Leica IIIa - which lens to buy? Jupiter-8?

[IIIg]

I think the problem is that we are talking about lenses that are all secondhand and of varying ages and histories. F'instance a FED 10 could be nearly 85 years old and who knows what has happened to it in those years? Add in the problems caused by the cold war and the lenses come out of it well.

I don't know about the rest of you but I wouldn't expect a 10 year old car to be perfect and so on with anything else secondhand. I have even been quoted well over UKP 200 for a Leica lens to be sorted out...

No one has mentioned the Industar-61 (L/D) which I like and use from time to time on the M9, they are f/2.8 and that makes them a bit cheaper and so a bargain for what you get. I'm assuming bargains are being sought from the mention of the J-8 in the opening post. Here's a sample full frame and then a crop using the M9 and the Industar-61:-

If you want Leitz glass and to match a IIIa, then the bargain is the Summitar; they come coated and uncoated depending on their age and were fitted new to IIIa's from the late 30's.

Regards, David

The car analogy is a bit imperfect. The part of a lens that does the work, the optical element train, has no moving parts. Unless mechanical damage has been suffered, one might expect a clean old lens to perform as it did when new.

Your suggestion of the Industar 61 is a shrewd one. That lens seems to be held in high regard by those who have actually used it, myself included.

 

[mothertrucker]

You mentioned you couldn't find a Skopar 50mm F2.5 - here's one on eBay, not sure if this is in your price range.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/TOP-MINT-Voigtlander-Color-Skopar-50mm-F2-5-for-L39-LTM-Screw-M-Adapter-3414/193287126521?hash=item2d00cf7df9:g:ECwAAOSwmgNeEd0U

 

[splitimageview]

I'll leave the Russian experimentation to others, good luck to everyone who eventually gets a winner. 🙂

 

[KoNickon]

A collapsible Summitar is on my IIIa. Look no further, I'd say.

 

[Rob-F]

How much speed do you need? The obvious choice here is an Elmar 50/3.5, which is a perfect fit and makes the camera that much more pocketable, but it is slow.

It's hard to pass up a collapsible lens for a Leica screw-mount body. The 50/3.5 Elmar is the most compact! I prefer the f/2.8 Elmar for its easier to use aperture control, though it is a bit less compact. The 50mm lens I use on a Barnack (Leica screw-mount) is the collapsible Summicron. It's even less compact, but a great lens. Voigtlander also makes a collapsible 50.

Or, since you have waited this long, you could wait a little longer for that Color Skopar.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Canon LTM 1.8/50 - small, good optical reputation, affordable

Not really small and not chrome versions are extreme prone to haze, which is not always removable.
I feel very thank full to Helen Hill for giving me clear one as the gift.

I'll leave the Russian experimentation to others, good luck to everyone who eventually gets a winner. 🙂

Sorry, but it just not true.
You might be mixing FSU RF lenses and SLR lenses, two very different categories. I gave up on FSU SLR lenses quick due to huge quality fluctuation.
FSU RF lenses I went through dozens of all kinds. No lottery, just CLA. 90% of lenses needed no cleaning, even those I have from fifties. Comparing to Leitz, Canon LTM and even some Cosina LTM lenses with haze now, FSU have much stable optics.

 

[splitimageview]

Lots of comments about 'shimming' in this thread, lenses originally built correctly wouldn't need this. If others want to do this work, including the necessary testing to confirm accurate focus, more power to them! I wish them luck, it's just not for me.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

FSU lenses were made correctly, most of them. The only reason why they need to be shimmed for Leica is because they used Contax focal distance standard instead of Leica.
Shimming is not damaging anything and reversible. It is totally DIY, I can't do most of home improvements, but did re-shimming. Testing is one, two short rolls of film.
Fogged, hazed and separated optics in Leitz, Canon and else are often not fixable.

 

[splitimageview]

Just not my cup o' tea. Obtaining shims of various thicknesses, testing with film, trying another shim, shooting more film for when the first shim doesn't work out, repeat as necessary. Combine this time and effort with the vagaries of focus cams, no thanks.

On the other hand, if one doesn't want to mess with fogged optics, just don't buy fogged optics. 🙂

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Your choice is to play another lottery or just pay a lot more. 🙂

I prefer to do what I understand and capable of doing by myself. And what is not a lottery.
I use easy to make with nails scissors shims and test without shims and with different number of shims added on the same test roll. One, maximum two fifteen frames rolls are needed. If it is tested on film.
With digital camera (like cheap used m4/3) no film needs to be used to re-shim.
I have lenses done this way and in use for years now.

On the opposite, finding old Leitz, Canon and else which has no scratches, fungus, separation or/and haze is the lottery indeed, which you are willing to pay and play.
Lottery to find without all of it and lottery to find it without outrageous price.

 

[splitimageview]

To each their own. Testing focus on a mirrorless won't guarantee accurate focus on a rangefinder, due to the complicating factor of the RF cam. I don't have a mirrorless that uses an RF cam (and don't plan on getting one) so that's not an option for me.

