je2a3
je
Nifty little device, I use that too + a couple of 39mm heavy star hoods of different width.
@ dee, mine did have a loose aperture ring + haze...eventually managed to CLA...but as I recall it was not easy, had problems with the helical.
industar lenses
- Thread starter NormanV
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 35
- Views 6K
Nifty little device, I use that too + a couple of 39mm heavy star hoods of different width.
@ dee, mine did have a loose aperture ring + haze...eventually managed to CLA...but as I recall it was not easy, had problems with the helical.
gb hill
Veteran
Thanks rob. I keep meaning to use it more.
As for the rigid I-22, this wiki states that this lens was the standard on the Zenit 1 slr which happened to be a 39mm sm. Not really sure how it would work on a ltm rangefinder but it is a nice looking lens. I too like the tab.
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Zenit_1
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I would take wiki with a grain of salt.
The full explanation would be:
The rigid I -22 was also made for the FSU LTM RF cameras like the Zorki.
It is much rarer than the collapsable I-22 lens.
gb hill
Veteran
Perhaps, but nonetheless here is more info for the rigid I-22 which makes sense. We are talking about the older version not the newer one made for the Zorki.
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Industar-22
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Industar-22
Last edited:
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I don't know what you mean with the older version vs newer one.
Here is a site that mentions the rigid I-22 lens.
http://www.ussrphoto.com/wiki/default.asp?WikiCatID=25&ParentID=2&ContentID=1386
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
There were two slightly different versions--both nominally 39mm screw mount but one is for RF cameras and the other is for early Zenit SLR cameras. The Early Zenits were basically a Zorki with a mirror box added and used the same threaded mounting flange. The optics were modified for the longer film to flange distance.
Yes, the rigid I-22 is much less common but I know there are RF coupled versions around.
In fact, ebay-er Alex-photo has a Zorki-Zorki with the rigid I-22 for sale as I write this post. He refers to it as a "solid" I-22.
I suppose to be thorough, there are four sort of common versions:
Zenit's website mentions a macro version but I've never seen one for sale and I don't recall Princelle's book talking about it either.
Rob
Yes, the rigid I-22 is much less common but I know there are RF coupled versions around.
In fact, ebay-er Alex-photo has a Zorki-Zorki with the rigid I-22 for sale as I write this post. He refers to it as a "solid" I-22.
I suppose to be thorough, there are four sort of common versions:
- Collapsible
- Rigid (for RF cameras, 28.8mm film to flange)
- Rigid (for SLR cameras, 45.2mm film to flange)
- Enlarging lens (I-22u)
Zenit's website mentions a macro version but I've never seen one for sale and I don't recall Princelle's book talking about it either.
Rob
gb hill
Veteran
I'm sorry. I don't know why I typed newer version. I was thinking the newer I 50 for some reason. I wasn't aware of the rigid I-22 made for rf camera's just the rigid I-22 for the Zenit SLR. I learn something new all the time about these FSU lenses!
klapka
Established
Actualy here are the differences:
Industar-22 / Industar-50
focus length - 51,39mm / 52,48mm
angel of view - 46 degries / 45 degries
minimal focusing distace - 1,25 m / 1 m
resolution in center - 32 lines/mm / 38 lines/mm
Both this lens were produced rigid and colapsible both had variants for rangefinders and for SLR.
Their mountings were: for I-22: m39 (both the rangefinder and the slr version) and for I-50: m39 - the rangefinder version and for SLR - m39 + m42 (which was called Industar-50-2).
Valkir1987
Well-known
You may intend to say "The Soviet camera industry was not capable of correctly collimating lenses and lens mounts at that time". Well, that's not the case, such measuring tools where part of the production. Precision tools and crafts where available but not widely used.
I disagree at this point, because matching each lens individually to its body is very inefficient. It would also mean that every post war camera lens combination I had thus far would be out of specs unless other lenses where involded or matched. Collimating a lens mount tot standard 28.8 is little work for a skilled person. Shimming a lens in its tube on a silkscreen to infinity too.
