chenick
Nick's my name!
Wish I has some photographic experience of these, but my Bessa R2 is still getting repaired... 
Anyway, after receiving my CV 50mm Nokton 1.5 I thought My God this is huge...
So I went looking for a smaller 50 to carry around when I don't need the speed.
Bid and won a black I-61 L/D 55mm smooth focus bla bla... what arrived from Ukraine was an earlier 1-61 52mm Panda version all gummed up. So I offer to send it back at seller's cost, and he decides to refund me all. No problem so I decide to attemp lubing it myself.
All lubed up and it's a very nicely made lens. Apertures didn't need lubing. However, I still felt I wanted the I-61 L/D, for the multicoating etc... Bid and won a black 55mm I-61 L/D, with hood. Felt confident if it needed lubing I could handle it (it did, surprise surprise)
What strikes me most about the I-61 L/D is that it seems to be much rougher and manufactured to lower tolerances.
The earlier version is very nicely machined, has engraved numbers and DOF scale, and 10 aperture blades.
The newer L/D version has painted numbers and only 6 aperture blades, rougher machine finishing.
Interestingly, the coating on the earlier version looks more multi-coated!.
Anyway, hope to have some comparison pictures up soon, in the meantime I'd love to see some of your I-61 pics. Do these lens have a propensity to flare? I ask because the rectangular hood is huge!
-Nick
Anyway, after receiving my CV 50mm Nokton 1.5 I thought My God this is huge...
So I went looking for a smaller 50 to carry around when I don't need the speed.
Bid and won a black I-61 L/D 55mm smooth focus bla bla... what arrived from Ukraine was an earlier 1-61 52mm Panda version all gummed up. So I offer to send it back at seller's cost, and he decides to refund me all. No problem so I decide to attemp lubing it myself.
All lubed up and it's a very nicely made lens. Apertures didn't need lubing. However, I still felt I wanted the I-61 L/D, for the multicoating etc... Bid and won a black 55mm I-61 L/D, with hood. Felt confident if it needed lubing I could handle it (it did, surprise surprise)
What strikes me most about the I-61 L/D is that it seems to be much rougher and manufactured to lower tolerances.
The earlier version is very nicely machined, has engraved numbers and DOF scale, and 10 aperture blades.
The newer L/D version has painted numbers and only 6 aperture blades, rougher machine finishing.
Interestingly, the coating on the earlier version looks more multi-coated!.
Anyway, hope to have some comparison pictures up soon, in the meantime I'd love to see some of your I-61 pics. Do these lens have a propensity to flare? I ask because the rectangular hood is huge!
-Nick
w3rk5
Well-known
I'm looking forward to your comparison. If the rectangular hood throws you off...you can always get a regular round hood from *bay.
cbass
Nutmegger
My I-61 L/D lenses both arrived with very stiff focus. I also re-lubed them myself using the instructions from Matt Denton's web page. It was pretty simple and the lenses performed very well after the re-lube. Very decent lens for the money ($9.00 + shipping).
Below is the very first photo I took with the I-61 L/D on my Bessa R. Used C-41 B&W, wide open at 1/30. I haven't used this lens enough to learn if it's prone to flare or not.
PS - Nick, I like the images in your gallery. Good stuff!
Below is the very first photo I took with the I-61 L/D on my Bessa R. Used C-41 B&W, wide open at 1/30. I haven't used this lens enough to learn if it's prone to flare or not.
PS - Nick, I like the images in your gallery. Good stuff!
R
rpinchbeck
Guest
I ran a comparison between and I61 L/D and a Sonnar 1.5. The results can be seen on the Kiev Survival Site at the following link:
http://www3.telus.net/public/kaylalyn/sonnar_opton_I61.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/kaylalyn/sonnar_opton_I61.htm
chenick
Nick's my name!
The rectangular hood is fine, I quite like it. By huge I meant deep, which is why I was wondering about flaring without it. Size wise it is quite compact.
Yeah, relubing was following Matt Denton's instructions. It is a lot easier than it appears.
-Nick
Yeah, relubing was following Matt Denton's instructions. It is a lot easier than it appears.
