank you

Think of a 'shim' as a very thin spacing washer. You could experiment with metal foil, building up layers, experimentally. Send a PM to member Dunk Sergeant. He is experienced in such adaptations, and will advise you.

[Besprosvet]

10 hours ago, pippy said:

The lens-flange to 'film-plane' (sensor plane) distance of the FSU cameras is different to that used by Leica. This means that the image back-focus plane of the Russian lenses is not at the same place as it is on the German lenses.

A shim can be utilised to change - physically - the plane at which point a Jupiter (etc.) lens will focus when used with a Leica body.  I wouldn't trust myself - and not by a long way - to carry out the change on a digi-Leica body.

IMX with my own (1975) J-12 used on a digi-M there is no appreciable difference in sharpness whatsoever - it's a rather wonderful lens rendering, unsurprisingly, in the classic Zeiss Biogon manner - but things change completely when going to 50mm and beyond. J-8 / J-3 / J-9 / J-11 lenses I own ( as well as an assortment of FEDs / Industars and the like) are useless with a digi body due to incorrect focus. It is, of course, possible to have these lenses shimmed correctly by a professional but any monies saved by buying a 'cheap alternative' lens would be swallowed-up by the technician's fee.

Oddly enough none of my '57-'60 (silver colour alloy-bodied) J-8 lenses as far 'out' as are any of my later post-'67 black-chrome examples. No idea why that should be the case.

You could, of course, try to shim the lenses out yourself. Not entirely how you might do that in a competent and reliable manner.

Good luck.

Philip.

Thank you for the insight, do you think it'd be a more viable wy buying them in contax/kiev mount and adapting them to M? Would I lose the window in the finder?

3 hours ago, Ecar said:

What Philip says.

I'd avoid any of the later black lenses (except the I-61, see below), as manufacturing tolerances were all over the place.

Pre-1960 lenses are usually preferable, although they do indeed also require adjustment (aka "shimming") to achieve the required distance to plane and focus properly with the RF. Also, the earlier lenses are apparently easier to adjust across the entire focus range, as shims between the optical groups can be added in more places (never done it myself, but was told so by the technician who sorted some of mine). IMO, having a good Jupiter copy properly CLA'd is worth the investment: FWIW, my "best" J-3 is very nearly on par with my "best" coated CZJ Sonnar 50/1.5 in terms of IQ.

If you want to take the DIY route, here is a tutorial for the J-3 written by Brian Sweeney, a Sonnar expert and also a member of this forum.

ZK lenses (marked "3K" in cyrillic) from the 1948-1951 period are those most likely to contain Zeiss glass and/or internal components. Some leftovers might still have been available for the earliest 1951 Jupiter lenses.

Lenses manufactured by the KMZ plant (and its LZOS satellite) are usually, but not always, more reliable than those made in other Soviet plants.

The dirt-cheap, FED-made Industar-61 L/D is plasticky, slower and a tad longer (53 or 55mm) than the J-3 or J-8 but can be surprisingly good for the money. Also, because of its max. f/2.8 aperture, any focussing issues are less apparent. Due to sample variability, I'd buy more than one if possible (they can be bought "in bulk", although I just noticed that eBay prices are somewhat higher than they used to be).

Thank you.

Does any of you have a page to refer, or a way to understand the Jupiter serial code to detect factory and year of production? I couldn't find anything reliable online.

 

And... since I'd like to use my Monochrom as soon as it comes home, is there any other dirt cheap option (possibly at 35mm) that doesn't give issues? With time I'll get a nice set of lenses, but I'd like to get confident with the rangefinder using some cheap lens with decent character

[Ecar]

You can certainly buy these in Contax mount, but if you'd like to retain RF coupling, you'd need an adapter (the best ones IMO are made by Amedeo Muscelli, but Coiro seem to be good too), which can be more expensive than the lens itself. Makes sense if you are planning to share the adapter across multiple lenses.

Year of production is usually a very easy one: it's the first two digits of the serial number...

Try this to identify factories.

Have fun!

[Ecar]

51 minutes ago, Besprosvet said:

And... since I'd like to use my Monochrom as soon as it comes home, is there any other dirt cheap option (possibly at 35mm) that doesn't give issues? With time I'll get a nice set of lenses, but I'd like to get confident with the rangefinder using some cheap lens with decent character

Forgot to reply to this part of your post.

Not that I know of. You'd be looking at about $100 for a usable 35mm, which is not exactly dirt cheap.

