alex anderson
Newbie
hiyya! i wanted to try out a compact rangefinder to bring with me daily and i was thinking on either getting an zorki 1 or a nicca 3s/3f. I'm pretty sure im gonna go with the nicca 3s because its one of the cheapest serviced m39 camera on ebay, but i want to use the industar 22 on it as i cant justify dishing out a ton on the leica equvelant. I know people have asked this question before and im sorry that this probably the millionth time someones asked, but will it fully work? As far as i know, any soviet lenses slower than 2.8 and with the focal length of 50mm should focus fine as they are zeiss calibrated not leitz, and thats great, but im more worried if the industar 22 can safely collapse without damadging the shutter curtain. If it cant i cant rlly easily fit in my pocket. So i guess my real question is, will an industar 22 collapse safely and focus properly on a nicca 3s body? Or should i go with a zorki 1 instead to avoid the potential issues on japanese leitz calibrated cameras?
P.S i prefer the idea of using a japanese rangefinder is because they usually have nicer finish and have strap lugs unlike most for sale serviced zorki 1's. Plus the rangefinder calibration on the zorki 1 is pretty inconveniant and im scared that if the camera is wacked during shipping, its rangefinder can get out of alignment. Oh and ofc the zorki 1's special feature of brickin you camera if you forget to cock before changing speeds.
P.S P.S!
sorry if this is kinda incoherrent and jumbled
P.S i prefer the idea of using a japanese rangefinder is because they usually have nicer finish and have strap lugs unlike most for sale serviced zorki 1's. Plus the rangefinder calibration on the zorki 1 is pretty inconveniant and im scared that if the camera is wacked during shipping, its rangefinder can get out of alignment. Oh and ofc the zorki 1's special feature of brickin you camera if you forget to cock before changing speeds.
P.S P.S!
sorry if this is kinda incoherrent and jumbled
I would suggest the Industar-50 collapsible over the I-22. It is sharper.
rangefinderforum.com
The lens will collapse without causing damage the a Nicca 3.
On the Nicca: be prepared to have the shutter curtains replaced. They can dry out, wrinkle, and get holes. Be prepared to replace the RF beamsplitter. Your best bet- buy one from the classifieds here or on another forum where someone has used the camera and can post pictures taken with it.
I picked up a Nicca 3 almost 20 years ago, had Youxin Ye replace the shutter curtains and beamsplitter.
The Leotax is also another to look at. Prices on bodies are down.
Industar-50 Lube and Adjust
This Industar-50 is a Tessar formula 50/3.5 in a brass mount with "very shiny Chrome". Performance compares well with the post-war 50/3.5 coated Elmar. The I-50 is the third formulation of the 50/3.5 Tessar in the Industar series, it improves on the optics of the Industar-22 and Industar-10. The...
rangefinderforum.com
The lens will collapse without causing damage the a Nicca 3.
On the Nicca: be prepared to have the shutter curtains replaced. They can dry out, wrinkle, and get holes. Be prepared to replace the RF beamsplitter. Your best bet- buy one from the classifieds here or on another forum where someone has used the camera and can post pictures taken with it.
I picked up a Nicca 3 almost 20 years ago, had Youxin Ye replace the shutter curtains and beamsplitter.
The Leotax is also another to look at. Prices on bodies are down.
alex anderson
Newbie
thanks for the info and heads up about the ind 50! i plan to buy from an ebay seller who says his nicca 3s has been serviced and fully working, so i shouldnt have curtain and rangefinder patch problems
das
Well-known
The experts have determined a simple truth. Russian M39 lenses are not fully focus compatible with regular German / Japanese M39 bodies. Russian M39 lenses are for Russian M39 bodies.
That's the key- getting one that has been serviced, from a Ebay seller that allows inspection and returns.
What I've found-
rangefinderforum.com
Russian Lenses to F2 can usually be shimmed to work well on a Leica. The 5cm F1.5- takes more work, and some just can not be brought close enough to be used across the full focus range. The Jupiter-9 85/2: almost impossible.
What I've also found: Russian lenses often need to be shimmed to work on any camera. I've seen them way-off. Which can be a good thing: some were so bad, they were good... The glass was perfect, no one ever used them. Extra work required including moving the rear optical group and then set main shim, but worth it.
Data Sheets on several Russian lenses state a 52.4mm +/- 1% deviation. Those on the low-end of that, work well on a Leica. High-end of the focal length, you need to move the optics.
1950 ZK 5cm F2, converted to Leica Mount
This is one of the later ZK Sonnars that I've seen. The Zeiss Serial Number stamped in the rear fixture shows it from a batch completed in 1946. The lens was in Contax mount. Adapting to the 1957 Jupiter mount was simple: one set screw holds the barrel in the Contax mount, barrel unscrews, and...
rangefinderforum.com
Russian Lenses to F2 can usually be shimmed to work well on a Leica. The 5cm F1.5- takes more work, and some just can not be brought close enough to be used across the full focus range. The Jupiter-9 85/2: almost impossible.
What I've also found: Russian lenses often need to be shimmed to work on any camera. I've seen them way-off. Which can be a good thing: some were so bad, they were good... The glass was perfect, no one ever used them. Extra work required including moving the rear optical group and then set main shim, but worth it.
Data Sheets on several Russian lenses state a 52.4mm +/- 1% deviation. Those on the low-end of that, work well on a Leica. High-end of the focal length, you need to move the optics.
Last edited:
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
@alex anderson, I hate to break it to you, but even slow Industars will backfocus predictably and measurably on a non-Soviet camera.
Have a look at the photos in this thread: A bit of a lens comparison, inc. some Soviet lenses and focusing accuracy issues
Or, a much older post with scans of proper darkroom prints:
The Soviet standard results in a backfocus of about 10cm on a Leica (or Nicca) at 1m. Even with an Industar 22, it's noticeable (as per the Flickr link).
I like the Nicca 3-F a lot (it's basically the same as a Leica IIIc, with a lot of the improvements Leica made for that camera; the 3-S is more akin to a basic Leica III), but it's not worth picking one up to use an Industar on it. Spring the extra money for something built to Leica spec - a collapsible Canon Serenar is (usually) cheaper than an Elmar, for instance.
On the other hand, if you are on a tight budget, a Zorki 1 in good condition is nothing to turn your nose up at, and you can do a lot with an Industar on one. My Zorki is a beater, but a very capable one. If you decide to go all-in on actual LTM lenses, you can recalibrate the rangefinder to accommodate those lenses, too - much easier than trying to adjust an Industar to work on a Leica-spec body. Adjusting the rangefinder on a Zorki is a very easy process, so don't be put off by that.
The lack of strap lugs can be an issue, though. I hear you on that. I normally just put mine in the back pocket of my jeans with a collapsible Industar and don't even worry about the strap.
Have a look at the photos in this thread: A bit of a lens comparison, inc. some Soviet lenses and focusing accuracy issues
Or, a much older post with scans of proper darkroom prints:
The Soviet standard results in a backfocus of about 10cm on a Leica (or Nicca) at 1m. Even with an Industar 22, it's noticeable (as per the Flickr link).
I like the Nicca 3-F a lot (it's basically the same as a Leica IIIc, with a lot of the improvements Leica made for that camera; the 3-S is more akin to a basic Leica III), but it's not worth picking one up to use an Industar on it. Spring the extra money for something built to Leica spec - a collapsible Canon Serenar is (usually) cheaper than an Elmar, for instance.
On the other hand, if you are on a tight budget, a Zorki 1 in good condition is nothing to turn your nose up at, and you can do a lot with an Industar on one. My Zorki is a beater, but a very capable one. If you decide to go all-in on actual LTM lenses, you can recalibrate the rangefinder to accommodate those lenses, too - much easier than trying to adjust an Industar to work on a Leica-spec body. Adjusting the rangefinder on a Zorki is a very easy process, so don't be put off by that.
The lack of strap lugs can be an issue, though. I hear you on that. I normally just put mine in the back pocket of my jeans with a collapsible Industar and don't even worry about the strap.
neal3k
Well-known
I got a Zorki 1 from Oleg that works beautifully. Of course he gave it a CLA before he shipped it and even with shipping, it was quite reasonable. It works as well as my Japanese and real Leicas.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It has been massively covered for at least twenty years by now...
But recent RFF updates are not compatible with Google search anymore.
If you need to take pictures with something compact.
Get compact LTM body. But not FSU, avoid like plague.
I had a lot of them. Serviced by myself, serviced by more experienced person.
They all go crap after real use. Not a "A:my FSU is perfect ! B:How often did you use it? ... A:...crickets..."
Lenses is different story. Non-FSU lenses are mostly overpriced. Often for nothing.
FSU ones optically are as good as old Leitz, not as fungusy as Leitz, but often not aligned with non FSU LTM bodies.
Yet, collapsible I-22, I-50 are not complicated to align.
I-22 is good on BW, I-50 was recalculated for color.
I-50 rigid for rangefinders are very sharp lenses. And not too big.
I-26M could be find with clicks and their bokeh is very pleasing.
