rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Hey, let me add to the confusion....
Here is my "Kombinat" of 1939 with its matching lens (I should say I assume it is the matching lens: came with the body and images come out focused). Note the resting position of the tab at infinity. I know I mentioned it was at 11 o'clock in an earlier post. I was wrong. Now what? Also note that when the lens is focused at 1 meter the tab is in a very inconvenient location.
A quick glance at internet images of matched unstandardized early Feds show only lenses with the infinity rest position in locations we would expect them: from about 11 o clock to maybe 7 o clock.
So now I'm just plain overwhelmed and I can't explain nuthin. Its a neat old camera to look at and hold, but I rarely use it. Now I wonder if its even the correct matching pair. The images I've made with this seem in focus, but not necessarily perfect. Mismatch of early kit? Who knows. My brain hurts.
My Leicas behave much better in this respect
. None of this inexplicable squirrelly business. Not that they don't offer a head-scratcher now and again, but early FSU is really mysterious. Shall we call this "fun"?
Here is my "Kombinat" of 1939 with its matching lens (I should say I assume it is the matching lens: came with the body and images come out focused). Note the resting position of the tab at infinity. I know I mentioned it was at 11 o'clock in an earlier post. I was wrong. Now what? Also note that when the lens is focused at 1 meter the tab is in a very inconvenient location.
A quick glance at internet images of matched unstandardized early Feds show only lenses with the infinity rest position in locations we would expect them: from about 11 o clock to maybe 7 o clock.
So now I'm just plain overwhelmed and I can't explain nuthin. Its a neat old camera to look at and hold, but I rarely use it. Now I wonder if its even the correct matching pair. The images I've made with this seem in focus, but not necessarily perfect. Mismatch of early kit? Who knows. My brain hurts.
My Leicas behave much better in this respect
. None of this inexplicable squirrelly business. Not that they don't offer a head-scratcher now and again, but early FSU is really mysterious. Shall we call this "fun"?pippy
Established
Yes.
The 'window' issue was the one which most surprised me this morning. Further to this and a few other things my current thinking is that the lens supplied might well be the original fitment - or at least one produced during the same general period - as ALL other lenses when tried-out on the body had pronounced finder-blockage issues throughout their main focussing range whereas the one supplied only becomes conflicted at distances closer than circa 1m 30.
If we bear in mind that the FED was only put into commercial production at the start of 1934 mine, therefore, comes from a period roughly 22months to 24 months after production first started so it's entirely possible that there was quite a lot of production fine-tuning going on at the time in terms of tolerances?...
As far as fitting lenses goes...
Both my FED lenses appear to be pre-war and (engravings apart) identical. The Industar is also a fairly early example. The Zorki body to which it was attached is a 1B from 1949 (#20166) and the lens - a slightly unusual variant ('not common to find' according to Sovietcams) dates to 1951 so perhaps before tolerances were tightened up? The Leitz Elmar 50 dates to 1935 and the 9cm Elmar I mentioned earlier dates to 1934 so everything was pretty contemporary with the body. Certainly the only difficulty I encountered was trying to fit a late-model (1983) Jupiter 8 on to the FED. The '66 Jupiter 8 fitted on without trouble.
Pip.
The 'window' issue was the one which most surprised me this morning. Further to this and a few other things my current thinking is that the lens supplied might well be the original fitment - or at least one produced during the same general period - as ALL other lenses when tried-out on the body had pronounced finder-blockage issues throughout their main focussing range whereas the one supplied only becomes conflicted at distances closer than circa 1m 30.
If we bear in mind that the FED was only put into commercial production at the start of 1934 mine, therefore, comes from a period roughly 22months to 24 months after production first started so it's entirely possible that there was quite a lot of production fine-tuning going on at the time in terms of tolerances?...
As far as fitting lenses goes...
Both my FED lenses appear to be pre-war and (engravings apart) identical. The Industar is also a fairly early example. The Zorki body to which it was attached is a 1B from 1949 (#20166) and the lens - a slightly unusual variant ('not common to find' according to Sovietcams) dates to 1951 so perhaps before tolerances were tightened up? The Leitz Elmar 50 dates to 1935 and the 9cm Elmar I mentioned earlier dates to 1934 so everything was pretty contemporary with the body. Certainly the only difficulty I encountered was trying to fit a late-model (1983) Jupiter 8 on to the FED. The '66 Jupiter 8 fitted on without trouble.
Pip.
pippy
Established
Nice camera!...Here is my "Kombinat" of 1939 with its matching lens......Note the resting position of the tab at infinity.......Also note that when the lens is focused at 1 meter the tab is in a very inconvenient location.
A quick glance at internet images of matched unstandardized early Feds show only lenses with the infinity rest position in locations we would expect them: from about 11 o clock to maybe 7 o clock.
My Leicas behave much better in this respect
Yes, the finder-blockage might be an annoyance but at least it's only going to be at roughly minimum focussing distance! "Fun" it shall be! Unless focus is off..........
Have you seen / read Oscar Fricke's account of setting up the FED factory in the early years?
Fascinating stuff with a few odd-located infinity locks to boot!
https://www.fedka.com/Useful_info/Commune_by_Fricke/commune_A.htm
And yes; Leica got their lens/body 'standardisation' act together. Eventually!
Just for fun here's a snap taken well over 30 years ago
of my now long-gone I to IIIa conversion. This particular I model C was from the first year's production of the standardised '0' mount bodies made in 1930. Note the "11'oclock" nickel Elmar;
Wish I still had that one. Aesthetically it was completely knackered but, boy, did we have some fun times and good snaps together!...
Pip.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Talking only about the f/3.5 lenses and not the f/2's, I would say that the serial numbers on the camera body and the lens match fairly closely but only on the versions made before 1941.
As we know, I hope, the factory was in danger during the war and everything was moved out and little produced until after the war. From then onwards the serial numbers of the lenses were all over the place. I have a theory to explain this...
It could be that the original FED factory made the bodies and the lenses were ordered from VOOMP. Then delivered and used in serial number order during the peacefull 1930's and up to 1941. Then it was all moved and returned in 1946 or 47 or 48 or what? And the boxes were stored and opened at random and so the serial numbers were in no logical order.
I suspect VOOMP made the lenses because making a camera body is fairly simple compared with making a camera lens in the 1930's and I wonder if the commune could do it.
BTW, Oscar Fricke's article says the bodies were made to an accuracy of a micron, that's 0.000039". I find that difficult to believe for the 1930's...
Anyway, it's just a theory to explain the weird difference between the pre-war and post-war way the lenses were allocated.
Regards, David
PS I nearly forgot about the thread pitch; all the spec's I've seen give it as 1mm for the USSR made lenses. But (1) the early papers I've seen (1950) don't go into much detail and (2) wear and tear could change that. Leitz of course used the odd RMS threads but Canon made a hybrid thread somewhere between the two and the USSR could have changed to that...
As we know, I hope, the factory was in danger during the war and everything was moved out and little produced until after the war. From then onwards the serial numbers of the lenses were all over the place. I have a theory to explain this...
It could be that the original FED factory made the bodies and the lenses were ordered from VOOMP. Then delivered and used in serial number order during the peacefull 1930's and up to 1941. Then it was all moved and returned in 1946 or 47 or 48 or what? And the boxes were stored and opened at random and so the serial numbers were in no logical order.
I suspect VOOMP made the lenses because making a camera body is fairly simple compared with making a camera lens in the 1930's and I wonder if the commune could do it.
BTW, Oscar Fricke's article says the bodies were made to an accuracy of a micron, that's 0.000039". I find that difficult to believe for the 1930's...
Anyway, it's just a theory to explain the weird difference between the pre-war and post-war way the lenses were allocated.
Regards, David
PS I nearly forgot about the thread pitch; all the spec's I've seen give it as 1mm for the USSR made lenses. But (1) the early papers I've seen (1950) don't go into much detail and (2) wear and tear could change that. Leitz of course used the odd RMS threads but Canon made a hybrid thread somewhere between the two and the USSR could have changed to that...
pippy
Established
Thanks very much for your additional insights, David.
Interesting point about whether the communards had the skill/machinery in Kharkov to grind lenses let alone assemble them. VOOMP does seem likely to have been the logical supplier for the optics.
Lens serial numbers;
This is all a bit new to me and I would love to have some guidance. I can't find reliable info from the WWW as regards FED lens serial numbers and my serial numbers are a bit strange to say the least. I cannot believe that one is the 52nd FSU 50m/m f3.5 ever made and whilst #8218 is a bit closer to the #No. of the body it still seems highly unlikely for it to be such an early lens.
How do the two(!) and four-digit serial numbers translate in real terms? I admit I'm completely lost here.
Lastly : Japanese lenses on the FSU...
The only lens I have from Japan with L-39 thread is a c. '53-'56 (post-Serenar era) Canon chrome effort. It didn't take kindly to being offered up to the FSU Barnack bodies nor, indeed, to the IIIc. I'm not sure as to whether it was the thread-pitch or fouling of the focus-cam but I'm not in any hurry to find out. I've not had it long and I'd like to use 'stuff' before I destroy it!
I've posted the snap of the Canon lens elsewhere but I feel justified in derailing my own thread and posting a pic of the non-FSU usurper just for the heck of it;
Pip.
Interesting point about whether the communards had the skill/machinery in Kharkov to grind lenses let alone assemble them. VOOMP does seem likely to have been the logical supplier for the optics.
Lens serial numbers;
This is all a bit new to me and I would love to have some guidance. I can't find reliable info from the WWW as regards FED lens serial numbers and my serial numbers are a bit strange to say the least. I cannot believe that one is the 52nd FSU 50m/m f3.5 ever made and whilst #8218 is a bit closer to the #No. of the body it still seems highly unlikely for it to be such an early lens.
How do the two(!) and four-digit serial numbers translate in real terms? I admit I'm completely lost here.
Lastly : Japanese lenses on the FSU...
The only lens I have from Japan with L-39 thread is a c. '53-'56 (post-Serenar era) Canon chrome effort. It didn't take kindly to being offered up to the FSU Barnack bodies nor, indeed, to the IIIc. I'm not sure as to whether it was the thread-pitch or fouling of the focus-cam but I'm not in any hurry to find out. I've not had it long and I'd like to use 'stuff' before I destroy it!
I've posted the snap of the Canon lens elsewhere but I feel justified in derailing my own thread and posting a pic of the non-FSU usurper just for the heck of it;
Pip.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I don't think I'm alone when I say that the serial numbers of FED f/3.5 50mm lenses are all over the place. I doubt if we will ever know the answer as the people who did it are probably dead now and the original FED factory was destroyed in the early 40's. Hence my theory...
As for the two digit numbers, they could be the factory number, batch number, worker number, specification number and so on. Then they thought about it and we get serial numbers.
Changing the subject, now we know the factory was moved quickly because of the war and cameras were assembled from parts during the war. Suppose they ran out of lens flanges and got some made up by a local firm that didn't quite understand or else had a few rejects that they used because they were desperate.
Later on they would have been cannibalising some and your one could have got the wrong one but that was 70 to 75 years ago so by now it would look right, if wrong. This happened in Britain with Leicas as we all know.
And then, of course, there's a well known auction site where people will buy anything and some obliging people have supplied a lot of strange cameras.
I have seen enough pre-war ones to guess that they were pretty faithful copies of the Leica and doubt if the orientation was deliberate but that's just my guess.
BTW, I asked about the hole in the pressure plate because I've seen a few but I've never seen a FED body with the plug in it at the back...
Regards, David
I don't think I'm alone when I say that the serial numbers of FED f/3.5 50mm lenses are all over the place. I doubt if we will ever know the answer as the people who did it are probably dead now and the original FED factory was destroyed in the early 40's. Hence my theory...
As for the two digit numbers, they could be the factory number, batch number, worker number, specification number and so on. Then they thought about it and we get serial numbers.
Changing the subject, now we know the factory was moved quickly because of the war and cameras were assembled from parts during the war. Suppose they ran out of lens flanges and got some made up by a local firm that didn't quite understand or else had a few rejects that they used because they were desperate.
Later on they would have been cannibalising some and your one could have got the wrong one but that was 70 to 75 years ago so by now it would look right, if wrong. This happened in Britain with Leicas as we all know.
And then, of course, there's a well known auction site where people will buy anything and some obliging people have supplied a lot of strange cameras.
I have seen enough pre-war ones to guess that they were pretty faithful copies of the Leica and doubt if the orientation was deliberate but that's just my guess.
BTW, I asked about the hole in the pressure plate because I've seen a few but I've never seen a FED body with the plug in it at the back...
Regards, David
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Just an observation -- It looks like the early serial numbers on Fed lenses (stamped into back flange) are actually a pair of 2-digit numbers. I base that on the way they always seem to appear as such. With that in mind, I wonder if pippy's early lens with just "52" is actually missing its second part (the other 2-digit number)?
Its hard to imagine a factory that's capable of micron tolerances would overlook such a detail as completing the serial number...
Also, all Canon LTM lenses from the post-serenar period should mount on a Leica IIIc without difficulty. If not, there's something odd going on, but its not an incompatibility of thread specs. As well, all the serenar period lenses I've encountered have always mounted my Leicas without any hesitation too.
Its hard to imagine a factory that's capable of micron tolerances would overlook such a detail as completing the serial number...
Also, all Canon LTM lenses from the post-serenar period should mount on a Leica IIIc without difficulty. If not, there's something odd going on, but its not an incompatibility of thread specs. As well, all the serenar period lenses I've encountered have always mounted my Leicas without any hesitation too.
geoffox23
Member
Just an observation -- It looks like the early serial numbers on Fed lenses (stamped into back flange) are actually a pair of 2-digit numbers. I base that on the way they always seem to appear as such. With that in mind, I wonder if pippy's early lens with just "52" is actually missing its second part (the other 2-digit number)?
Its hard to imagine a factory that's capable of micron tolerances would overlook such a detail as completing the serial number...
Now, now don't be cruel.
On your lens, is there a number stamped on the back of the tab for the infinity lock button? Does it match the number on back of the mount ring?
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Oh wow! Kind of exciting to learn something new!
Yes, there is a number (pair of numbers?) on the back of the focus tab. And yes they match the flange. Very cool. Now, what does it mean?
I know early Leica lenses (Elmars at least) have a number on the back of the focus tab that has some indication about how close the lens is to the focal length standard.
These numbers are not likely related to focal length. Do they just help us keep the flange and lens body together? Why would they want to do that?.....is it something to do with matching lenses and bodies and....?
I sure hope somebody knows, and kindly shares with us.
Yes, there is a number (pair of numbers?) on the back of the focus tab. And yes they match the flange. Very cool. Now, what does it mean?
I know early Leica lenses (Elmars at least) have a number on the back of the focus tab that has some indication about how close the lens is to the focal length standard.
These numbers are not likely related to focal length. Do they just help us keep the flange and lens body together? Why would they want to do that?.....is it something to do with matching lenses and bodies and....?
I sure hope somebody knows, and kindly shares with us.
geoffox23
Member
I take this to prove that both are a matched pair for this lens. It is a unique number, and is on both pre and post-war lenses.
If there are no other numbers on your lens, this can be the serial number.
On my pre-war lenses, I have found a 1mm or 2mm tall number on the flange, adjacent to the infinity lock, but I have not found this style of serial on post-war lenses. The second number adjacent to the long stop-pin matches the number on the tab.
Cheers
Geoff
If there are no other numbers on your lens, this can be the serial number.
On my pre-war lenses, I have found a 1mm or 2mm tall number on the flange, adjacent to the infinity lock, but I have not found this style of serial on post-war lenses. The second number adjacent to the long stop-pin matches the number on the tab.
Cheers
Geoff
Last edited:
geoffox23
Member
rgraphex
Established
geoffox23
Member
One of my reference books mentions that interchangable lenses became available in 1937, from body No56000.
One would assume that the lens mount would need to be standardised for this to be successful.
One would assume that the lens mount would need to be standardised for this to be successful.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm not following with this thread exercise in theoretics , all I know is what earlier FEDs have lenses matched individually and not really interchangeable.
Wrong, it was not. It was relocated in 1941 and in 1942 it was back to work again. Those who were not sent to the front were also relocated.
Evacuated is the word. They were in evacuation.
Wrong, it was not. It was relocated in 1941 and in 1942 it was back to work again. Those who were not sent to the front were also relocated.
Evacuated is the word. They were in evacuation.
farlymac
PF McFarland
I ordered an I-10 once to see if it was any different from the I-22. Guess what? It wound up like your Elmar, Pip. That's when I was told about the early lenses being matched to the bodies, so if put on another camera you didn't know where the Infinity stop would wind up at. Then you'd have to do a lot of photo testing to see where the focus points actually were. Oh, and you can't rotate the mounting flange 90° because it is milled with a flat edge at the top to clear the body frame.
Not worth the trouble I feel. A late model Zorki-1 (d or e) would be the best bet to have it's original lens, and the I-22 more likely to be fitted correctly when interchanged.
PF
Not worth the trouble I feel. A late model Zorki-1 (d or e) would be the best bet to have it's original lens, and the I-22 more likely to be fitted correctly when interchanged.
PF
Brambling
Well-known
Really like this theme and the spirit it inspires. I read with great pleasure.
David Hughes
David Hughes
In 1946 a group of British Govt scientists went to Germany to look into what Leitz did when making cameras. They wrote a report "British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee - B.I.O.S. Final Report No.1436" and you can read it here:-
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page26.html
It's in two parts and there's a link at the end to the second part. You may be surprised by some of the report, the bit about filing down parts to make them fit, tapping with hammers and so on.
Regards, David
David Hughes
David Hughes
I read that in Fricke's article for the "History Of Photography, Volume 3, Number 2, April 1979" and he was quoting, according to his references "A. A. SYROV, reference 2, pp. 97, 100; W. J. Gmurman and G. S. MAKARENKO, Notes to 'Ein Pädagogisches Poem', in A. S. MAKARENKO, Werke, Vol. 1 (1959), p. 786".
What he said was "The Germans retook Kharkov only a month later and abandoned it for the last time on 22nd August 1943. The FED camera factory and the buildings of the former Dzerzhinsky Commune were also totally destroyed. FED production probably ceased with the first takeover of 1941." and that is all I can say on the subject.
Regards, David
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Non Standard FED Lenses
Non Standard FED Lenses
Hi,
I asked earlier about FED pressure plates with holes in them, like the Leicas had. To match the lens to that body there was also hole needed in the back of the camera. I have seen Leica cameras with the hole in the back and, of course, a plug in the hole.
OTOH, I have never seen a FED with a plug in the back of it and I have seen a lot and have looked for it a lot. As Leica started standardisation in 1930/31 I wonder if FED went straight down that road but had already ordered the pressure plates based on the first Leica* copies they made and then used them in the model II version that went into mass production. It would make sense to use the plates regardless...
Regards, David
* In 'Proletarskoe Foto', January/February 1933 there is a photograph of on and it looks like a "Hockey Stick" Leica. In the 5th November 1932 issue of the newspaper, Izvestiya an article describes them. Perhaps these had the fixed lenses that were matched to the body...
It seems only 30 of these were made but the model II clone began production in 1934 and they hoped to make 30 000 a year; that might explain the large number of parts ordered and made, like the pressure plates that were no longer needed but were then used.
Non Standard FED Lenses
Hi,
I asked earlier about FED pressure plates with holes in them, like the Leicas had. To match the lens to that body there was also hole needed in the back of the camera. I have seen Leica cameras with the hole in the back and, of course, a plug in the hole.
OTOH, I have never seen a FED with a plug in the back of it and I have seen a lot and have looked for it a lot. As Leica started standardisation in 1930/31 I wonder if FED went straight down that road but had already ordered the pressure plates based on the first Leica* copies they made and then used them in the model II version that went into mass production. It would make sense to use the plates regardless...
Regards, David
* In 'Proletarskoe Foto', January/February 1933 there is a photograph of on and it looks like a "Hockey Stick" Leica. In the 5th November 1932 issue of the newspaper, Izvestiya an article describes them. Perhaps these had the fixed lenses that were matched to the body...
It seems only 30 of these were made but the model II clone began production in 1934 and they hoped to make 30 000 a year; that might explain the large number of parts ordered and made, like the pressure plates that were no longer needed but were then used.
David Hughes
David Hughes
rfaspen: "Its hard to imagine a factory that's capable of micron tolerances would overlook such a detail as completing the serial number... "
Oh dear! I hope this doesn't start an internet story to the effect that Leitz had lower standards than FED!
Regards, David
Oh dear! I hope this doesn't start an internet story to the effect that Leitz had lower standards than FED!
Regards, David