No, I’m not a flower photographer, and this isn’t a review, merely my thoughts after a few hours playing with two second-hand lenses costing about ₤40/€45/$50 each. Specifically a Russian Jupiter 8 50mm f2 Sonnar design lens, bought “new old stock” and in mint condition, and a Tamron 500mm f8 SP lens, mechanically mint but with internal fungus on the optical components.
I used the lenses on my wife’s Sony A7Rii, and I’ll have a whinge about that later. If using IS remember to set the focal length of the lens manually in the IS settings. Images shown are in-camera jpgs on standard setting.
Jupiter 8
I know this lens is slightly soft and less contrasty (even at f8) compared to my Zeiss Sonnar but for the price there is no other Sonnar design lens in the lineup. There are many excellent reviews and articles about this lens on 35mmc and elsewhere, in particular Simon King’s comparison with the Zeiss Planar. (Editor’s note: and in my/Hamish’s Sonnar series here)
I shall restrict my comments to gripes about the ergonomics. (1) The aperture ring has no click stops, (2) it can be easily nudged to a different setting by mistake, (3) the marker against which to align the aperture desired is a tiny green dot, hard to see in many situations, (4) the aperture ring rotates with the focus setting potentially taking it to the side of the lens where it is not immediately visible, and (5) finally the aperture ring is very slim making difficult to find and hard to use if you are wearing gloves. However the lens is very light and compact, so 5/10 for ergonomics – bad enough for me to use the lens rarely
I use 50mm lenses 95% of the time for my photography and my preference is for contrasty images so poor ergonomics and low contrast means this lens doesn’t get used often. Unless you are wedded to the Sonnar design there are so many better alternatives in 50mm focal length – second hand kit lenses from the 70s onwards – offering better ergonomics and optics at normal apertures. No doubt many of you will jump to defend the lens against my fussy old man’s criticisms – go ahead!
Some images: all shots taken at f8. Taken on a shopping trip to Asahikawa
Tamron 500 SP
This is a mirror lens of fixed f8 aperture based on a Maksutov telescope design with what is I assume is a field flattening lens at the camera end. Tamron lenses can be adapted to 35mm camera bodies from the main manufacturers with the appropriate Tamron adapter. Because of the catadioptric design the lens is very compact and light. With 5 stops of in-camera IS hand-held exposures at 1/30th of a second should generally be possible.
There are several excellent articles on 500mm lenses of this design on 35mmc.
Unavoidably the biggest problem with the lens is the manual focus making stationary subjects much easier though Bob Janes illustrates some stunning results by pre-focusing and waiting for the subject to come into the field of view. Even with stationary subjects focusing hand-held is not easy because of the 10x magnified wobble caused by your shaky hands.
So why use a 500mm lens? Apart from obvious situations (sport, wildlife etc.) using such an unusual focal length makes you look at the world differently. How often have you looked at your images and spotted as small area of the image which makes for a much more interesting picture? Well for me, many times. For the price of a decent bottle of wine the lens can take you out of your comfort zone, open up new ways of looking at the world and relight your imagination.
Images: the featured image and the following, all shot at f8 (ha!), all hand held and slightly out of focus
A final whine about digital cameras
In bright light I find the viewfinders (and more so, screens) dim or invisible, even with brightness set to maximum. In strong light nothing beats rangefinders or optical reflex viewers. On top of that digital is just not a PROCESS I enjoy. Maybe the camera is more clever than me and takes away much of the thought – but where is the fun in that? Whine over.
Share this post:
Comments
Ed on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
Best wishes. Ed
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
Mark Ellerby on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
Peter Kornaukhov on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
Andrew on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
I guess folks who use this as a portrait length lens on APS-C would probably say similar since they also are not using the periphery of the image circle.
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
Kodachromeguy on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
I love your urban decay examples. What tones and textures.
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
Gary Smith on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
Comment posted: 28/07/2026
Morgan on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Walter Reumkens on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Furthermore, it is worth bearing in mind that a comparison between Zeiss/Leitz and Russian lenses is rather flawed and misleading. On the one hand, we have two brands that manufactured lenses and cameras in the luxury segment in relatively small quantities; on the other, we have products manufactured for the mass market, as was the case with KMZ. There are no confirmed production figures for the Jupiter-8. However, it was the standard lens on the Zorki-4 (1956–1973), which was produced over 1.7 million times. It should be obvious that products manufactured for the mass market cannot maintain consistent quality over nearly two decades at such high production volumes. I own the Jupiter-8 alongside other lenses from KMZ and FED (Industar); I mainly use them on the cameras for which they were built, have no problems with their handling, and am more than satisfied with the results.
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Leon Winnert on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Pity, I enjoyed the lens and would like something similar again. Note. At that time Nikon were doing their own mirror lens. Horrendously expensive. Tameron was an affordable option.
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Omar Tibi on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Regarding the Jupiter-8, the ergonomic issues you mentioned were solved with the updated Jupiter-8M, which surprisingly never made it to LTM, it was a Contax mount exclusive. It's rather interesting actually - the fantastic Helios-103 was also only made for Contax mount, the USSR considered the Kiev family to be their professional rangefinder, but as a result of their planned economy, I guess they needed to keep something differentiated instead of consolidating 3 separate rangefinder families & ~2-3 mounts into 1. Give the Helios a try if you like normal primes, I've been using it on my Contax IIa recently and it's a very nice lens, modern but with a hint of vintage feel.
Comment posted: 29/07/2026
Aster on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 30/07/2026
It’s a shame its macro capabilities only achieve a 1:3 ratio, but if you’re the sort that factors sensor crop into the reproduction ratio then I think the 1.4x and 2x get you roughly 1:1 and 1.167:1 respectively on an APS-C sensor.
I just bought the lens/adapter for now and I’ll wait on the teleconverter until I come to grips with the handling. I want to know how much light I’m willing to lose between the TC and high shutter speeds.
Thanks for the article Geoff!
Comment posted: 30/07/2026
Scott Ferguson on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 31/07/2026
Cool post! I have a Jupiter 8 that was attached to a Zorki that a friend gave me because it was gathering dust on a shelf. It was her father’s camera and my best guess is that it was from the late 50’s/early 60’s. I started hearing about Jupiter lenses a few months ago and thought I would try it out. I’ve only shot two partial rolls, but I think I must have an early copy of one of the ‘good’ ones with Zeiss glass, because my results look quite good — pretty decent contrast and sharpness and that Sonnar ‘pop’. The lens is lightweight, feels a bit rickety with loose focus and aperture rings, and the aluminum barrel is blighted, but I think the optics are surprisingly good on mine. I don’t think it will enter heavy rotation any time soon, as I have other lenses I love more, but I would have been happy to recommend a Jupiter 8 to someone on a tight budget. I now realize that my recommendation would probably be to look for a first edition Jupiter lens, based on what I learned from this post. I share you lack of enthusiasm for digital viewfinders. My son has a Sony A7iii that he shares with me, and I’ll use it from time to time when I need a digital workflow for any reason, and while I think it’s a good camera I’m not a fan of shooting while looking at digital screen. I tried renting a Leica M10, which has an optical viewfinder identical to the M film camera finder and is built exactly like an M, other than having a screen on the back, but I didn’t really end up loving that experience either, compared to shooting film.
I’m intrigued by the idea of a 500mm mirror lens, but I’m still trying to get better at shooting with a 50mm.
Best
S
Comment posted: 31/07/2026
Jeffery Luhn on Jupiter 8 and Tamron 500 SP – Two cheap lenses
Comment posted: 31/07/2026
Comment posted: 31/07/2026
Comment posted: 31/07/2026