Black J-8 are not too big either.
But they all often need re-aligment.
But recent RFF updates are not compatible with Google search anymore.
If you need to take pictures with something compact.
Get compact LTM body. But not FSU, avoid like plague.
I had a lot of them. Serviced by myself, serviced by more experienced person.
They all go crap after real use. Not a "A:my FSU is perfect ! B:How often did you use it? ... A:...crickets..."
Lenses is different story. Non-FSU lenses are mostly overpriced. Often for nothing.
FSU ones optically are as good as old Leitz, not as fungusy as Leitz, but often not aligned with non FSU LTM bodies.
Yet, collapsible I-22, I-50 are not complicated to align.
I-22 is good on BW, I-50 was recalculated for color.
I-50 rigid for rangefinders are very sharp lenses. And not too big.
I-26M could be find with clicks and their bokeh is very pleasing.
Black J-8 are not too big either.
But they all often need re-aligment.
alex anderson
Newbie
Well shucks. Can i use an industar 10/fed 50 mm f3.5 then? Because your post says its leitz calibrated by default. Oh, also it will be pretty washed out because the lense is specifically designed for black and white, right?
edit:sorry forgot about the bit you wrote below. I only plan to buy fsu lenses right now as i dont want to spring a lot of money on my first rangefinder. Granted, i also want something reliable so im getting something thats been serviced. The price difference between the zorki 1/fed 1 and nicca 3s literally £20-30 pounds from the places i've searched on ebay and oleg's cameras so i dont really want to cheapen 30 pounds if it means one body is far less reliable after constant use. Granted if i buy a nicca i will end up with a industar 10, which is not colour calibrated and is only for black anmd white, and it will also mean that i will have a more limited selection of cheap and fast lenses to pick up.
Last edited:
alex anderson
Newbie
Ah, i plan to keep keep the camera in my pocket 99% of the time when im out so it really wont be babyed. do you think the £20 difference between the zorki 1 body and the nicca 3s body will matter in terms of which one will last longer? Oh, and since the ind 50 is sharper, and because im likely to shoot film at f8, can i get away with its backfocusing on a nicca 3s or should i try out a ind 10 as apparently its leitz spec?
I've seen sample-to-sample variance in ex-USSR lenses that required about half to be shimmed to use on any camera.
The I-50 Collapsible is my favorite among the I-10, I-22 collapsible, I-22 Rigid, and I-50 rigid. The finish is beautiful, made of brass, and is the sharpest.
The one I have now was $50. The I-22 Rigid came on a Fed for $70, both needed a CLA- not hard to do. The I-22 collapsibles, free- in return for some lens work. I had an I-10, was very soft.
Typically the shim need to be made thicker by about 0.1mm. This can be made from paper or aluminum foil. Think of it as conservation of inconvenience for getting a top-rate lens at bargain basement price. Compare it with the post-war coated Elmar 5cm F3.5. Got mine 30+ years ago with a Leica IIIf on it for $50. The good old days.
The I-50 Collapsible is my favorite among the I-10, I-22 collapsible, I-22 Rigid, and I-50 rigid. The finish is beautiful, made of brass, and is the sharpest.
The one I have now was $50. The I-22 Rigid came on a Fed for $70, both needed a CLA- not hard to do. The I-22 collapsibles, free- in return for some lens work. I had an I-10, was very soft.
Typically the shim need to be made thicker by about 0.1mm. This can be made from paper or aluminum foil. Think of it as conservation of inconvenience for getting a top-rate lens at bargain basement price. Compare it with the post-war coated Elmar 5cm F3.5. Got mine 30+ years ago with a Leica IIIf on it for $50. The good old days.
alex anderson
Newbie
ah, well, is the industar soft at f8 or just lower apertures? hmmm, probabily should just go for a zorki 1 ig
My Industar-50 collapsible on the Leica M9. Focus via the Rangefinder, no Liveview.
This is a simple procedure, the difference is fixed by a 0.1mm spacer.
This is a simple procedure, the difference is fixed by a 0.1mm spacer.
alex anderson
Newbie
yes thats very cool! but i dont have the equipment nor confidence to experiment with dissembling lensesMy Industar-50 collapsible on the Leica M9. Focus via the Rangefinder, no Liveview.
This is a simple procedure, the difference is fixed by a 0.1mm spacer.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Didn't I made it clear? Do not waste money of FSU cameras. Made in Japan will lasts, FSU won't.
Miracles could happen. But get ready to re-shim.
