Vince Lupo
Whatever
Yes, I think so. For me the telltale sign is the large serial number on the mount. Usually the serial number is printed in teeny-tiny numbers on the front inside rim (if it's a real Elmar). The other thing to check is if the aperture is behind the front lens element -- on an Elmar, it should be there (though I'm unsure as to whether some Industars also had it there too - I'm not that up on them).
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
In as far as the lenses go, all the Industar follow the Zeiss Tessar layout- the aperture is placed between the middle and last groups.
The aperture setting lever on Industar 22/50 is also different. The Industar-10 (marked "FED 50") use a tiny lever analogous to the one used on Leitz Elmar.
The later Industar 22 and 50 use a serrated ring for setting the aperture, somewhat similar to the collapsible Tessar 3,5/50 used on Contax.
Serial numbers on Industar appear on different places. The early FED 50 had them stamped on the bottom face of the mount. The later version of the FED 50 had them on the front surface of the mount- same as what is seen in the 'appareil anciens' link. That faked brass Leica had once been a FED-1 type "g".
Industar-22 and -50 had their serial numbers engraved on the front fascia, alongside the apertures and lens name.
The aperture setting lever on Industar 22/50 is also different. The Industar-10 (marked "FED 50") use a tiny lever analogous to the one used on Leitz Elmar.
The later Industar 22 and 50 use a serrated ring for setting the aperture, somewhat similar to the collapsible Tessar 3,5/50 used on Contax.
Serial numbers on Industar appear on different places. The early FED 50 had them stamped on the bottom face of the mount. The later version of the FED 50 had them on the front surface of the mount- same as what is seen in the 'appareil anciens' link. That faked brass Leica had once been a FED-1 type "g".
Industar-22 and -50 had their serial numbers engraved on the front fascia, alongside the apertures and lens name.
Rob Fox
Member
Thanks guys, great informations
OT: Collapsible Industar 10 and 22 look quite similar. What is the main difference? (talking about the glass)
It seems to me that 10 is more coated than 22 (?)
I am eager to get LESS coated version - uncoated Ye-Old-School lens are special to me
OT: Collapsible Industar 10 and 22 look quite similar. What is the main difference? (talking about the glass)
It seems to me that 10 is more coated than 22 (?)
I am eager to get LESS coated version - uncoated Ye-Old-School lens are special to me
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
The I-10, -22, and -50 collapsibles ALL look similar. However it's the I-10 which looks most different.
One, the I-10 appears to be shorter than the I-22 and I-50. And many I-10 are actually uncoated- those from before and immediately right after the war were uncoated. The coated ones look more purple, but not necessarily "more coated" than the I-22 or I-50.
There were a few I-22 which were uncoated, but these would be vdry uncommon because AR coatings became prevalent shortly after the I-22s were released. The presence of a red "П" indicates
the lens is coated.
As mentioned previously, of all the collapsible Industars, only the I-10 had levers for setting the apretures. The I-22 and I-50 used rings. Some early I-22 may have also used levers.
As for quality, it's very hard to say what optical advantages the I-22 or I-50 had over the I-10. Literature would say that the I-50 came out as replacements for the I-22, and that both the I-22 and I-50 were in turn improvements over the I-10. However, FED seemed to think that the I-10 was good enough, and continued using it until they replaced it with the I-26 and later, the I-61.
Personally speaking, I don't see any differences either. However, I do see that these Industars can do better in many ways than the average same-looking Elmar.
Rob Fox
Member
Thanks ZorkiKat
I-10 present on that fake brassy Leica II, has very obvious "heavy" purple coating, much stronger than on my П I-22
However, (collapsible) L39 FSU lenses are GREAT, and they are my very favourites at the moment; unexpensive and excellent - it's a dream
I-10 present on that fake brassy Leica II, has very obvious "heavy" purple coating, much stronger than on my П I-22
However, (collapsible) L39 FSU lenses are GREAT, and they are my very favourites at the moment; unexpensive and excellent - it's a dream
wolves3012
Veteran
I'd lay serious money that it's a FED 1g and not a Zorki. The "soup-bowl" shutter release is much smaller on the Zorki (compare it with the OP photos, that's a Zorki).
wolves3012
Veteran
Just to be different, one of my three Industar 22s bears a 5-digit serial number stamped on the back of the mount and not on the front ring. Not sure but I think it's quite an old one. There's brassing to the front ring but it's otherwise tidy and the glass almost pristine. It lives on my Leica IIIC (when the Jupiter 8 isn't there) and works beautifully on it.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
You're probably right -- guess I was using 'Zorki' as a generic term for a 'fake' Leica. My mistake.
NormanV
Member
I don't care whether they are fake or original, the all look horrendous. What's wrong with black?
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I'll vouch for that. Mine is a great little performer. If it was a bit faster, it'd be all I ever used at 50mm.However, (collapsible) L39 FSU lenses are GREAT, and they are my very favourites at the moment; unexpensive and excellent - it's a dream