Also, as you know, any of the Russian lenses in LTM (Leica Thread Mount, also referred to as L39 or M39) will need an LTM->M adapter ring to mount on your Monochrom, These are relatively easy to find, but make sure you get a good quality one, else you'll risk compounding potential focussing issues. 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Ecar

[Pyrogallol]

If you are using a digital camera where you are seeing what the lens sees then I don’t see any need to adjust the lens. It’s only a problem with some Russian lenses if you are relying on the rangefinder to focus the lens. I did buy a Jupiter 3 that was a long way out on the rangefinder but my chrome and black Jupiter 8 lenses are ok, as are my wartime and early postwar Zeiss lenses. Buying a focussing Contax to Leica adaptor will cost more than buying a Leica thread equivalent lens.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Pyrogallol

[pippy]

2 hours ago, Besprosvet said:

Does any of you have a page to refer, or a way to understand the Jupiter serial code to detect factory and year of production? I couldn't find anything reliable online.

 

And... since I'd like to use my Monochrom as soon as it comes home, is there any other dirt cheap option (possibly at 35mm) that doesn't give issues? With time I'll get a nice set of lenses, but I'd like to get confident with the rangefinder using some cheap lens with decent character

I think the LTM / Conntax mount issue has been answered so no need for me to go through that situation.

For the majority of the production years the first two digits of the serial number of a lens related to when the lens was manufactured so, for instance, my Jupiter-12 (i.e. 35mm f2.8) seen here which starts 75xxxx was made in 1975. This is the lens to which I alluded earlier which performs superbly whether on this 1930 Leica 1 or any of my M bodies - film or digital;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I've rarely heard of incompatability issues with these but it is still a bit of a lucky dip as to whether one particular lens will match perfectly with a Leica body of any type. Still; if asked for a cheap entry into 35mm lens with character to use with a Leica I'd say it would be a very good place to start.

If you wish to read up on FSU lenses here - a subdivision of the same website to which I posted a link previously - is a rather wonderful and very informative place to look;

http://www.sovietcams.com/index9a91.html?tmpl_into[0]=index&tmpl_name[0]=m_site_index2&tmpl_into[1]=middle&tmpl_id[1]=422&tmpl_into[2]=menu_4&tmpl_name[2]=m_menu_tree&e_id[2]=5&_m_e_id=2&_menu_i_id=8;0&no_cache=1

Philip.

P.S. If you would like to see some snaps taken with this lens on a digi-M (or even the set up posted above) let me know and I'll dig one or two out.

EDIT : Apologies to Ecar; I had missed the bit where the age of a lens was explained. My bad!

Edited October 22, 2022 by pippy

[Ecar]

7 hours ago, pippy said:

EDIT : Apologies to Ecar; I had missed the bit where the age of a lens was explained. My bad!

No need for an apology! If I were the OP, I'd say it's always sound practice to get confirmation from multiple sources, especially on an internet forum...😉

[Besprosvet]

11 hours ago, Ecar said:

You can certainly buy these in Contax mount, but if you'd like to retain RF coupling, you'd need an adapter (the best ones IMO are made by Amedeo Muscelli, but Coiro seem to be good too), which can be more expensive than the lens itself. Makes sense if you are planning to share the adapter across multiple lenses.

Year of production is usually a very easy one: it's the first two digits of the serial number...

Try this to identify factories.

Have fun!

Interesting link, thanks.

9 hours ago, pippy said:

I think the LTM / Conntax mount issue has been answered so no need for me to go through that situation.

For the majority of the production years the first two digits of the serial number of a lens related to when the lens was manufactured so, for instance, my Jupiter-12 (i.e. 35mm f2.8) seen here which starts 75xxxx was made in 1975. This is the lens to which I alluded earlier which performs superbly whether on this 1930 Leica 1 or any of my M bodies - film or digital;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I've rarely heard of incompatability issues with these but it is still a bit of a lucky dip as to whether one particular lens will match perfectly with a Leica body of any type. Still; if asked for a cheap entry into 35mm lens with character to use with a Leica I'd say it would be a very good place to start.

If you wish to read up on FSU lenses here - a subdivision of the same website to which I posted a link previously - is a rather wonderful and very informative place to look;

http://www.sovietcams.com/index9a91.html?tmpl_into[0]=index&tmpl_name[0]=m_site_index2&tmpl_into[1]=middle&tmpl_id[1]=422&tmpl_into[2]=menu_4&tmpl_name[2]=m_menu_tree&e_id[2]=5&_m_e_id=2&_menu_i_id=8;0&no_cache=1

Philip.

P.S. If you would like to see some snaps taken with this lens on a digi-M (or even the set up posted above) let me know and I'll dig one or two out.

EDIT : Apologies to Ecar; I had missed the bit where the age of a lens was explained. My bad!

Thank you I'd love to see some photos!

 

Does any of you understand if one of these adapters if specifically made to adapt russian m39 to m?

Adriano Lolli has a good reputation as a technician:

 

https://www.adrianololli.com/articolo.asp?ID=4216

https://www.adrianololli.com/articolo.asp?ID=5528

https://www.adrianololli.com/articolo.asp?ID=2547

If it's too complicated to sort out I'll just get a 7artisans 35mm f2 or 1.4 for the moment, they're cheap enough. The 1.4 is intriguing but a tad too big for my likings. If the f2, beside the bigger aperture, is comparable as rendering 3d pop etc I might get that since it's smaller. Also the 40mm 1.4 is really fascinating to me, I'm just a bit doubtful about the relaibility of the 35mm window (or it uses the 50?) in the finder since it's a different focal lenght.