Ремонт тубусного объектива "Индустар-22 П" от фотокамеры "Зоркий", или "В начале было... Leica"
Если в Книге Книг «В начале было слово», то в предтече киноплёночной фотографии в начале была Leica. Аппарат, который в неизменном виде кочевал из страны в страну, менял, как в ...
Keeping camera in the lint accumulator is not advisable. I'm using neoprene neoprene pouches.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Shimming lenses is easy if you have the right tools and some experience.
If you're looking to save money, you'll end up spending more on acquiring the right tools (and, possibly, in totally ruining lenses and having to replace them) than you will just buying a lens that is already calibrated correctly.
As for this:
My FED 2 is an absolute workhorse. Bought it in 2010, put dozens of rolls through it, upgraded to a Leica a few years later, and then put the FED on a shelf. I come back to it every so often and it's still ticking over without any exposure issues. I genuinely think it's more reliable than a lot of more "premium" cameras - for instance, I own two Contaxes (pre- and post-war). Neither of them work properly - film transport issues and exposure issues on both. I'd honestly take the FED 2 over either.
My Zorki 1? On paper, pretty much knackered. I sent it to an RFF member in the Netherlands to have a look at it in 2012. He stripped it down to find it had been "serviced" by someone in the past who'd rebuilt it completely incorrectly; this is the biggest issue with most Soviet stuff, I find. They're cheap, not well-regarded, and people start tinkering with them despite having no idea what the hell they're doing.
After rebuilding it correctly, Ron got it running correctly, but flagged up that a bunch of parts are worn from age and use. It doesn't seem to cause any issues, though. I still take it out from time to time - it's not as smooth as a Leica, but it's plenty usable:
(This was taken with an Industar 22, for what it's worth.)
And as for the "Industar 10", a.k.a. the FED 50/3.5: I don't know for certain if all pre-war FED lenses were made to Leica spec. I suspect it'll be a roll of the dice - some of them will certainly be made for the non-standardised cameras, and unless you can get a guarantee and proof they'll focus correctly on a Leica, you could be throwing money down the drain and ending up with a lens you can't use.
If you're looking to save money, you'll end up spending more on acquiring the right tools (and, possibly, in totally ruining lenses and having to replace them) than you will just buying a lens that is already calibrated correctly.
As for this:
My FED 2 is an absolute workhorse. Bought it in 2010, put dozens of rolls through it, upgraded to a Leica a few years later, and then put the FED on a shelf. I come back to it every so often and it's still ticking over without any exposure issues. I genuinely think it's more reliable than a lot of more "premium" cameras - for instance, I own two Contaxes (pre- and post-war). Neither of them work properly - film transport issues and exposure issues on both. I'd honestly take the FED 2 over either.
My Zorki 1? On paper, pretty much knackered. I sent it to an RFF member in the Netherlands to have a look at it in 2012. He stripped it down to find it had been "serviced" by someone in the past who'd rebuilt it completely incorrectly; this is the biggest issue with most Soviet stuff, I find. They're cheap, not well-regarded, and people start tinkering with them despite having no idea what the hell they're doing.
After rebuilding it correctly, Ron got it running correctly, but flagged up that a bunch of parts are worn from age and use. It doesn't seem to cause any issues, though. I still take it out from time to time - it's not as smooth as a Leica, but it's plenty usable:
(This was taken with an Industar 22, for what it's worth.)
And as for the "Industar 10", a.k.a. the FED 50/3.5: I don't know for certain if all pre-war FED lenses were made to Leica spec. I suspect it'll be a roll of the dice - some of them will certainly be made for the non-standardised cameras, and unless you can get a guarantee and proof they'll focus correctly on a Leica, you could be throwing money down the drain and ending up with a lens you can't use.
das
Well-known
A little bit off topic, but if you're itching to go Barnack/collapsible and want to be pre 1960s, a Leica/Tower/Nicca/Canon LTM body with a Konica collapsible Hexar 50mm f/3.5 is most likely going to be a far superior rangefinder camera/optic set up than any equivalent the FSU produced during that period. My opinion is that the Hexar is better than the contemporary Elmar. 
Buy a Japanese or German lens, or buy a FSU lens that has already been shimmed and tested.
Japanese 50/3.5 collapsible lenses are uncommon, and collectible. One in good condition will easily run $200 or so. Konica, Topcon (Simlar), and Canon all made 5cm F3.5 collapsible lenses in great enough number to keep the collector prices down. Nikon collapsible 5cm F3.5- rare.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Weird question, but do all these use the standard A36 push-fit filters and hoods?
One of the (many) things that's always annoyed me about Canon lenses is their use of 40mm Series VI filters. I much prefer A36.