Early Russian Lenses, What Features to look for.

This is a reply to Brian‘s post in the favorite FSU normal lens thread.

I took some quick snaps of my very soft KMZ J3 with misaligned aperture index. The lens block has the following numbers: 54, large space and probably a cyrillic P40 (all scratched by hand). Conclusion?

7071723B-ADBB-41F4-BD21-9E2ACABBB089.jpegFEE45B17-0421-40DA-BC75-4A7EB0C7432F.jpegA8D16505-8178-4C1C-ADC7-CED21A98B1CD.jpegDD24EB8D-EC75-45A1-8757-B06A48A1839F.jpeg
 
I forgot to mention, that it is possible to match the aperture index with the focus index by putting the helicoid together with a different starting point of the thread. Unfortunately then infinity is way off. I got the lens for cheap with a broken Zorki 4 camera yesrs ago.
 
Generally 1951 J-3s are pretty good unless someone has messed them up. Optical block looks correct, fixture for rear group has the twin set of collars that was used on early KMZ lenses. I would assemble the lens so that the aperture index matched the focusing index and then deal with the infinity issue. The pair of shims on this lens look much thicker than usual, I am guessing about 3mm. It could be that the shims are too thick and need to be reduced. I imagine that Brian will check in soon to offer suggestions.
 
lukx said:
But if you change the shims the aperture alignment will also change yet again, won't it?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that it why Sonnar Brian has often posted about having to re-set the aperture ring once the lens is shimmed properly. I have re-set the aperture ring on a bunch of lenses follwing Brian's how-to instructions. Not particularly hard to do, I use a pin vice with a tiny 0.9mm drill bit to create new pockets to fit the grub screws that hold the aperture ring in place.
 
It looks like someone might have drilled out the set screw of the retaining ring.
A 1951 KMZ should be very good.
By "Soft"- do you mean it misses the focus when using the RF, or that everything is off?
Missing the focus- means the shim needs to be changed. Everything off- means taking the glass out and making sure it is seated correctly.
 
Not everything is off. Using the rf, the point which I focus on is soft, especially wide open (on the enlarger I have to set focus on the grain, the image has no „pop“). Once the lens is stopped down, contrast and sharpness increase but focus shift seems to kick in too strong. Judging by the pictures I‘ve seen from other J3s, my lens produces images with a dreamy character. My J8s and 2/50 Sonnar are way sharper wide open than this J3 at f2. Btw the glass is in good condition, only minor scratches on the front element.
 
Ok, thanks! I‘ll try to open the optical block and take a look inside. There are clearly visible marks on the retaining rings (front and back) that indicate, that the lens had been opened before.
I can live with the off center aperture index since the rf seems to be spot on and drillings small holes is beyond my scope of skills.
 
Last edited:
So I was able to unscrew all the retaining rings and check the optics. I think they are properly seated even though I can understand why you mentioned the middle triplet because once I put it back, it seemed to sit flush and I was still able to push it in a bit further.
 
IMG_4698_resize.jpg

I did not expect that you can simply unscrew a Sonnar lens... I did this with a 1960 Jupiter and found 2 engravings inside the lens barrel (143V E). Any idea what they mean?
 
Last edited:
Sometimes the scribes on the J-3 inner surfaces are partial SN, sometimes alignment marks. They are not consistent.

@santino - if you can post some images taken with the lens, prefer some images like a ruler or fence slat, maybe help to see what is going on.
Sometimes you get a truly bad lens. Especially the Valdai lenses, they are awful.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
Sometimes the scribes on the J-3 inner surfaces are partial SN, sometimes alignment marks. They are not consistent.

@santino - if you can post some images taken with the lens, prefer some images like a ruler or fence slat, maybe help to see what is going on.
Sometimes you get a truly bad lens. Especially the Valdai lenses, they are awful.
Click to expand...
I will post some images but since I shoot film it will take a while.
 
I have recently run across this fellow who here touts a Mir 1 37mm f/2.8 as an improved Flektogon. That would make it a pretty good lens. Has anyone any experience with Mir?



And while we are able to see great lenses out of CZJ and later the war prize technology that was migrated to the FSU, how was Zeiss in West Germany doing? Were they progressing at this rate? Or better? Is the fascination with FSU that they are great retro Sonnars at very good prices? A recent Matt Osborne (Mr. Leica) vid on YT touted the benefits of less than perfect (damaged) FSU lenses in the character they can inject into our images on digital cameras, with examples of course. I'd love to hear your opinions.
 
boojum said:
I have recently run across this fellow who here touts a Mir 1 37mm f/2.8 as an improved Flektogon. That would make it a pretty good lens. Has anyone any experience with Mir?



And while we are able to see great lenses out of CZJ and later the war prize technology that was migrated to the FSU, how was Zeiss in West Germany doing? Were they progressing at this rate? Or better? Is the fascination with FSU that they are great retro Sonnars at very good prices? A recent Matt Osborne (Mr. Leica) vid on YT touted the benefits of less than perfect (damaged) FSU lenses in the character they can inject into our images on digital cameras, with examples of course. I'd love to hear your opinions.
Click to expand...



Thanks for this, Boojum! I've got the MIR-1b in M42 mount, very nice lens. The MIR-1 is an M39 lens made for the early Zenit SLR's and cannot be used on an LTM rangefinder. I do not know if anybody makes an extender ring to fit on a rangefinder, but you would not get focus coupling. But with an extender you could use it on a FED Zarya or a Bessa-L.
 
Kai-san said:
Thanks for this, Boojum! I've got the MIR-1b in M42 mount, very nice lens. The MIR-1 is an M39 lens made for the early Zenit SLR's and cannot be used on an LTM rangefinder. I do not know if anybody makes an extender ring to fit on a rangefinder, but you would not get focus coupling. But with an extender you could use it on a FED Zarya or a Bessa-L.
Click to expand...

Thanks for saving me the price of that lens. It looked good but I wanted to see what the folks on RFF had to say about it.
 
santino said:
I will post some images but since I shoot film it will take a while.
Click to expand...

I think my front element is not an original one from KMZ. It has purple coating, while my two KMZ J8s from 1951 have blue coating (both in Contax mount), the same is true for my CZJ 2/50 Sonnar (same blue coating as the two Jupiters).

What is a 1951 KMZ J3’s coating supposed to look like? Is it Schott glass that should be coated like the original Sonnars?

I guess my lens is a „kotleta“ - a hamburger - made of at least two different lenses 🤔
That might explain its softness…
 
I have a '51 and a '57 KMZ J-8 "Red P". The '57 is plainly coated and a very good lens. The '51 is not obviously coated but I may not be able to detect it. The '51 does not resolve as well as the '57.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom