Screw Mount Lens Recommendations Needed

[Ron (Netherlands)]

I don't know if I'll go with a Russian copy, but I'm not ruling it out. I hope someone can answer the following questions.
Does the turning of the lens on the Jupiter 8 cause problems or is it just a nuisance?
Is the Industar 22 comparable to the Jupiter8?
Are both easy to operate with a hood?
At the prices of these lenses I suppose I could buy both.
Thanks.

If you go for a Russian 50mm lens, I would advice to take the Industar 61 L/D - albeit it is 52mm or 55mm - . It is sharper than the other lenses and its contrast is also a little bit better (although some claim their Jupiter 8 gives better contrast, anyhow, I have six jupiter 8 lenses and non of them is up to the two Industar 61-lenses). But that is not all, especially in practise I prefer the Industar 61 since it has click f-stops; the other have not! Further, although this may sound ridiculous, it is the cheapest lens of the whole bunch of fsu-lenses.
It is also very true that you must have some luck in finding a good example.

For reference, here is - what you may find typically an old-school picture - I call it a retro picture, taken - on liberty day at Ville de Grasse in France in august 2007 - with the Industar 22 (1951):

Please note that the Industar 61 renders like a more modern lens, so for old-school, the Industar 22 or an Elmar or Summitar would still be a better choice.

 

[brachal]

I don't know if I'll go with a Russian copy, but I'm not ruling it out. I hope someone can answer the following questions.
Does the turning of the lens on the Jupiter 8 cause problems or is it just a nuisance?
Is the Industar 22 comparable to the Jupiter8?
Are both easy to operate with a hood?
At the prices of these lenses I suppose I could buy both.
Thanks.

Only late-model black Jupiter-8s have the rotating front. If you buy an older chrome lens, the front won't move. I have a black J-8, and the rotation bugged me at first, but I quickly got used to it. You do have to remember to set the aperture first and then focus.

The I-22 is f/3.5 through f/16, while the J-8 is f/2 through f/22 so there's a little more range there. The I-22 is available as a collapsible lens, so it wins for compactness.

Hoods and filters for the J-8 are easier to find.

I am a big fan of the Jupiter lenses, and also the collapsible Industars. I have a '55 I-10 that is really superb. I don't like the I-61 as much. The black I-61LD lenses are usually very poorly made with bad ergonomics, although image quality can be very good. The earlier silver and black (Panda) I-61 are better made. Personally, my favorite FSU lenses are my J-8 and J-3.

 

[David Hughes]

Thanks for the reply. If I buy FSU lenses it will be from Fedka.
Have you tried the Industar 50? If so, I'd appreciate your opinion.
Thanks again.

Hmmm, difficult to answer as I have one but it's working OK and so I've not done my usual set of test runs. It didn't strike me as any better or worse than the others.

I'd be more concerned - in your shoes - with getting the exposure right than any academic specification of the lens. And if it was an easy task, which it isn't, I'd go looking for a Black Jupiter-8 marked in Latin script (not Cyrillic lettering): that means one of the export ones.

Given the age of all these lenses, it's bit of a gamble - you may or may not be lucky. But that applies to all old lenses; I could tell stories about coated and re-ground Leica Summars and a new-ish Leica R lens that would make you weep...

I'd budget for the thing to be cleaned etc, as well. People have been known to spray that nasty thin oil from a spray can into the ends of lens barrels to free the focusing helix and then it attacks the lens etc. Bearing that in mind an un-coated one would be a better bet.

I'm sorry I can't be more helpful.

Regards, David

 

[Frank Petronio]

I prefer a lens that would be contemporaneous with the camera -- a Leica Elmar 50/3.5 -- used without a hood and letting the flare fall where it may (use your hand or body to shade the lens if you want). The f/3.5 aperture limits the low light potential but it also forces you not to shoot wide open and out of focus - the depth of field is already there!

Just use Tri-X for conventional and Kodak 400CN for C-41 mini-lab processing, don't switch, let him learn to be consistent with one ISO film.

The Russian lenses I've tried have photographed well but felt cheap and sloppy.

 

[David Hughes]

I prefer a lens that would be contemporaneous with the camera -- a Leica Elmar 50/3.5 -- used without a hood and letting the flare fall where it may (use your hand or body to shade the lens if you want). The f/3.5 aperture limits the low light potential but it also forces you not to shoot wide open and out of focus - the depth of field is already there!

Just use Tri-X for conventional and Kodak 400CN for C-41 mini-lab processing, don't switch, let him learn to be consistent with one ISO film.

The Russian lenses I've tried have photographed well but felt cheap and sloppy.

I'll go along with matching the age of the lens to the body but I'll add that I once went through a lot of Leica Fotografie magazines from the time when they published lists of stolen or lost bodies and lenses. A few had their lens of the same year, very few had them two years older and most had them a year older than the body.

Looking for one means a lot of messing around with serial numbers and tables, so be warned.

As for sloppy FSU ones; as I've said I must have been lucky. Funny I've been saving my luck for something really big for years and this is what it works with...

Regards, David

PS And don't forget good old Ilford FP4 Plus for B&W prints.

 

[3 Olives]

I prefer a lens that would be contemporaneous with the camera -- a Leica Elmar 50/3.5 -- used without a hood and letting the flare fall where it may (use your hand or body to shade the lens if you want). The f/3.5 aperture limits the low light potential but it also forces you not to shoot wide open and out of focus - the depth of field is already there!

Just use Tri-X for conventional and Kodak 400CN for C-41 mini-lab processing, don't switch, let him learn to be consistent with one ISO film.

The Russian lenses I've tried have photographed well but felt cheap and sloppy.

Frank- Thanks. We're pretty much headed in the direction of an older Leica lens. Is there any reason to choose Tri-X over Ilford products? I'm not questioning you-I'm trying to gain more knowledge. Tri-X will be fine with us.

 

[kermaier]

Frank- Thanks. We're pretty much headed in the direction of an older Leica lens. Is there any reason to choose Tri-X over Ilford products? I'm not questioning you-I'm trying to gain more knowledge. Tri-X will be fine with us.

Well, Tri-X is an ISO 400 film with a distinctive grain pattern, while FP4+ is an ISO 125 film with a look of its own. By virtue of the different film speeds, you'd use them with different lighting conditions and/or lens speeds. As far as the suitability of the look they produce, that will depend on the photographer's tastes and desired image style, and the exposure and development techniques and chemistry. I'd suggest a bit of deliberate experimentation with a few different combinations, and then stick with one process for a while.

BTW, the choice of C-41 B&W film will also be determined by the post-processing treatment you want. Kodak 400CN has an amber mask in the film base intended for color lab printing. I prefer Ilford XP2 Super, another ISO 400 C-41 B&W film. It has a clear base, which works well for traditional darkroom printing and digital scanning, and produces lovely, smooth tones. The grain is very fine, and gets finer with a bit of overexposure, so I usually rate it at ISO 320.

Enjoy!
::Ari

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Labs that take Ilford FP4 Plus often do good old fashioned silver gelatine etc prints/enlargements. More 'scope for improvement than commercial digital printing alongside colour neg film, when in the right hands.

Regards, David

 

[retnull]

One more: if you can find a Summar 50 / 2 in good condition (no haze, not too many cleaning marks) it is the ultimate old-school look lens. It's an older design that the other lenses mentioned: