Operational impact of “traces of oil on blades”

[Ejg1890]

I plan to purchase a Fed 2 along with an Industar 26 lens. However, I am also considering the purchase of a short telephoto or portrait lens. The description mentions and received confirmation from the seller that there is a “trace of oil on the blades”, but no impact on the image. I have avoided lens with oil, but wanted to know what is the impact on the lens if there is oil? If significant oil there is the concern that oil can get on the elements and impact your image quality. Is there anything else?

The lens is a Tair. Some lenses are labeled Tair” and are for export others are labeled in Russian for internal sales. The lens was also made until the mid 1990’s. Is there any difference in quality with the export version? Also is there a difference in quality of lenses made in the 60’s-70’2 vs 80’s-90’s? I know that is the case with some cameras and lenses.

Thanks.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Slight oil on the blades typically is not a problem with rangefinder (manual aperture) lenses. Heavy oil- can spill and outgas, causing haze, coating damage, and etching on some types of glass.

I have found that lenses made for export tend to be higher quality, tighter tolerances.

 

[santino]

I don’t think that there is a Tair lens for the Fed 2. There are M39 lenses but designed for the early Zenit SLRs.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Not only Tair is not compatible, but FED-2 VF is only 50 mm.
You need external viewfinders with matching framing. Quality VF will cost much more than FED-2.

If you need tele here is no reason to risk your money on FSU gear, especially on RF.

Just get Nikon SLR, if you are into photography, not a steampunk.

 

[Coldkennels]

As other folks have already said, there is no Tair in Soviet LTM mount.

The compatible lenses for the FEDs and Zorkis are the Industars, Jupiters, Orion and Russar. Even then you have to be careful with the Industars and Jupiters as there were models made in both "LTM" and M39 - get the M39 version and it won't work on the FED at all. If in doubt, check the models on Soviet Cams before you buy anything.

The two longer lenses for the FED are the Jupiter 9 and the Jupiter 11. Of the two, I'd say go for the Jupiter 11. The Jupiter 9 is a big fat 85/2 that's capable of producing lovely images but is incredibly expensive by Soviet standards and has multiple focusing helicals, meaning the typical problem of solidified Soviet grease is magnified. Some Jupiter 9s can be basically impossible to focus without a total stripdown because of this.

The Jupiter 11, on the other hand, is a much more lightweight 135/4 and a lot more simple in design. 135mm viewfinders are incredibly cheap (because people think 135mm is "too long" for a rangefinder, which is patently nonsense), you can usually get Jupiter 11s for next to nothing, and the FED 2's baselength is more than enough to focus the Jupiter 11 accurately.

This is slightly cheating as I used a Focoslide for closer focus, but this is what a Jupiter 11 is capable of on film:



As for "oil on the blades": as Brian already said, it's not usually a problem on rangefinders. People worry about it because it can make the aperture blades sticky on SLR lenses (where the aperture has to be able to open and stop down near-instantaneously). That's not a concern for rangefinders.

I have heard people speculate that it can add to internal reflections and flare, but personally... I think that's nonsense.

 

[Ejg1890]

As other folks have already said, there is no Tair in Soviet LTM mount.

The compatible lenses for the FEDs and Zorkis are the Industars, Jupiters, Orion and Russar. Even then you have to be careful with the Industars and Jupiters as there were models made in both "LTM" and M39 - get the M39 version and it won't work on the FED at all. If in doubt, check the models on Soviet Cams before you buy anything.

The two longer lenses for the FED are the Jupiter 9 and the Jupiter 11. Of the two, I'd say go for the Jupiter 11. The Jupiter 9 is a big fat 85/2 that's capable of producing lovely images but is incredibly expensive by Soviet standards and has multiple focusing helicals, meaning the typical problem of solidified Soviet grease is magnified. Some Jupiter 9s can be basically impossible to focus without a total stripdown because of this.

The Jupiter 11, on the other hand, is a much more lightweight 135/4 and a lot more simple in design. 135mm viewfinders are incredibly cheap (because people think 135mm is "too long" for a rangefinder, which is patently nonsense), you can usually get Jupiter 11s for next to nothing, and the FED 2's baselength is more than enough to focus the Jupiter 11 accurately.

This is slightly cheating as I used a Focoslide for closer focus, but this is what a Jupiter 11 is capable of on film:

View attachment 4839513

As for "oil on the blades": as Brian already said, it's not usually a problem on rangefinders. People worry about it because it can make the aperture blades sticky on SLR lenses (where the aperture has to be able to open and stop down near-instantaneously). That's not a concern for rangefinders.

I have heard people speculate that it can add to internal reflections and flare, but personally... I think that's nonsense.

Thanks for the reply. I have multiple camera mounts including m39 and m42, which of course requires an adapter. However, I see an m39 to m42 adapter is available but not a m42 to m39, or at least I haven’t found one.

 

[Coldkennels]

Thanks for the reply. I have multiple camera mounts including m39 and m42, which of course requires an adapter. However, I see an m39 to m42 adapter is available but not a m42 to m39, or at least I haven’t found one.

If I remember right, M39 and M42 (and we're talking about the SLR mounts here - "M39" shouldn't be used to refer to the rangefinder mount) have exactly the same flange-to-film distance which means you just need a 1.5mm thick ring that increases the mount diameter without altering the lens' working distance to put an M39 lens on an M42 body.

For obvious reasons, you can't go the other way without losing infinity focus. You'd have to physically remove the M39 mount on the body and replace it with an M42 one, and I don't think anyone cares enough about using the few M39 SLRs to bother with that sort of job (which is a bit of a shame as the first Zenit is actually quite nice in a quirky and antiquated way).