I-22 & I-50

[Nickfed]

there it is:
http://cgi.ebay.at/Lens-FED-f-3-5-5...7430724QQihZ005QQcategoryZ30062QQcmdZViewItem

Aha! Well, if it's real, and it might not be, it is merely a standard lens with the screw by the infinity mark removed. This is a pretty dumb idea, which goes some way to explaining why there aren't too many of them around.

Apart from being essentially unusable, it also means there is nothing to stop the lens screwing right out.

 

[Xmas]

A J3 and a Ru Elmar clone should be different, the J3 should outclass the Elmar at 5.6, and below to 3.5. You would need to look carefully to see much of a difference larger then 5.6, slow film, tripod.

If you remove the long screw (shoulder bolt) and replace the short screw with an even longer screw than the origional long screw then the lens will have another 90 degrees of rotation. What you can do with this is interesting...

Noel

 

[Nickfed]

If you remove the long screw (shoulder bolt) and replace the short screw with an even longer screw than the origional long screw then the lens will have another 90 degrees of rotation. What you can do with this is interesting...

But they didn't. The screw by the 1m mark is the original, which is why I don't think this is for real. Even sombody who came up with a dumb-ass idea like macro Industar surely wouldn't be so dumb-assed as to forget to put in a longer screw by the 1m mark.

If the bolt you allude to was in place, the lens would be able to rotate about twice as far as it does and thus get twice the extension. Using a 52mm lens with an extension of 2.85mm to focus on 1m, it would thus be able to focus at about 526mm. I'm not sure the rangefinder geometry issues are so critical, but focussing at 526mm is not the time find out just how critical they are. The viewfinder issue is, clearly, another story altogether, so what you do with it is not likely to be very interesting at all.

 

[Jocko]

I believe that there was such a thing as a macro industar, but the one I once saw looked nothing like this. Although at first glance it resembled a collapsible, it was a rigid, black lens, apparently for use in a camera mounted on a frame, presumably for copying documents. There was no rangefinder coupling.

Cheers, ian

 

[Nickfed]

That may well be right, Jocko. Industars came in all sorts of forms, for all sorts of formats, and indeed on all sorts of cameras. There is a steady stream of unusual industrial cameras to be found on the 'bay, all doubtless genuine. Indeed if the soviets wanted a camera for macro purposes you can be sure they would design a camera for the job. That was the sort of thing that happened quite easily in a command economy. They would not have come up with the stupid arrangement alluded to.

I think it is quite clear that the lens for sale is just a silly fake.

 

[ZorkiKat]

FED made a close-focusing Industar before WW2. It had the same optics as the standard Industar-10, but had a longer barrel. I'm not sure how it worked. But the scenario might be the same as the close focusing LTM Nikkor-Q which I foolishly let go. The lens would couple and focus with the rangefinder up to about 0,8 m, but the RF would go 'blind' at closer distances. You either use a tapemeasure, or a close-focusing framing device which attached to the lens. Many of these were four-legged devices whose length corresponded to how far the lens should be from the surface to be photographed. Lens was prefocused at certain distance and would work only at that. The other edge of the framing device was a rectangular field which marked what the lens would cover.

Jay

 

[Nickfed]

The lens would couple and focus with the rangefinder up to about 0,8 m, but the RF would go 'blind' at closer distances. You either use a tapemeasure, or a close-focusing framing device which attached to the lens. Many of these were four-legged devices whose length corresponded to how far the lens should be from the surface to be photographed. Lens was prefocused at certain distance and would work only at that. The other edge of the framing device was a rectangular field which marked what the lens would cover.

Jay

Yes indeed. It occurred to me under the shower last night that the "macro Industar" alluded to would have to do that. The back of the lens assembly is more or less flush with the 39mm thread when focussed at 1m and would surely be in the hole at 0.8m, hence no RF. There were a number of four leg devices about, some included a close-up lens. All mercifully put to death with the advent of the SLR.

 

[santino]

I'm sure that there was something like a macro industar. btw. whats the fuss with that "macro"? do you call a SLR lens that focuses at 50cm "macro"? I've got a russian book from 1954 and they mention such an industar, a special lens for the fed so call it what you wanna call it but such lens exists.

 

[Nickfed]

do you call a SLR lens that focuses at 50cm "macro"? I've got a russian book from 1954 and they mention such an industar, a special lens for the fed so call it what you wanna call it but such lens exists.

Well, I guess all you can say is that macro is as macro does and can only be described as a lens that focusses unusually close (and perhaps) stops down more than usual (and possibly) has an aperture ring compensator. I have three 50mm SLR lenses, all focus to 500mm, none claim to be macro focussing.

I could well be wrong and the lens you allude to is real, in which case you might like to come forth with the fifty quid. For a FED 3.5. You will then see what a dumb idea it is, but at least you will be the owner of a justifiably rare curiosity. A soviet silk purse out of a sow's ear, for which a 2 rouble, 50 kopek close-up lens could be seen as quite a satisfactory alternative..

 

[ZorkiKat]

Well, I guess all you can say is that macro is as macro does and can only be described as a lens that focusses unusually close (and perhaps) stops down more than usual (and possibly) has an aperture ring compensator. I have three 50mm SLR lenses, all focus to 500mm, none claim to be macro focussing.

I could well be wrong and the lens you allude to is real, in which case you might like to come forth with the fifty quid. For a FED 3.5. You will then see what a dumb idea it is, but at least you will be the owner of a justifiably rare curiosity. A soviet silk purse out of a sow's ear, for which a 2 rouble, 50 kopek close-up lens could be seen as quite a satisfactory alternative..

There are lenses which focus really close and there are real "macro" lenses. The difference lies in how they really focus at close distances. Real macro lenses are computed so that they maintain a truly flat field when focused at short distances. Macro lenses have much in common with enlarging lenses in this regard.

Close focusing lenses on the other hand just focus close. They claim (and usually have ) no special abilities for field flatness and such at close focusing ranges.

Industar 61 L/Z can focus down to about 0,3 m, but it's not a real macro. The real macro FSU lens is the 50mm Volna (model designation escapes me now). It focuses as close as the I-61L/Z but with a flat field when it does. It came/comes in M39 and M42 SLR mounts.

Jay

 

[reagan]

FED macro spotted in the Bay...

 

[Nickfed]

Now that IS interesting. Don't ask how it is used. It may be made for document copying and was used with a 4 leg tripod, quadropod?, that defined the field of view.