Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 M42 Lens Review

The Jupiter-9 is a copy of the pre-war Zeiss Sonnar 85mm f/2, and perhaps that's the reason why this lens has such an outstanding reputation. Result pretty impressive, not bad from a non-macro lens.Very good performer as portrait and close-up lens too.



Related resources:

Fact Sheet

Vendor name Type Product year
Focal Min(mm) Focal Max(mm) Focus Min(cm)
Aperture Max Aperture Min. Barrel length(mm)
2 16
Elements In Group Diaphragm action Weight (g)
  Pre-Set 380
Filter Size (mm) Push on diameter (mm) Angular field
49   28.5

Lens types: 

For range finder cameras

- M39 mount black or chrome finish.

For SLR cameras

- M39 mount black or chrome finish

- M42 mount black finish.




User Comments

Whoa! That is a fine lens! I have read a lot about it and many users are very pleased with it. Now I know why. Definite recommendation!

(LucisPictor )

I have tested the 2/85mm Sonnar typs with my KIEV and Contax IIa cameras. The 2/85mm typs are a Zeiss 2/85mm West-Germany, Carl Zeiss Jena 2/8,5cm East-Germany, and a Russian Jupiter 9. All 2/85 Sonnar types are great performer lenses, but with a littel difference.

For lens resolution and contrasty the Carl Zeiss Jena lens is the winner. The second is the Jupiter 9. The third ist the Zeiss from West-Germany.

The difference is very small, but this tested lenses have more differences and the are don't small.

Is not a question the West-Germany lens is an absolute winner in mechanical quality, and included 2 layer of apperture blades only of this 2/85 lenses. The high class mechanical condition contribute don't a smooth distance operation like the Sonnar from East-Germany, but the West-Germany lens come in heavy brass and the East Germany lens in light metal lens body.Is an difference too for chromed the brass body for the West-Germany lens can chromed in high class and looked very well. The Jupiter 9 lens have a aluminium body, and first J-9 lens body is protected with a layer of shellacs that in running times received a yellowish shinning. The Jupiter 9 lenses and body are identical with the pre-war Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar lens body. The J-9 in lens operation and handling my absolut favorit. Please note Jupiter 9 lenses are don't Sonnar copys. The are produced in first time with genuine Zeiss machines that taked in the USSR for WW II reparation cost of Germany.

A testing with a Nikon 2/85 lens are don't fair.The Nikon range finder lens included a different bajonett like the Contax or KIEV range finder.

For a KIEV camera a Jupiter-9 can included different qualitys. Please look on the lens mark of sign logo= Krasnokorsk, Lythkarinov, KMZ. A J-9 before 1960 is a safeway for received a good lens, but later time Lythkarinov J-9 great performer in quality too. Oooh ! Not by the way the J-9 is with open 2,0 apperture very sharp. Good luck

(by Peter)

Little later I tested as portrait lens, soft at wide open means makes for excellent portrait lens, I don't like to sharp lens for portraits , sharp lens shows every skin problem, that is not to nice at all. One or two f stop down this lens is tack sharp highly recommended as general purpose close-up lens.Quality is excellent even it wide open, if you compare the price how cheap this lens every pieces is bargain. This lens is pleasant experience all around, colour, sharpening, focusing, build quality everything just great.

Comments (1)
Jupiter 9 for Kiev 10/15
1Thursday, 09 February 2012 05:44
I have a full set of Kiev 10/15 lenses for which I've built a NEX adapter. The Jupiter 9 in this mount is tiny -- only about 1/3 the volume of my Samyang 85mm f/1.4.

The sharpness of this little lens is quite good, even wide open. It has the most undercorrected SA of any lens I've tried, which gives it a soft look wide open and fairly nice bokeh. Well, nice after the focus point -- almost like a mirror lens before the focus point. Anyway, it is quite endearing even if it is technically inferior to the Samyang in every way.

Build quality on all my Kiev 10/15 lenses reminds me of tank treads -- they work and are quite durable, but smooth isn't really a word that seems appropriate for describing any aspect of them. Optically, the images they make all have a fairly consistent look, and it's a nice look except for contrast-reducing flare being way too common.

Add your comment

Your name: