Not sure what that's short for but I'm going with yes, yes I can.Can you go more s*** than this?
FWIW I don't think they're supposed to be so tight, it's just that with age the lubricant has deteriorated. Servicing my also tight example has been on my to do list for a long time.Not sure what that's short for but I'm going with yes, yes I can.
I present to you the 85mm f2 Jupiter-9, in a Kiev/Contax mount, using a cheap off-brand Nikon(S) adapter.
It works. And given that the Jupiter-9s all require an enormous amount of torque to focus, I think it's actually preferable to the M39 mount through an adapter, as focussing will have a tendency to unscrew the lens from the M39 adapter. (I was actually hoping to use one of the Kiev-mount 50s using this adapter, but it doesn't have the internal bayonet needed to mount that)
As I said, it works. I admit I don't find this very practical, but mostly because a 170mm fixed-length equivalent is not really my cup of tea. Hence I haven't done anything in the way of testing, but the image quality itself seems fine.
View attachment 888970
Yes, you're right, they're clearly not supposed to be this tight. I have used a Jupiter-9 in LTM that is much better than the lens above. This seems to be the most common complaint with this lens, though - granted they are pretty heavy beasts so more to move on that old dried up lubricant.FWIW I don't think they're supposed to be so tight, it's just that with age the lubricant has deteriorated. Servicing my also tight example has been on my to do list for a long time.