Focus Problem with Russian Lenses

[eleskin]

Although I have Leica Primary Lenses (35mm Summicron, 28mm Elmarit) and Voigtlander (40mm Nokton), I was intrigued by all the posts on Flickr and the rest of the net regarding how many of the lenses made by the Soviet Union, Ukrane, and Russia. It seems many regard them as outstanding in value, especially if you get a lens that is a good production model (I have heard this may be a crap shoot in that you may have to get 3 of the same model lens to get one that works well). At any rate, I purchased on Ebay the 61 Industar L/D , 50mm Jupiter 8 (black),and the 85mm Jupiter 9. In my tests, although not as sharp as Leica wide open, They have wonderful performance at the smaller apratures (f 4.0, etc,,,) and do indeed represent great value (something that is well appreciated with gas prices going way up!!!). Now here is the problem, and it is not a big one if you compensate for it. All of these lenses are slightly off focus meaning that what is in focus with the M8 rangefinder is slightly out of focus when I view the images on the LCD screen. I compensate by shifting the focus slightly to the closer range. This may be because these lenses are calibrated for the thickness of film. I also want to mention I have an off brand screw mount adapter and am wondering if this is causing a problem. What do all of you think I should do? Calibrate the lenses (I paid $7 for the 50mm Industar, $25 for the Jupiter 8, and $90 for the Jupiter 9) or live with a slight problem that I seem to compensate well for in focusing.

 

[89rzweig]

This is because FSU LTM lenses are made to Zeiss Contax standard. The back focus is normal with these lenses, when you stop them down, the DOF conpensates the focus shift. The faster and/or longer the lens is, the worse the focus shift. Very similar, just the other way round, is the compatibility of Nikon RF lenses and Zeiss Contax -- Nikon RF lenses were made to Leica standard, but in Contax mount.

The FSU Jupiter lenses are in fact Zeiss lenses (Biogon and Sonnars) for early Contax cameras from 1930s, only slightly adjusted in 1950, when the Russians ran out of original Zeiss glass taken from Germany after WWII...

 

[M. Valdemar]

That whole premise is debatable.

Here are several discussions on the matter, including comments by various people who post here:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JKoo

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EVTj

http://cameracollector.proboards30.com/index.cgi?board=range&action=display&thread=2463

I'm not convinced about this "Zeiss backfocus" business. I think the Russians knew how to copy cameras and did not deviate from the Leica standard in their Leica clones and near clones.

 

[Henryah]

Focus problems with Russian lenses

Focus problems with Russian lenses

I have a J12 which I almost discarded because of focus problems. When used on the !!!g it was about 15 cm out of focus at 1m. After some testing I found the cause of the problem: The helix on the lens did not hit the roller on the rangefinder lever. It was some 6/100 mm off. It did work on the !!!c that has a thicker roller. Try scale focussing and tape measure as a start.

 

[Henryah]

Focus problems with Russian lenses

Focus problems with Russian lenses

I have a J12 which I almost discarded because of focus problems. When used on the !!!g it was about 15 cm out of focus at 1m. After some testing I found the cause of the problem: The helix on the lens did not hit the roller on the rangefinder lever. It was some 6/100 mm off. It did work on the !!!c that has a thicker roller. Try scale focussing and tape measure as a start.

 

[89rzweig]

That whole premise is debatable.

Here are several discussions on the matter, including comments by various people who post here:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JKoo

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EVTj

http://cameracollector.proboards30.com/index.cgi?board=range&action=display&thread=2463

I'm not convinced about this "Zeiss backfocus" business. I think the Russians knew how to copy cameras and did not deviate from the Leica standard in their Leica clones and near clones.

Well, all my FSU lenses behave in this way and my explanation for this behaviour is what I wrote. If it is true or not, I don't know, but to me, it does make sense.

I do not think this backfocus thing, that these lenses often exhibit, when used on Leica compatible body does not have anything to do with capabilities of the Russians to copy Leica. I think, that once they got all the stuff from Zeiss in Jena and Dresden at the end of WWII, they simply used Contax as standard and made lenses very easily in both Contax (Kiev) and LTM (Zorki, FED) mounts. It seems that those days manufactures in general did not care that much about compatibility with other vendors' equipment -- Nikon produced Contax copy camera and lenses with Contax bayonet mount, but made to Leica normal focal lenght standard.

 

[M. Valdemar]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I have dozens of FSU lenses and many of them work perfectly on my M Leicas and Epson R-D1 with no "back focus" problems.

I have a few more which were shimmed after I bought them and also work fine.

In my experience the problems seem to come from individual lens tolerances and not an inherent manufacturing problem.

