Vostok
Expired Film Enthusiast.
That's what I would like to know, if the red "P" Industar 26 M39 is better than the regular one. I know the red P means it's coated, but nothing else.
What do you think?.
What do you think?.
Is red "P" I-26 actually better than the regular one?.
- Thread starter Vostok
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 10
- Views 4K
V
varjag
Guest
Nope.
By 1960s the П mark (просветленный - coated) was dropped from all products, as lens coating long since ceased to be news to a customer.
By 1960s the П mark (просветленный - coated) was dropped from all products, as lens coating long since ceased to be news to a customer.
Vostok
Expired Film Enthusiast.
Excellent, thank you.
Do you happen to know why the prices are usually higher for the I-26 lenses with the red П?. Is it because they are older?.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Some people believe the earlier ones were a better quality. Others might just want to have one in the collection.
The trouble with old lenses like these, Contax, Leica, etc, etc is that they are all second-hand and therefore you cannot be 100% certain of the quality. The only answer is to buy one and then pay out to have it properly checked and adjusted, if necessary. Leica, for example, have a historic camera repair service...
Regards, David
Some people believe the earlier ones were a better quality. Others might just want to have one in the collection.
The trouble with old lenses like these, Contax, Leica, etc, etc is that they are all second-hand and therefore you cannot be 100% certain of the quality. The only answer is to buy one and then pay out to have it properly checked and adjusted, if necessary. Leica, for example, have a historic camera repair service...
Regards, David
V
varjag
Guest
What David says.
Usually the earlier, 1950s, KMZ-produced specimen are considered superior to later production. Up to about 1954, many types of Soviet lenses used Schott glass stock taken under reparations from Germany. This reflects the price.
Usually the earlier, 1950s, KMZ-produced specimen are considered superior to later production. Up to about 1954, many types of Soviet lenses used Schott glass stock taken under reparations from Germany. This reflects the price.
Joosep
Well-known
I dont know exactly about glass quality (lpmm) but the build quality of KMZ was alot better than other factories. Used to have alot FSU stuff, paint job and build quality was better with the KMZ lenses.
Vostok
Expired Film Enthusiast.
Great, now I understand. Seems that when it comes to FSU lenses in proper condition, the older the better.
If I get my hands on a non П marked I-26 I'll compare its performance with a marked one.
Thank you both.
If I get my hands on a non П marked I-26 I'll compare its performance with a marked one.
Thank you both.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Well, perhaps...
The problem is that these cameras and lenses are 60 or more years old. Many of them have been sitting in cupboards or drawers (or barns and sheds) since the 80's or 90's when "better" cameras came along. So the condition isn't guaranteed.
My experience is that any lens can be damaged slightly or a lot over the years. So best to be prepared and get them checked. Checked and adjusted you'll probably not see any difference and may well be pleasantly surprised. Of course, if the lens is badly damaged, scratched etc, then age has nothing to do with it.
So, I'll wish you luck and hope you are pleasantly surprised. (It's worse with Leicas, btw. The Summars were a good example of how poor handling etc could ruin a perfectly good lens. And as for those who thought they could regrind them and coat them...)
Regards, David
Well, perhaps...
The problem is that these cameras and lenses are 60 or more years old. Many of them have been sitting in cupboards or drawers (or barns and sheds) since the 80's or 90's when "better" cameras came along. So the condition isn't guaranteed.
My experience is that any lens can be damaged slightly or a lot over the years. So best to be prepared and get them checked. Checked and adjusted you'll probably not see any difference and may well be pleasantly surprised. Of course, if the lens is badly damaged, scratched etc, then age has nothing to do with it.
So, I'll wish you luck and hope you are pleasantly surprised. (It's worse with Leicas, btw. The Summars were a good example of how poor handling etc could ruin a perfectly good lens. And as for those who thought they could regrind them and coat them...)
Regards, David
Vostok
Expired Film Enthusiast.
Both FSU lenses I have are in excellent condition, or at least that's what it looks like. To test them I will shoot half roll with one and the other half with the other with my Fed 2.
I've taken 18 pictures with a I-61 and now I'm doing the other half with the I-26 red П. Perhaps I'll post the comparison.
Thank you for your kind words.
wolves3012
Veteran
Assuming they're both properly collimated and undamaged etc, you'll likely find the I-61 is sharper and has more contrast than the I-26. The difference isn't huge but it can be seen in side-by-side comparison shots. The I-61 has low-dispersion lanthanum glass, which (I believe, though no-one seems to have a definitive answer) the I-26 hasn't.
As for earlier versus later, it's generally true that older FSU gear was better made but they did improve optics over time. Late I-61s, for instance, had poorer build quality, fewer iris blades and printed markings (rather than engraved). Probably the best made I-61s are the so-called "Panda" or "Zebra" ones, black and silver.
Vostok
Expired Film Enthusiast.
My I-61 is the black-silver "Panda" version. I guess I'll just have to wait and see, not always sharper or contrastier means better. At least not for me. I feel I'm going to like them both and appreciate their differences, since I've seen many great pictures taken with both I-26 and 61s.