-Nick
DaveP
Well-known
According to Princelle, the panda and the I-61 l/d are the exact same lens. It wasnt until they changed the color that they put the "L/D" designation on the lens. Many pepole report that they think the panda actually is the better of the two. I dont have Princelle handy or I could post the exact quote. He says they both are the same lanthun glass.The only difference between the two is the paint job.......
arothaus
Member
Hello,
I have made simular experiences. I have a black/white I-61 and a black 61 l/d. The l/d is from an FED-5. Both camera and lens show a very poor workmanship, the FED-4 with the 61 is much better.
My 61 l/d looks like new but with ugly painted numbers. And it is the worst lens I own, it produces very very soft images. The I-61 (panda) however is a very good lens. I guess workmannship and quality control was very bad in the 80ies and 90ies.
Regards,
Andreas Rothaus
I have made simular experiences. I have a black/white I-61 and a black 61 l/d. The l/d is from an FED-5. Both camera and lens show a very poor workmanship, the FED-4 with the 61 is much better.
My 61 l/d looks like new but with ugly painted numbers. And it is the worst lens I own, it produces very very soft images. The I-61 (panda) however is a very good lens. I guess workmannship and quality control was very bad in the 80ies and 90ies.
Regards,
Andreas Rothaus
stet
lurker.
hm, I had been under the impression that the L/D was the more praised version, and I was hoping my first L/D was just a bad one. I had relubed it, which did wonders for how smoothly the barrel twisted, but the "seat" became super off. The lack of that old, stiff wax revealed the bad machining, and it would wiggle.
I'm expecting another soon that has been collimated by Kim Coxon, so I'm hopeful for it, but now I'm curious about the panda version and would def. like to see the comparisons. That it's the cheapest form of lens GAS possible doesn't hurt, either.
I'm expecting another soon that has been collimated by Kim Coxon, so I'm hopeful for it, but now I'm curious about the panda version and would def. like to see the comparisons. That it's the cheapest form of lens GAS possible doesn't hurt, either.
Peter Klein
Well-known
My I-61 does not focus accurately on either my Leica Ms or my Zorki. The elements may also may be mounted improperly, because the left side of the picture goes soft even at narrow apertures. (See example, look at my two hands. The picture is a flash shot at f/8, so it isn't depth of field. I've gotten similar results in outdoor shots at f/11).
It is a high contrast lens, with a little lower resolution than, say, a Leica Summcron or even a good Jupiter-8. But the contrast gives pictures a snap that makes them quite attractive.
I got one to try because of its reputation. I think I was duped by Lanthanum glass propoganda.
It is a high contrast lens, with a little lower resolution than, say, a Leica Summcron or even a good Jupiter-8. But the contrast gives pictures a snap that makes them quite attractive.
I got one to try because of its reputation. I think I was duped by Lanthanum glass propoganda.
Peter Klein
Well-known
Aargh, didn't post the picture properly. That's me on the left in this picture. Look at the difference between my two hands and my two knees. My I-61 just loses it at the left edge of the picture. This was an f/8 flash shot, so don't blame narrow DOF.
--Peter
--Peter
Andrew McK
Andrew
I like my industar Lenses. I don't own an N-61l/d, just a couple of normal panda ones.
I always thought l/d's were just gased up pandas anyway.
I think it's a good lens. I love the way colours come out using it, not so sure what other people may think of it, they'd probably hate it after comparing it to modern stuff but I like it.
That said it doesn' fit properly on my Zorki and it's not as good as the Jupiter 8. Not as smooth in action and a bit less in performance.
(If my pics that I've linked here work of my 1st and my 3rd roll of film in a FED4)
I tested it out with a couple of different situations, after reading a lot about the problem with flare so I shot something right into bright sunlight and though it's a bad scan I was amazed at getting a pic with the clarity that it has (the real one not the scan) I'd expected just lens flare.
Then I tried to take a photo to capture the light coming off the river and this one blew me away because it worked. It caught it the way I saw it. I just loved the colours and the textures on the wooden beams and on getting the print back from the shop. it had me checking them in public and grinning like a maniac..