On the other hand, I've had no problem acquiring nice glass without any of those issues at good prices, I suppose that's a skill too.

 

[xayraa33]

To each their own. Testing focus on a mirrorless won't guarantee accurate focus on a rangefinder, due to the complicating factor of the RF cam. I don't have a mirrorless that uses an RF cam (and don't plan on getting one) so that's not an option for me.

On the other hand, I've had no problem acquiring nice glass without any of those issues at good prices, I suppose that's a skill too.

I have all kinds of lenses from many different manufacturers including the big Japanese and German makers plus the FSU stuff.

If you don't enjoy shimming FSU lenses that is fine...not all of them need it.

Buying the best example of an old lens that you can afford is always good advice...as a novice years ago it was easy to be bamboozled in buying less than quality pieces.. but I learned fast not to be taken in and in some cases that is the best way to learn a lesson.

 

[David Hughes]

The car analogy is a bit imperfect. The part of a lens that does the work, the optical element train, has no moving parts. Unless mechanical damage has been suffered, one might expect a clean old lens to perform as it did when new.

Your suggestion of the Industar 61 is a shrewd one. That lens seems to be held in high regard by those who have actually used it, myself included.

I was talking about expectations; I've never noticed people talking about secondhand and elderly cars with no service history as though the maker was entirely to blame for the state the car is in.

Experience of buying and using lenses tells me I have to wait for the first test roll and then see the state it is in. I've had Leica lenses that were damaged externally that performed brilliantly and cost very ittle to repair. I've had others that looked good and performed well yet seemed to need a lot spent on them and another that was dropped and improved a lot. Plus the usual dirty, dusty and scratched (but very rare) that I knew about when I bought them.

As for lenses made in the USSR I've had just one dud and that was a very old f/2 50mm, say mid 1930's. Given its age and the time the internet has existed I'd blame amateurs thinking they can repair them. That is why I don't believe a lot I read on the www; especially people who shout about QC when they are talking about an elderly lens. As you say they are "to be held in high regard by those who have actually used" them but have they tried all the ones they condemn?

The other internet problem is that people report problems and other pick them up and spread the news. If I had my way people would quote the lens make and model and serial no but they very seldom do. Worse still a lot say they sold it immediately and so someone else rants about the same lens and so on.

If you want lenses or cameras to perform like Leicas then you have to treat them like Leicas and spend a lot of money getting them sorted out. And reading about the cold war might just help point the finger at who can be blamed for some of the problems. And then there's digital coming along and tempting people to abandon their old cameras to their fate and so and so on...

Regards, David

 

[goamules]

An interesting lens to consider is the Taylor Taylor Hobson T 2 (f2) 2” Amotal. This lens was made for the Bell and Howell Foton about 1948 but many remained unused after production of the Foton, and were converted to LTM mount. It’s a 6 element Coated lens built to Cine quality. To see How the images look from this lens check Mike Eckman’s review of my Foton. You’ll be highly impressed what the TTH Amotal does.

I had one and they are fantastic but also rare and expensive. I guess compared to a Summicron DR, not too bad, but if you can find one under $1,000 you are doing good. They have aluminum mounts, no click detents on the iris, and basically feel like junk. The Amotal is an exotic that may not perform as well as a lens costing 1/4 of it's price, like a Canon 50/1.8.

 

[nzeeman]

To each their own. Testing focus on a mirrorless won't guarantee accurate focus on a rangefinder, due to the complicating factor of the RF cam. I don't have a mirrorless that uses an RF cam (and don't plan on getting one) so that's not an option for me.

On the other hand, I've had no problem acquiring nice glass without any of those issues at good prices, I suppose that's a skill too.

i used only fsu lenses on my leica m4 and i didnt need any shimming for any of them. and i used dozens of fsu lenses. i think people make too much talking about those differences but they simply dont exist.

 

[boojum]

I had one and they are fantastic but also rare and expensive. I guess compared to a Summicron DR, not too bad, but if you can find one under $1,000 you are doing good. They have aluminum mounts, no click detents on the iris, and basically feel like junk. The Amotal is an exotic that may not perform as well as a lens costing 1/4 of it's price, like a Canon 50/1.8.

I have the Cooke Amotal and the Canon f/1.8 and the f/1.4. I find the f/1.8 better than the f/1.4 and while the Canon f/1.8 is very nice it is not nearly as nice as the Cooke Amotal. The Amotal is very sharp but also has a lovely glow to it. It is very flattering to skin tones and seems to diminish wrinkles without removing them. For portraits it is wonderful. For anything else it is wonderful. It is a very well-made lens.

But the question at hand is a lens for a camera. It is like racing cars, "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?" I have bought three Jupiter J8's. They are all good. The current best is a KMZ '57. If the camera repair ever gets their sierra together I will know how the '51 works in relation to the '57. I buy on eBay. I buy from sellers with a 98.5% rating or higher. I have not yet been burned. None have needed shimming. The high rated sellers selling them as LTM have made the adjustment, so far.

The J8 is a very good lens. They run ~US$100. It is Zeiss-like as it is a Zeiss clone. It is a part of post WWII war reparations to the USSR. They brought the factories and techs back to Russia and that pre-war 5cm f/2.0 Zeiss became the postwar 50mm f/2.0 Jupiter 8. My '57 is sweet. The color is special. Example below.

​

 

[Coldkennels]

i used only fsu lenses on my leica m4 and i didnt need any shimming for any of them. and i used dozens of fsu lenses. i think people make too much talking about those differences but they simply dont exist.

They do. You're just not looking hard enough.

I got tired of hearing unsubstantiated claims from both sides of the fence, so I did a controlled test, putting three different lenses (Jupiter 8, Industar 22 and Industar 26-M) on a Leica IIIf, positioned exactly 1m from film plane to the name plate of a FED 2, and used the rangefinder to focus on the name plate instead of using the distance scale on the lens (this is important - I'll come back to this). All of the lenses were untampered with by me and had come from three very different sources. A Summicron was used as a control to show that the Leica was properly calibrated and could focus accurately. Then I wet-printed the negatives to remove any possible negative scanning issues and scanned the prints. Here's the results:

Soviet Lens Tests, Redux. on Flickr

For every FSU lens, the rangefinder has back-focused to the point that the Kiev positioned behind the FED is more in focus than the FED is.

Soviet lenses - assuming no modification either before or after purchase, back-focus on a Leica by a consistent degree. It is predictable, measureable, and provable both in testing like this and through simply checking the lens' distance reading on close focus shots - due to the different standards that Soviet lenses were based on, focusing on something 1m away with a Leica will result in the lens showing something closer to 1.1m or 1.2m on the distance scale. The same happens in reverse; a Leica lens on a FED (that hasn't been adjusted) will front-focus for the same reason. Try it for yourself - it's an easy test to do.

On further distances and stopped down, it's less obvious. Depth of field can cover it, and most people aren't that picky anyway. But the difference does exist.

 

[das]

^ Thank you. Given so many other options, cheap and pricey, I don't see the appeal at all of FSU M39 rangefinder lenses. Either pay a pro to adjust them or use something else. If you want the Sonnar experience, you can use a Nikkor 1.4, an early Canon 1.5, or adapt to Leica M the common and fairly cheap Contax RF 1.5, A much better platform for those FSU lenses are the M42 versions - where you can ensure that everything is in focus and function correctly.

 

[boojum]

They do. You're just not looking hard enough.

I got tired of hearing unsubstantiated claims from both sides of the fence, so I did a controlled test, putting three different lenses (Jupiter 8, Industar 22 and Industar 26-M) on a Leica IIIf, positioned exactly 1m from film plane to the name plate of a FED 2, and used the rangefinder to focus on the name plate instead of using the distance scale on the lens (this is important - I'll come back to this). All of the lenses were untampered with by me and had come from three very different sources. A Summicron was used as a control to show that the Leica was properly calibrated and could focus accurately. Then I wet-printed the negatives to remove any possible negative scanning issues and scanned the prints. Here's the results:


For every FSU lens, the rangefinder has back-focused to the point that the Kiev positioned behind the FED is more in focus than the FED is.

Soviet lenses - assuming no modification either before or after purchase, back-focus on a Leica by a consistent degree. It is predictable, measureable, and provable both in testing like this and through simply checking the lens' distance reading on close focus shots - due to the different standards that Soviet lenses were based on, focusing on something 1m away with a Leica will result in the lens showing something closer to 1.1m or 1.2m on the distance scale. The same happens in reverse; a Leica lens on a FED (that hasn't been adjusted) will front-focus for the same reason. Try it for yourself - it's an easy test to do.

<snip>

On further distances and stopped down, it's less obvious. Depth of field can cover it, and most people aren't that picky anyway. But the difference does exist.

The three lenses you tested against the Leica lens are not giving the same results I am getting with my '57 KMZ J8. I do believe it is because I got it from a fellow with a high rating. The lens I have and the viewfinder agree 100%. I'd post the results but my home is not neat, I can go out tomorrow and retake photos close and far if you wish.

I believe that the fellow I bought it from is reputable and as he was selling it as LTM made sure it complied with that spec. Not all vendors are that honorable. So what you have demonstrated is that you have three bad lenses whereas I have demonstrated I have one good one, possibly two if the camera repair ever sends it back to me. This is a dicey area, the old Soviet lenses, and a sweeping generalization is dangerous as there are now so many variables between when it was brand new and now.

In short, my luck is better than yours. Maybe I should buy a lottery ticket. ;o)

 

[Mr_Flibble]

So what you have demonstrated is that you have three bad lenses whereas I have demonstrated I have one good one,

Or he has demonstrated that you have a bad one that was badly calibrated to Soviet spec, which is vastly more likely given the massive variation in Soviet-Era quality control over the production years.