Nomad Z
Well-known
Mentioned in another thread, I've been considering converting my pre-war FED 1 to use later lenses. The early FEDs don't have the correct lens registration - the distance from the film plane to the mount is too short, so the trick is to move the mount away from the body by the requisite amount.
Another thing that differs is the start of the M39 thread in the mount. If you fit a later lens, the focus and aperture index marks end up way out of position. You can turn the mount in 90-degree steps (the 4 screw holes are equispaced), but you'd then have to machine a recess in the new quadrant to ensure that the underside of the mount doesn't snag the rangefinder arm. To avoid machining the original lens mount, a mount for a later FED 2 was dontated to the cause by a pal.
While taking measurements to work out how much the new mount needed to be shimmed by, I noticed that the FED 2 mount is thinner than the FED 1 version, by about 0.3mm. This meant that, whatever measurements I took with the FED 1 mount in place, I'd have to add 0.3 to the thickness of the shimming. I also found that there was a pretty large discrepancy at each side of the mount. The higher side was where there was more paper shim (as originally fitted), so I took all of the shims out and fitted the FED 1 mount directly onto the metal of the body shell. The high side was still higher, but still low by about 0.35mm. The low side was about 0.3mm or so lower again.
So, to get the FED 2 mount to land at the correct registration, I needed a shim 0.65mm thick, with some extra shimming of about 0.3 at the low side. Rather than cut up bits of drinks cans (handy stuff - 0.1mm thick, and cuts easily with scissors), I elected to make one on the lathe - much easier to get a precise fit around the mount, and to control the thickness.
The photo below shows the camera with the mount removed, with the FED 2 mount and shim below. The paper shims are nearby - I cut the one that was originally circular in half, since I expected to need this on the low side. Note that the new shim has a bit cut out to clear the rangefinder arm. I found that I didn't need to remove any material from the FED 2 mount. There is also a sliver of drinks can in case I need it.
At first I tried it with two paper shims, but it was still too low. Then I tried with three shims, plus the sliver of drinks can (next to the paper shims), and this was too high. The three paper shims on their own seem to have got a pretty good balance - both sides are just about the same.
I haven't run any film through it yet, but setting the lens to infinity gets good alignment in the rangefinder. Measuring the registration is quite fiddly. I used a digital caliper and found that the easiest way is to set the depth thingy to a fixed amount, and move it down onto the pressure plate until the caliper stops at the lens mount. With a desk lamp shining in, you can see the pressure plate move a little if the depth on the caliper is too long - the light reflecting off the plate flickers as the angle changes (you're pressing down on one end of the plate at a time). Otherwise, the light reflecting off the pressure plate doesn't change and the caliper just stops at the mount. I found that the 'flickering reflected light' effect was quite obvious, even with depth changes of around 0.02mm.
Here's a photo of it with a recently-acquired silver J-8 fitted...
The focus index doesn't line up perfectly (possibly intentional design to allow the index to be seen past an add-on finder), but I'm happy with it as it is. The J-8 was bought with the intention of rehousing my pre-war f2 Sonnar (to get it out of the rotating-front black J-8 mount). However, the silver J-8 is in excellent condition - elements are spotless, and the mount is really clean - no grubbiness in the knurling, no pitting or corrosion. I didn't have to do anything to it other that re-grease the aperture ring - focus helical was already peachy. I felt it was too nice to become a bit of Sonnar mechanicals, so decided to keep it to pair with my J-12 on the FED.
I did some other things to the FED recently...
I had a look at the shutter tensioning, and found that the second curtain was rather slack. What led me to this was some earlier attempts to measure the lens registration. When measuring, the shutter is set to B and held open. One of the times when I released it, I noticed that the second curtain didn't go all the way across - it stopped 2 or 3mm short. This was repeatable, but intermittent. So I had a go at adjusting the tension (a fiddly job that I haven't tried before), and got what I felt was a better balance - a snappier feel, and the sluggishness hasn't returned. I suspect the slow 2nd curtain might explain the mysterious fogging I was getting at the edges of some frames, but will need to run a roll through it to be sure.
Before I started the lens mount change in earnest, I took the body shell off to see if something was amiss inside, that might explain the big discrepancy between the two sides. There was nothing obvious, other than a general feeling that the internal bits where the film runs are not particularly well made. I concluded that, if that's the path the film takes, then I'll just have to shim accordingly. I took the opportunity to look at the shutter in front of a CRT television, to hopefully get an idea of the curtain behaviour. The width of the gap seemed consistent from top to bottom, but I wondered if it was a bit wide - I got the feeling that 1/500 on the FED is similar to 1/250 on my M2. One day, I'll build a shutter speed tester that will give me proper numbers.
One other thing I did was adjust the long flat spring that the shutter release presses on. When I took this off, it had a noticable bow at the end near the two fixing screws. Some careful bending in the fingers had this mostly straightened, and the result was less force required to operate the shutter. It's still quite a bit heavier than my IIIf, but certainly better than it was.
Overall, the camera feels a bit more slick now. Next thing is to verify (or not) the recent work with a roll of film. I'll probably use a roll of Adox CHS 25, since it's quite fussy with exposure, and doesn't like over-exposure in particular. If the shutter speeds are running a bit slow, this might help to show this up. After that, I might look at rangefinder alignment - horizontal seems okay (it was fine with the original FED lens before the change of mount, and seems the same with the J-8 and J-12 after fitting the new mount). However, vertical is badly out.
Another thing that differs is the start of the M39 thread in the mount. If you fit a later lens, the focus and aperture index marks end up way out of position. You can turn the mount in 90-degree steps (the 4 screw holes are equispaced), but you'd then have to machine a recess in the new quadrant to ensure that the underside of the mount doesn't snag the rangefinder arm. To avoid machining the original lens mount, a mount for a later FED 2 was dontated to the cause by a pal.
While taking measurements to work out how much the new mount needed to be shimmed by, I noticed that the FED 2 mount is thinner than the FED 1 version, by about 0.3mm. This meant that, whatever measurements I took with the FED 1 mount in place, I'd have to add 0.3 to the thickness of the shimming. I also found that there was a pretty large discrepancy at each side of the mount. The higher side was where there was more paper shim (as originally fitted), so I took all of the shims out and fitted the FED 1 mount directly onto the metal of the body shell. The high side was still higher, but still low by about 0.35mm. The low side was about 0.3mm or so lower again.
So, to get the FED 2 mount to land at the correct registration, I needed a shim 0.65mm thick, with some extra shimming of about 0.3 at the low side. Rather than cut up bits of drinks cans (handy stuff - 0.1mm thick, and cuts easily with scissors), I elected to make one on the lathe - much easier to get a precise fit around the mount, and to control the thickness.
The photo below shows the camera with the mount removed, with the FED 2 mount and shim below. The paper shims are nearby - I cut the one that was originally circular in half, since I expected to need this on the low side. Note that the new shim has a bit cut out to clear the rangefinder arm. I found that I didn't need to remove any material from the FED 2 mount. There is also a sliver of drinks can in case I need it.
At first I tried it with two paper shims, but it was still too low. Then I tried with three shims, plus the sliver of drinks can (next to the paper shims), and this was too high. The three paper shims on their own seem to have got a pretty good balance - both sides are just about the same.
I haven't run any film through it yet, but setting the lens to infinity gets good alignment in the rangefinder. Measuring the registration is quite fiddly. I used a digital caliper and found that the easiest way is to set the depth thingy to a fixed amount, and move it down onto the pressure plate until the caliper stops at the lens mount. With a desk lamp shining in, you can see the pressure plate move a little if the depth on the caliper is too long - the light reflecting off the plate flickers as the angle changes (you're pressing down on one end of the plate at a time). Otherwise, the light reflecting off the pressure plate doesn't change and the caliper just stops at the mount. I found that the 'flickering reflected light' effect was quite obvious, even with depth changes of around 0.02mm.