If you wanted to exchange optics Maizenberg's book indeed advised to have your optics standardized at a repair shop. But that counts for prewar unstandardized models mostly lik I said before.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
One can guess at the various reasons why Soviet lenses seem to be in disagreement with the RF coupling. I've seen bad self-repair jobs, I have seen lenses with two sets of factory made taps for the set screws that hold the helical into the lens mount. all I had to do was move the lens back to the unused position on that one. It even had two indented red dots for the aperture index. The last one was the worst: the holes for the aperture blades were not uniform and the aperture was not round. The milling for the optical fixture was not done properly, and the front triplet of the J-3 would not fit into place and was left decentered. Nothing to do with that one but part the lens out.
fanshaw
Well-known
No I didn't mean to suggest that the Soviet factories were incapable of correctly collimating lenses. My point was that their production process was not capable of producing components with high precision. Therefore it was necessary to manually adjust the lens-camera combination by means of shims in order to bring it up to spec.( An example of the crude state of components can be seen when it is necessary to use semi-circular shims to compensate for a lense mount aperture that is not parallel to the film plane.) Hence lenses and bodies were matched pairs.
You say that matching each lens to its body is inefficient. Yes it is, but we know that Soviet industry was inefficient.
Not just Maizenberg, but the manufacturer's manuals stated that it was necessary to make adjustments when changing the standard lens. I have a manual for a 1972 Zorki-4, in English, which mentions this, showing that the need to do this was not confined to pre-war products.
The main problem was not poor quality control; it was poor quality.
Valkir1987
Well-known
Dear Fanshaw,
I still disagree at your point. Measuring out many bodies and lenses I have, this would mean the focal lenghts of mounts and lenses are a mess. This is not the case. I exchanged many lenses without problems, some only required readjustment of the rangefinder. 'Soviet Production' might have been inefficient in some ways, but not that inefficient.
With kind regards,
Valkir
I still disagree at your point. Measuring out many bodies and lenses I have, this would mean the focal lenghts of mounts and lenses are a mess. This is not the case. I exchanged many lenses without problems, some only required readjustment of the rangefinder. 'Soviet Production' might have been inefficient in some ways, but not that inefficient.
With kind regards,
Valkir
I'm going to venture a guess that production quotas had something to do with putting the rush on some lenses, and the final adjustments being left for after the lens was counted against the quota. I've seen a lot of "not quite right" lenses that had not been readjusted. Easy to tell on a J-3 or J-8 if the lens has been shimmed after being released, you find multiple sets of taps for the set screws. BUT- very few lenses that could not be set straight. Of the worst I have seen: the Valdai J-3's. I have parted out several to use the front elements on earlier J-3's.
Valkir1987
Well-known
Dear Brian
Well thats a fair point, since you have more experience with adjusting and collimating lenses than me. I haven't really had much misadjusted lenses and bodies thus far, experiences vary. I believe now as you stated the faults and errors from the factory of that time are a cause of hurry, not the process itself.
From my own experience I think in general most camera bodies have been home 'repaired' afterwards because of problems with the lubricants. Too much offtopic for now though...
With kind regards,
Valkir
Well thats a fair point, since you have more experience with adjusting and collimating lenses than me. I haven't really had much misadjusted lenses and bodies thus far, experiences vary. I believe now as you stated the faults and errors from the factory of that time are a cause of hurry, not the process itself.
From my own experience I think in general most camera bodies have been home 'repaired' afterwards because of problems with the lubricants. Too much offtopic for now though...
With kind regards,
Valkir
David Hughes
David Hughes
"From my own experience I think in general most camera bodies have been home 'repaired' afterwards because of problems with the lubricants... "
I'll go along with that and will add that I worry every time a do it at home on the kitchen table repair is suggested in forums. A lot of people are incapable of selecting the right screwdriver for the job and to think that they then go on to repair a camera is worrying.
Also the age of the camera may well mean several have had a go at the poor thing, which is why I always recommend Oleg.
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
I'll go along with that and will add that I worry every time a do it at home on the kitchen table repair is suggested in forums. A lot of people are incapable of selecting the right screwdriver for the job and to think that they then go on to repair a camera is worrying.
Also the age of the camera may well mean several have had a go at the poor thing, which is why I always recommend Oleg.
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
Similar threads