 

[Ecar]

All of these will bring up the 35-135 framelines in the finder, so can only be considered for a J-12. For a J-3, you'll need the 50-75 version.

In any event:

#1 is a flange replacement for some (but not all) Leica lenses - and possibly some Voigtlander ones. It's unlikely to work on a FSU lens due to the screw holes being drilled in different places.

#2 is the one you want because it can be 6-bit coded and therefore covers the code reader area on the camera body. I won't get into details here, but that's a good thing if you want to use Live View or the EVF on some bodies - eg, if your Monochrom belongs to the M10 generation (you didn't say).

#3 will work too, but can't be coded, and is therefore less flexible (again, without getting into details) for use on the latest digital M generations. The upside is that the cutout would allow you to use vintage lenses where the springed infinity lock pin on the focus ring would otherwise hit the edge of the adapter, but it doesn't seem like you should be concerned with this (unless you want a collapsible Fed or Industar 50/3.5 lens).

Bottom line: I'd go with #2 - or indeed a cheap lens in native M mount.

I know it seems complicated at first...😉

[Besprosvet]

5 minutes ago, Ecar said:

All of these will bring up the 35-135 framelines in the finder, so can only be considered for a J-12. For a J-3, you'll need the 50-75 version.

In any event:

#1 is a flange replacement for some (but not all) Leica lenses - and possibly some Voigtlander ones. It's unlikely to work on a FSU lens due to the screw holes being drilled in different places.

#2 is the one you want because it can be 6-bit coded and therefore covers the code reader area on the camera body. I won't get into details here, but that's a good thing if you want to use Live View or the EVF on some bodies - eg, if your Monochrom belongs to the M10 generation (you didn't say).

#3 will work too, but can't be coded, and is therefore less flexible (again, without getting into details) for use on the latest digital M generations. The upside is that the cutout would allow you to use vintage lenses where the springed infinity lock pin on the focus ring would otherwise hit the edge of the adapter, but it doesn't seem like you should be concerned with this (unless you want a collapsible Fed or Industar 50/3.5 lens).

Bottom line: I'd go with #2 - or indeed a cheap lens in native M mount.

I know it seems complicated at first...😉

Oh yeah, it is a bit complicated at the beginning! I've been a reflex guy for like 12 years and more marginally a mirrorless user, Leica M is going to be an exciting adventure. I just saw this review about the 7artisans 

 ...and it is really convincing me, at least as a first versatile bright lens natively M mount. I can also calibrate it on my own. Now I just have to decide if getting the original Monochrom or the m 246

[sometimesmaybe]

3 hours ago, Besprosvet said:

Now I just have to decide if getting the original Monochrom or the m 246

the m246 gives you liveview / EVF, which means you can use FSU lenses without worrying about calibration. also unless you need the speed from the Jupiter 3, have a look at the Jupiter 8, it's small and a decent performer (for portraits) wide open

[Ecar]

7 hours ago, Besprosvet said:

Oh yeah, it is a bit complicated at the beginning! I've been a reflex guy for like 12 years and more marginally a mirrorless user, Leica M is going to be an exciting adventure. I just saw this review about the 7artisans 

...and it is really convincing me, at least as a first versatile bright lens natively M mount. I can also calibrate it on my own. Now I just have to decide if getting the original Monochrom or the m 246

No worries, you'll get the hang of it. And, most importantly, enjoy the journey!

[SamMen]

I have now got all my Jupiter lenses focussing properly on the M240. 2 Jupiter 12's needed and extra shim, 3 Jupiter 8's needed more shims:2/4/4, Jupiter 11- no shim, Jupiter 9 2 shims.

I had some shims for the 12 and 8, that were the correct size, as well has having to cut with an exacto blade, the aluminum tops from yogurt cups. These made consistant thickness shims.

Now, from min focus to infinity, RF = EVF/Liveview focussing.

Of course, I tend to use f5.6 or f8 for most of my photography, so the characteristics of the lens do play a part in getting good focus. I do like the images I make with these.

Hey, it works for me, so I going to use it... until I can afford some M lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[spydrxx]

As an alternative you might consider some of the Japanese LTM lenses with an inexpensive LTM->M adapter ring. In the 1950s and early 1960s some of these had performance characteristics which matched or bettered the Leica lenses of that time. I was skeptical when I first heard this, and picked up several quite inexpensively. Much to my pleasant surprise they turned out very well. Having previously owned several Leica lenses of this era, I had a pretty good basis for comparison. If you are interested in following up, Dante Stella has a good online short review of several he tested and found comparable or better.