Here's a photo of it with a recently-acquired silver J-8 fitted...
The focus index doesn't line up perfectly (possibly intentional design to allow the index to be seen past an add-on finder), but I'm happy with it as it is. The J-8 was bought with the intention of rehousing my pre-war f2 Sonnar (to get it out of the rotating-front black J-8 mount). However, the silver J-8 is in excellent condition - elements are spotless, and the mount is really clean - no grubbiness in the knurling, no pitting or corrosion. I didn't have to do anything to it other that re-grease the aperture ring - focus helical was already peachy. I felt it was too nice to become a bit of Sonnar mechanicals, so decided to keep it to pair with my J-12 on the FED.
I did some other things to the FED recently...
I had a look at the shutter tensioning, and found that the second curtain was rather slack. What led me to this was some earlier attempts to measure the lens registration. When measuring, the shutter is set to B and held open. One of the times when I released it, I noticed that the second curtain didn't go all the way across - it stopped 2 or 3mm short. This was repeatable, but intermittent. So I had a go at adjusting the tension (a fiddly job that I haven't tried before), and got what I felt was a better balance - a snappier feel, and the sluggishness hasn't returned. I suspect the slow 2nd curtain might explain the mysterious fogging I was getting at the edges of some frames, but will need to run a roll through it to be sure.
Before I started the lens mount change in earnest, I took the body shell off to see if something was amiss inside, that might explain the big discrepancy between the two sides. There was nothing obvious, other than a general feeling that the internal bits where the film runs are not particularly well made. I concluded that, if that's the path the film takes, then I'll just have to shim accordingly. I took the opportunity to look at the shutter in front of a CRT television, to hopefully get an idea of the curtain behaviour. The width of the gap seemed consistent from top to bottom, but I wondered if it was a bit wide - I got the feeling that 1/500 on the FED is similar to 1/250 on my M2. One day, I'll build a shutter speed tester that will give me proper numbers.
One other thing I did was adjust the long flat spring that the shutter release presses on. When I took this off, it had a noticable bow at the end near the two fixing screws. Some careful bending in the fingers had this mostly straightened, and the result was less force required to operate the shutter. It's still quite a bit heavier than my IIIf, but certainly better than it was.
Overall, the camera feels a bit more slick now. Next thing is to verify (or not) the recent work with a roll of film. I'll probably use a roll of Adox CHS 25, since it's quite fussy with exposure, and doesn't like over-exposure in particular. If the shutter speeds are running a bit slow, this might help to show this up. After that, I might look at rangefinder alignment - horizontal seems okay (it was fine with the original FED lens before the change of mount, and seems the same with the J-8 and J-12 after fitting the new mount). However, vertical is badly out.
wolves3012
Veteran
Interesting antics there! I had to adjust my NKVD since the lens and camera didn't appear to be correctly matched; indeed it's still not spot on. I'd replaced the curtains and half-mirror so I decided to try and get it all correct. Unlike you, I've stuck with the original mount since I'd like to keep it as near original as possible and I'm not bothered about the lens not being interchangeable in practical terms. I've had to add a shim under the mount and re-shim the lens even to get it close, it was way off.
The vertical RF adjustment involves rotating the RF window prism and that will mean re-doing the horizontal afterwards, just to warn you. I was unable to get the vertical spot on on mine, although it's pretty close.
As for the long spring in the bottom of these - a word of caution, they are either hardened or some kind of spring-steel (I'm not sure exactly which) and they will not tolerate much in the way of corrective bending before they snap, so be careful! Luckily, the release on mine is quite light.
The vertical RF adjustment involves rotating the RF window prism and that will mean re-doing the horizontal afterwards, just to warn you. I was unable to get the vertical spot on on mine, although it's pretty close.
As for the long spring in the bottom of these - a word of caution, they are either hardened or some kind of spring-steel (I'm not sure exactly which) and they will not tolerate much in the way of corrective bending before they snap, so be careful! Luckily, the release on mine is quite light.
Nomad Z
Well-known
The reason for using the FED 2 mount was to save maching new clearance in the original one. I have the option of refitting the original. The only physical change to the camera has been to cut the paper shim into two halves (it was a full circle and a half circle at the rewind knob side).
I have a general understanding of RF adjustment (did my IIIf ages ago), but I'll be reading the sticky on the subject before I touch anything.
I would have thought that the long spring would be spring steel - if it was hardened, it would eventually fracture at the point of most flex (near the fixings). Doesn't mean it is spring steel, of course. The bending felt okay. The trick is to give it several little flexes and bring it into shape gradually, and to not try and force a bend into it over a short distance.
I have a general understanding of RF adjustment (did my IIIf ages ago), but I'll be reading the sticky on the subject before I touch anything.
I would have thought that the long spring would be spring steel - if it was hardened, it would eventually fracture at the point of most flex (near the fixings). Doesn't mean it is spring steel, of course. The bending felt okay. The trick is to give it several little flexes and bring it into shape gradually, and to not try and force a bend into it over a short distance.
outfitter
Well-known
The statement that pre-war Fed cameras didn't have the "correct" registration is not quite true. The registration was all over the place but most were close to Leica standard. Having been blessed with about a dozen pre-war Feds I measured registration as best I could with a depth gauge (not easy as the pressure plate moves) and found three that were close to standard. I then took all my pre-war 50mm f3.5 and f2 lenses, two 10mm f.6.3 and the pre-war 28mm and for good measure some Japanese LTM lenses and ran test shots. Allowing for shutter problems (light leaks and dried grease) four of the 50mm (including one f2) were acceptable, as was one 100mm and the 28mm.
Sorry to make a short point tedious but what I am trying to say is shoot a roll of film before shimming and you may be surprised. BTW the pre-war Fed 50mm f3.5 lens was an Elmar copy while the coated postwar lenses are Tessar copies.
Sorry to make a short point tedious but what I am trying to say is shoot a roll of film before shimming and you may be surprised. BTW the pre-war Fed 50mm f3.5 lens was an Elmar copy while the coated postwar lenses are Tessar copies.
Nomad Z
Well-known
I was under the impression that the earliest lenses were matched to the bodies, and that there was then a period when the registration was standardised on something other than 28.8, before the Leica standard was adopted. I could be wrong, but I thought I had read that somewhere. Regarding the shimming, I think I mentioned in another thread that, with the original mount, RF alignment at infinity was out with the J-8 and J-12, but fine with the original FED lens. With the new mount and the shim, the newer lenses have good alignment when set to infinity.
I tried some RF adjustment earlier, and the vertical alignment is better. Also reset the inifinity alignment, but wasn't confident turning the bitty on the RF arm to set close focus - it looks riveted on and I didn't want to risk breaking it. To be looked at again when my head is more attuned to doing it. Close focus at present is out a little - at 1m, an object about 12mm wide is displaced by about half its width.
I took the baseplate lock apart to clean and regrease it, and ended up making a spacer to hold the film cassette a little higher in the chamber. After experimenting with a couple of washers, I guesstimated the height needed, and made this...
It's made from a bit of 1/2" brass rod. Thickness is 1.5mm, and there's a 2mm hole through the middle. The recess that the screw head sits in is about 0.85mm deep. With a used Fuji cassette in the camera (but no leader trapped at the pressure plate to damp any movement), there is a very tiny amount of rattle, but far less than there was with no spacer. There is no more drag on the rewind knob than there was before. What remains to be seen is whether makes other than Fuji have cassette spindles no longer than this one.
I tried some RF adjustment earlier, and the vertical alignment is better. Also reset the inifinity alignment, but wasn't confident turning the bitty on the RF arm to set close focus - it looks riveted on and I didn't want to risk breaking it. To be looked at again when my head is more attuned to doing it. Close focus at present is out a little - at 1m, an object about 12mm wide is displaced by about half its width.
I took the baseplate lock apart to clean and regrease it, and ended up making a spacer to hold the film cassette a little higher in the chamber. After experimenting with a couple of washers, I guesstimated the height needed, and made this...
It's made from a bit of 1/2" brass rod. Thickness is 1.5mm, and there's a 2mm hole through the middle. The recess that the screw head sits in is about 0.85mm deep. With a used Fuji cassette in the camera (but no leader trapped at the pressure plate to damp any movement), there is a very tiny amount of rattle, but far less than there was with no spacer. There is no more drag on the rewind knob than there was before. What remains to be seen is whether makes other than Fuji have cassette spindles no longer than this one.
Last edited:
Valkir1987
Well-known
Well, seems there are a few misunderstandings. I measured many Fed's with a dept caliper. And one of my Fed NKVD's measures 28.5 and a post war Fed (non standard) measures 28.7 Thats not close, the tolerance of an 50mm lens is only +/- 0,02mm for a camera of that time. You won't notice this on small prints, but when you project slides or make great enlargements you will notice the diffirence.
The pre and post war Fed 3,5/50 are the same lenses. The Fed 3,5 is in fact an Elmar with the aperture moved backwards. The Leitz Elmar has the aperture between the front optics, Later Fed 3,5/50 ones have coatings. I prefer the Fed above the I-22, different character/tone.
The Industar 22 and 50 are direct copies of the Zeiss Tessar. The Leitz Elmar triplet is in fact also a Tessar based one.
outfitter
Well-known
The original Industar-10 lens manufactured between 1934-46 was a more or less exact copy of the Leitz Elmar 4-element lens that first appeared in 1924. This was based on the earlier 5-element Leitz Elmax which had been patented by 1920. The Industar-10, Elmar & Tessar had completely different focal lengths. The Industar-10s made between 1934 and 1948-49 were 50mm. Those manufactured after 1948-49 based on the Zeiss Tessar were 52.4mm. The later KMZ Industar-22 was 52.4mm. The Carl Zeiss standard is 52.4, the same as the Sonnar (Jupiter 3 & 8) and later the Industar 26M, Industar-50, Industar-61—all used the standard CZ focal length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FED_(camera)
There are other sources but this has always been my understanding
outfitter
Well-known
Similarly, "50mm f3.5 Industar-10 The lenses fitted to the FED-2 being manufactured after 1948-49 period were based on the 4 element Zeiss Tessar. There focal length is 2.4 mm longer than the previous Elmar copy, therefore 52.4mm."
http://sovietcamera.110mb.com/fed2/
http://sovietcamera.110mb.com/fed2/
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Early Leicas came with their own individual lens before standardisation and even two or three matched lenses before standardisation.It strikes me that FED etc just copied that and then realised what Leitz were doing and standardised things also.
That's not unusual, years later a lot of mass produced items would have the last three digits of the serial number stamped on components because of matching. Especially the top grade versions(sniper rifles come to mind).
FWIW, I wonder if the FED 2 etc had a different standard and was no intended to take the older lenses. They did, after all, have their own variation on the collapsible ones.
Regards, David
Early Leicas came with their own individual lens before standardisation and even two or three matched lenses before standardisation.It strikes me that FED etc just copied that and then realised what Leitz were doing and standardised things also.
That's not unusual, years later a lot of mass produced items would have the last three digits of the serial number stamped on components because of matching. Especially the top grade versions(sniper rifles come to mind).
FWIW, I wonder if the FED 2 etc had a different standard and was no intended to take the older lenses. They did, after all, have their own variation on the collapsible ones.
Regards, David
Valkir1987
Well-known
Well, if you take a pre and postwar Fed 3,5/50 apart, you will see they are optically quite the same.
I doubt the information on Wikipedia is completely right, indeed no specific source or research for this information has been noted. At least for the lens information. I'm sturdy, just want a good proof
The proof should be measuring the focal lenghts of both a prewar and postwar Fed 3,5/50 lens. This would also mean the distance markings should be engraved in a different scale.