I think a lot of the higher end lenses, such as the Jupiter-3 lenses, were sold in the USSR and then adjusted to a specific camera by a local technician. When one buys a lens from an FSU seller, you could be getting anything.

You might luck out and get one which is "perfect", or get one way out of spec.

It's the luck of the draw.

 

[Santafecino]

You can improve your luck enormously by having an experienced lens expert collimate a lens for Leica use. It needn't be expensive but should be included in the cost estimate for any FSU lens. I have a Jupiter 9, 3, 8 and Industar 61 L/D that all produce fine results on Leicas.
--Lindsay

 

[mcgrattan]

I'm not 100% sure about it. A few weeks back I bought a Leica IIIc, and only have FSU lenses [which I'd formerly been using with FSU bodies]. I have noticed slightly out of focus looking shots wide-open with the Jupiter-9 and one or two with the Jupiter-8 but they were in low light and shake may well have been an issue.

I made one crude test, shooting wide open, close-up, with the Jupiter-8, and the shot looks fine to me. Very nice, in fact. Focus was on the text on the bottle.

I'll need to take a few more shots wide-open to be sure, but it looks adequate, anyway.

 

[89rzweig]

To be as accurate as possible, there are, of course, other things that come to play: the Jupiters with the exception of J-12 are Sonnar designs, which are said to have focus shift because of their asymmetric design. Last, but not least, the proverbial FSU quality control comes in to play -- the performance of the manufacturing plants was measured by units produced, not by quality. They were mainly focused on making equipment for the military anyway (perhaps that is why the glass is so good).

So that really getting a good FSU lens is like solving an equation with many variables.

Some empirical data:

Both my J-9s are off by 6cm when focused at 1m wide open. My J-3 and J-8 are almost spot on and I did not bother to make any measurements; the focus is probably less than 1cm off at close focus wide open. I use J-11 almost exclusively at infinity, the closest focus is at 2.5m, so again I did not bother to make any measurements and 135/4 is stretching the rangefinder accuracy anyway. But it is very sharp lens even wide open. I can use J-12 only on my R-D1s and do not have any focus problems.

 

[89rzweig]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I have dozens of FSU lenses and many of them work perfectly on my M Leicas and Epson R-D1 with no "back focus" problems.

I have a few more which were shimmed after I bought them and also work fine.

In my experience the problems seem to come from individual lens tolerances and not an inherent manufacturing problem.

I think a lot of the higher end lenses, such as the Jupiter-3 lenses, were sold in the USSR and then adjusted to a specific camera by a local technician. When one buys a lens from an FSU seller, you could be getting anything.

You might luck out and get one which is "perfect", or get one way out of spec.

It's the luck of the draw.

Yeah, the Russian Roulette...

 

[ali_baba]

i have been using a zenitar 16mm fisheye on the m8, its great for 200.
here's a couple of shots.

however i had to jam a toothpick into the hole to activate the aperture ring.
so its been saved around f8.

 

[rxmd]

Now here is the problem, and it is not a big one if you compensate for it. All of these lenses are slightly off focus meaning that what is in focus with the M8 rangefinder is slightly out of focus when I view the images on the LCD screen. I compensate by shifting the focus slightly to the closer range.

Whenever someone has a problem with focusing on Russian lenses someone will shout "Contax standard". The Industar-61 in particular is a fairly uncritical lens because of its f/2.8 opening aperture; people rarely have focus problems with those. If you have the same problem with all three lenses, I'm not sure how much sense this makes.

I'd at least suspect the LTM-M adapter, too. Borrow a different adapter from someone and try it, with the M8 you won't be needing lots of time.

Philipp

 

[Sonnar Brian]

According to the factory spec sheet that came with three 39mm thread mount J-3's, they are made to the Contax standard. That accounts for the focus difference. Some are adjusted or shimmed to work on a Leica, or just "got lucky" to begin with.

 

[varjag]

Yes they were made to Contax standard. Leica compatibility in USSR was a total non-issue, and using optical assemblies from same production line for both Kiev and M39 cameras simplified things a lot.

 

[rxmd]

Hi Brian,

I'm not doubting you, but could you post a scan of those three spec sheets one day? I'd be interested to see what they looked like back then.

Personally I think it would have made sense to streamline production and to produce optical assemblies for lenses for only one focal length; given how all FSU cameras with M39 mount have rangefinders with easily-adjustable close focus, and how people were quite used to having their gear set up and calibrated individually, it would have posed no technical problem. Until someone actually walks up to the KMZ factory and asks an optical engineer there we can only speculate. However, I also think that the difference is so small that in a 50/f2.8 lens you're unlikely to notice it, so if there are focus problems with that lens as well there might be some other source.

Philipp