...or like a panda on gas
I always thought l/d's were just gased up pandas anyway.
I think it's a good lens. I love the way colours come out using it, not so sure what other people may think of it, they'd probably hate it after comparing it to modern stuff but I like it.
That said it doesn' fit properly on my Zorki and it's not as good as the Jupiter 8. Not as smooth in action and a bit less in performance.
(If my pics that I've linked here work of my 1st and my 3rd roll of film in a FED4)
I tested it out with a couple of different situations, after reading a lot about the problem with flare so I shot something right into bright sunlight and though it's a bad scan I was amazed at getting a pic with the clarity that it has (the real one not the scan) I'd expected just lens flare.
Then I tried to take a photo to capture the light coming off the river and this one blew me away because it worked. It caught it the way I saw it. I just loved the colours and the textures on the wooden beams and on getting the print back from the shop. it had me checking them in public and grinning like a maniac..
...or like a panda on gas
DaveP
Well-known
Stick a polarizer onit, you'll be amazed...........
nomade
Hobbyist
Well it's good to here that i'm not the only one who had trouble with focus with this lens...
It's hard to deal with but i think it's not that bad after all..
Some samples..
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12794
And moreover that i didn't upload to the gallery
It's hard to deal with but i think it's not that bad after all..
Some samples..
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12794
And moreover that i didn't upload to the gallery
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Hi,
Just about every FSU lens I have had from "over there" has needed at least a relube. If the lens doesn't focus properly, it is worth checking the collimation. As far as I understand it, the lenses were generally sold fitted to the body. If the collimation was out, the lens was adjusted regardless of whether it was the body or the lens that was at fault. Hence, the need for the passport system which gave the flange/film plane distance! My preference was for the later black J8s (the early ones were really just a faster I61 ) More recently I managed to get a couple of good J3s. If you are looking for a compact lens, this is the one. It is not much bigger then the other FSU 50's but what really surprised me was the performance. Having relubed them and checked the collimation, I ran a very quick set of test shots of the stone wall of the house. This was not a detailed test and the results were only 6x4 prints but as a matter of interest I used the CV Nokton as a "control". Wide open, the J3's are noticeably softer. At F2, there was a minor difference but you had to look hard to see it and from 2.8, there was very little difference. However, the problem is getting a good one. The first one I received was supposed to be in excellent condition and optically perfect. It had 2 big chips in the front element and a number of scratches so went back. Hence the reason I now have 2, I ordered 2 to make sure I received a good one but they both came out as being good!
Regards
Kim
Just about every FSU lens I have had from "over there" has needed at least a relube. If the lens doesn't focus properly, it is worth checking the collimation. As far as I understand it, the lenses were generally sold fitted to the body. If the collimation was out, the lens was adjusted regardless of whether it was the body or the lens that was at fault. Hence, the need for the passport system which gave the flange/film plane distance! My preference was for the later black J8s (the early ones were really just a faster I61 ) More recently I managed to get a couple of good J3s. If you are looking for a compact lens, this is the one. It is not much bigger then the other FSU 50's but what really surprised me was the performance. Having relubed them and checked the collimation, I ran a very quick set of test shots of the stone wall of the house. This was not a detailed test and the results were only 6x4 prints but as a matter of interest I used the CV Nokton as a "control". Wide open, the J3's are noticeably softer. At F2, there was a minor difference but you had to look hard to see it and from 2.8, there was very little difference. However, the problem is getting a good one. The first one I received was supposed to be in excellent condition and optically perfect. It had 2 big chips in the front element and a number of scratches so went back. Hence the reason I now have 2, I ordered 2 to make sure I received a good one but they both came out as being good!
Regards
Kim
sockeyed
Well-known
I've got the 'Panda' I-61, and had two I-61L/Ds (but sold them). The panda is my favourite FSU lens and always delivers great images on my Bessa R3A (it focuses accurately too). I love the quality and character of images I get with this lens. I'm not a fan of the ergonomics and build quality is a bit shakey, but the glass is great. It shoots well at all apertures, too.