Maybe Brian can give an explanation on this.
wolves3012
Veteran
This idea of the Industar 10/22/50 being an Elmar copy seems to be accepted "knowledge" but I disagree. This comes up time and time again; it's like saying car model X is a copy of car model Y based on them having four wheels, an engine, four doors etc. The Industar is styled the same as the Elmar, that's undeniable. It is not the same in construction, however, since the iris is in a different position and I fail to see how it's a copy. The Industar and Elmar are BOTH 4-element, 3-group designs with a cemented doublet rear - that means they are both Tessar designs.
The russians undoubtedly based much of their design on other manufacturers, not just in cameras...but did they really "copy" as much as everyone seems to claim? I suspect they didn't. Interesting that when people sell FEDS and Zorkis they allude to the Leica connection, in order to try and raise the status, yet other times the russians are accused of copying, used in a critical sense.
Last edited:
Valkir1987
Well-known
Small Test:
A postwar Fed 3,5/50 with serial 188174 measures a difference of 2,90mm in focus between infinity and 1m. The other poswar with serial 060861 came out with 2,90mm as well.
A prewar Fed 3,5/50 (I took from an NKVD) measures out 2,75. Another older prewar Fed lens came out with 2,90.
I measured the lenses with a wide dept caliper. Using the distance markings engraved on the lens ring.
A lens with an exact focal of 50mm would have a diffirence of approx 2,63mm between 1m and infinity. And a lens of 52,4mm would have a diffirence of 2,90mm. I'm not drawing conclusions yet, but I'm really doubting right now wether the Fed's 3.5 lenses are real 50mm ones!
A postwar Fed 3,5/50 with serial 188174 measures a difference of 2,90mm in focus between infinity and 1m. The other poswar with serial 060861 came out with 2,90mm as well.
A prewar Fed 3,5/50 (I took from an NKVD) measures out 2,75. Another older prewar Fed lens came out with 2,90.
I measured the lenses with a wide dept caliper. Using the distance markings engraved on the lens ring.
A lens with an exact focal of 50mm would have a diffirence of approx 2,63mm between 1m and infinity. And a lens of 52,4mm would have a diffirence of 2,90mm. I'm not drawing conclusions yet, but I'm really doubting right now wether the Fed's 3.5 lenses are real 50mm ones!
David Hughes
David Hughes
Just a point, playing mix and match is an old game with camera bodies and lenses. So we can't really be certain that the camera and body are contemporary. Unless we have one with a known history but can we even trust "one careful owner" on auction sites? And many lenses have 3 or 4 digit numbers.
Also the Russians copied the Leica at first but then went their own way: look at the FED 2, FED 3, Zorki 3 and 4 etc. Also they got their hands on the Zeiss stuff and in any case have enough scientists to reconfigure the lenses. Again, look at their use of rare earths and so on. Hardly just cloning.
One day, when I'm rich, I'd love to track down the original factory drawings and a couple of hundred cameras to try and break down just what they did. I'm not holding my breath yet!
Regards, David
PS How can this site say "Welcome David Hughes" at the top and, at the bottom of the page, and then tell me I must log in? I can't be typing a reply if I'm not logged in. Grrr.
Also the Russians copied the Leica at first but then went their own way: look at the FED 2, FED 3, Zorki 3 and 4 etc. Also they got their hands on the Zeiss stuff and in any case have enough scientists to reconfigure the lenses. Again, look at their use of rare earths and so on. Hardly just cloning.
One day, when I'm rich, I'd love to track down the original factory drawings and a couple of hundred cameras to try and break down just what they did. I'm not holding my breath yet!
Regards, David
PS How can this site say "Welcome David Hughes" at the top and, at the bottom of the page, and then tell me I must log in? I can't be typing a reply if I'm not logged in. Grrr.
outfitter
Well-known
I certainly do not know enough about optics to contribute anything definitive to this debate. I note, however, that Kingslake (History of the Photographic Lens) states that the pre-war Elmar 50/3.5 was a Tessar type lens so we may be debating a distinction without a difference. I suspect the Fed and Industars are variations on that theme and the pre-war and post war divide may be along the lines of focal length.