In terms of ugly ducklings, the Fed 5 doesn't really deserve its reputation. It's a good, reliable camera ... and you can get one still new-in-box. They're just ugly.
Aww, the poor Fed 5. So maligned. I actually quite like the way it looks and feels, and it has - shockingly - got a few compliments from people on the street. But then I like the M5, so take that with a pinch of salt.
Aside: I once got shouted at by a Russian man in Cornwall, England. His English was spotty at best, but the shouts of "Fed! Dzerzinsky! FED!" and accompanying gestures at my camera were easily understood. I handed him the camera - a Fed 5 - and couldn't help but smile as he tried his best to explain Soviet lens quality and camera design to his (English-speaking) drinking buddies. The look of pride on his face at seeing an Englishman using a Fed 5 was really something else.
Anyways, back to the question at hand. There's not more that I can add; I love the Fed 2 more than anything else on my camera shelf. It's a good looker and it's got all I want in a camera; small size, shutter speeds I'll actually use (I don't think I EVER go below 1/30), a good (read: contrasty) viewfinder and a long rangefinder baselength. However, the Zorki 5 is a close contender; not only does it have lever wind and bottom loading (meaning a slightly reduced body thickness), but it can take the Jupiter 12 without damaging it or needing modification. The catch? I don't like Zorki viewfinders. They may be brighter, but the patch isn't as visible in my experience. In some lighting situations I simply can't make out whether it's in focus or not.
Oh, and another (more subtle) reason to love the Fed 2: if you use the longer Jupiters (the 85mm J9 or the 135mm J11), the actual part of the turret finder that's in use lines up almost exactly above the lens. On every other Fed + Zorki I've seen, it's off to the side, so you need to account for horizontal parallax. (The Z5+6 are close, but slightly further over than the Fed 2.)
