Other/Uncategorized Is it really worth it????

Other Screw mount bodies/lenses
David Hughes said:
Hi,

I'll second that and since the OP said he has "too many other RF cameras to mention" I wonder why every one assumed it would go on something it won't work on.
Click to expand...

Those other rangefinder cameras are fixed lens versions.. If I am talking about them I go to the forum for that particular model..

I am referring to using the lens on a Leica...
 
goamules said:
Not in my experience. I now have 8 FSU lenses, some rare ones. J-3, two J-8s, IL-61, IL-something else, FED-10, FED 50/2.0, FED 100/6.3. None has needed work, or shimming. I lubed a Jupiter 8 just for fun, it took 30 min. They all work on my Canon IVSB, Canon P, and the Fed bodies they came on. And of course on my m4/3 G1 which I mostly use them on. But I will concede to your point, J-3s were a better deal at $100.
Click to expand...

Every Jupiter I have or now own required shimming to work on my Leicas.. The only Russian lens I have that did not is my Industar 50mm.

I recently picked up a J-3 for $120 which needed shimming and yes it is a good lens but I don't think $200 + is a good price to pay.
 
In the test pictures: I think the second is the Canon. Ergo the first would be the Jupiter.

I bought a jupiter 3 about 18 months ago for considerably less than $100. It works fine. A bit soft wide open at f/30 and f/15 but that's probably in part from camera shake. Somewhat lower contrast than the Canon f/1.8 or the Summicron Rigid I also own/have owned. But nice. I like it. I tend to adjust contrast in post in most cases anyway.

PS Anyone know -- I have a Fed 2 with a clone Elmar 50/3.5. What's that lens called???
 
PS If I decided I really wanted a Jupiter 3 because I could not afford $400+ for the other LTM Sonnar options, I'd put in a snipe bid of $175, I think. Something about the $200 mark for an FSU lens just seems not right to me. Then again two years ago I could get an actual Zeiss (Contax mount) 50/1.5 sonnar for less than $200. Not so easy now.
 
sparrow6224 said:
PS Anyone know -- I have a Fed 2 with a clone Elmar 50/3.5. What's that lens called???
Click to expand...

There are a few Soviet lenses that looked like the Elmar 50/f3.5, with slightly different formulas and coatings. Internally they use a Tessar formula, so they aren't technically Elmar clones except the outward appearance. Those are the the Industar-10 (usually just labeled "FED 50/f3.5"), the Industar-22 made after 1947-ish, and the Industar-50 made after 1953. All lenses made after 1948 or so are coated. I'm under the impression that most fake Elmars are made from the later lenses lenses, unless you have a more carefully faked lens with a more Elmar-like aperture tab; those are usually from older Industar-10s which had a very similar tab.
 
rxmd said:
There are a few Soviet lenses that looked like the Elmar 50/f3.5, with slightly different formulas and coatings. Internally they use a Tessar formula, so they aren't technically Elmar clones except the outward appearance. Those are the the Industar-10 (usually just labeled "FED 50/f3.5"), the Industar-22 made after 1947-ish, and the Industar-50 made after 1953. All lenses made after 1948 or so are coated. I'm under the impression that most fake Elmars are made from the later lenses lenses, unless you have a more carefully faked lens with a more Elmar-like aperture tab; those are usually from older Industar-10s which had a very similar tab.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Weren't the taller ones (? Industar 50) a proper Contax Tessar clone? And the shorter ones the Elmar clone? I can't see them neglecting the Contax f/3.5 lens when they'd acquired it.

It would be interesting to see if they ever improved on them over the years, apart from the coating (and paint in the engraving). But until we get our hands on the factories drawings, we'll never know.

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom