Soviet 50mm lens testing

[goamules]

FED 50 3.5 is known to be not the sharpest, low contrast, made for b/w old soviet film kind of lens.
Elmar should won for the price of five-ten times higher.
But.
I'm not old lens color pictures on digital tests fan. To me it is irrelevant, comparing to b/w film pictures, where Elmar wins almost nothing, comparing to I-22, 55. IMO.

FED 50 3.5. f16, 1/100, ISO100, a.k.a. Sunny 16.

Ko.Fe, my test was addressing several things. One, all the unsubstantiated posts for years saying "the Fed and Industar copies of Elmars are just as good, at a fraction of the price." Bull. They are not, unless you like trying a bunch and hoping to find a good one.

Two, the people that post one good picture, from any lens, and exclaim, "see, these lenses are great!" I cry foul again. Any lens can take a good picture, and playing the "art card" by not showing a scientific comparison of TWO identical pictures taken with TWO lenses in meaningless. I can show you a great picture taken with a magnifying glass lens taped to the front of a camera too. But it's misleading to tell people it's as good as an expensive soft focus Hypar. And meaningless without a side by side comparison.

So I'm glad the discussion, this time, is recognizing the Elmar is a better lens, with the caveat that it is more costly. I just get tired of hearing "Get a Fed or Industar for $20, you can't tell the difference from an Elmar!" Which is totally untrue.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Ko.Fe, my test was addressing several things. One, all the unsubstantiated posts for years saying "the Fed and Industar copies of Elmars are just as good, at a fraction of the price." Bull. They are not, unless you like trying a bunch and hoping to find a good one.

Two, the people that post one good picture, from any lens, and exclaim, "see, these lenses are great!" I cry foul again. Any lens can take a good picture, and playing the "art card" by not showing a scientific comparison of TWO identical pictures taken with TWO lenses in meaningless. I can show you a great picture taken with a magnifying glass lens taped to the front of a camera too. But it's misleading to tell people it's as good as an expensive soft focus Hypar. And meaningless without a side by side comparison.

So I'm glad the discussion, this time, is recognizing the Elmar is a better lens, with the caveat that it is more costly. I just get tired of hearing "Get a Fed or Industar for $20, you can't tell the difference from an Elmar!" Which is totally untrue.

I never judge any lens by single casual picture or by couple of pics from so called "tests". Instead, I browse through thousands and exam hundreds of pictures from different users on Flickr for few days, from the same particular lens model.

Based on this amateur research I can't, personally and for my needs, justify the average $300+ price of Elmar vs $30+ for I-22 and I-50.
No significant difference in b/w film photography to my eyes.
I-10 a.k.a FED 50 3.5, yes, not in the same league. At least my (coated) copy flares like crazy even with deep hood attached.

For the same reason, I have J-8 and Summitar, both are the same 50/2, but pictures from them are very different. Again, to my eyes and in some situations.

 

[02Pilot]

I-10 a.k.a FED 50 3.5, yes, not in the same league. At least my (coated) copy flares like crazy even with deep hood attached.

Oddly, my FED 50/3.5 (also coated) doesn't seem to be at all prone to flare, even without a hood. I was pleasantly surprised.

As to the more general issue of judging lens quality and making comparisons, I have no intention of doing that. My purpose in posting the test photos is simply to allow others to do what I'm doing: look at them and judge for themselves. I'm happy to hear others' opinions, but I'm in no way trying to influence them or draw any definitive conclusions.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Oddly, my FED 50/3.5 (also coated) doesn't seem to be at all prone to flare, even without a hood. I was pleasantly surprised.

As to the more general issue of judging lens quality and making comparisons, I have no intention of doing that. My purpose in posting the test photos is simply to allow others to do what I'm doing: look at them and judge for themselves. I'm happy to hear others' opinions, but I'm in no way trying to influence them or draw any definitive conclusions.

Lucky you!

I was one of the first to thank you. Part of my research on the lens would be reading threads like this.

We also have another proof how higher Elmar price price gives consistent IQ in different copies and FED 50 3.5 to have more variations even if lens doesn't show any issues on glass and elsewhere, like my lens.

If I'll be skunked with I-22 I'm trying to get, at least I know here is the the Elmar.

 

[goamules]

I never judge any lens by single casual picture or by couple of pics from so called "tests". Instead, I browse through thousands and exam hundreds of pictures from different users on Flickr for few days, from the same particular lens model.

Based on this amateur research I can't, personally and for my needs, justify the average $300+ price of Elmar vs $30+ for I-22 and I-50.
No significant difference in b/w film photography to my eyes.
...

Some liked VW bugs, some liked Citroën 2CVs. You get what you pay for. If after examining hundreds of Flickr pictures you feel you cannot see the difference, that's fine. For you. For me, with a background as an engineer and a lens scholar, I call it like I see it too. And I have proof, I just showed you. You say you've made a personal choice to buy cheap lenses. That's fine, but don't try to influence anyone else with your abstractions. Everything is compared with side-by-side testing. Cars, computers, house paint, everything. Some people don't want to see that, and want to make do with whatever is cheapest. I'm often doing it too. But not when the cheapie is so obviously inferior. I admit defeat, and am willing to spend more for a 50/3.5 than the cost of a couple cheeseburgers.

I base my decisions on facts, that are repeatable and I can demonstrate. I, for one, appreciate proper tests, like this excellent one:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137366

 

[David Hughes]

Lucky you!

I was one of the first to thank you. Part of my research on the lens would be reading threads like this.

We also have another proof how higher Elmar price price gives consistent IQ in different copies and FED 50 3.5 to have more variations even if lens doesn't show any issues on glass and elsewhere, like my lens.

If I'll be skunked with I-22 I'm trying to get, at least I know here is the the Elmar.

Hi,

The real problem is that most screw thread lenses from the old USSR and from Leitz will be second-hand and anything up to 70 or 80 years old.

Pay a lot of money for a leitz lens and it's likely that it will have been treasured and looked after. Plus, if there are any faults, it will be repaired by a Leica trained technician and so on. Even so, duds turn up from time to time; just read the threads on RFF. But - strange to say - no one blames poor QC for them.

On the other hand, the old Soviet lenses are despised and cheap. People read on forums that they can be repaired at home and charge into it like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Read the threads on RFF and (again) you'll see it blamed on the factory...

The Leica technician will know how to take the lens apart and have the right tools and experience. He or she will also know which way round the various lens elements have to face and will put them back in the right order. And he/she will know what collimation means and how to do it.

Compare that to the non-technician unscrewing things at random and dropping lenses out and so on. Of course, we all know that it won't be his/her fault that it still doesn't work because we have all been told over and over again that it's poor quality control behind the failure.

Some of us can reason that an idiot taking it to pieces and so on and then selling it on ebay for another to take to pieces and so on will ruin the lens but the factory will be blamed; even 50 or 60 years after it left them.

Talking to the technician I trust with all my old Leicas, I was told that he wondered about Soviet lenses and so dismantled and checked some. He thought they were exact copies of the original and wasn't surprised as he'd experience of working on other USSR made ones and bodies.

I know other experts in their fields who have a high opinion of USSR optics and are in a position to compare them with the best in the world...

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David

 

[k.a]

i've tried a few 50 mm and find the jupiter-8 to be the sharpest, the jupiter-3 to be the one i like the most (just lovely) and the industar 3.5 to be boring (lack of bokeh and not sharper than jupiter-8)

 

[02Pilot]

Lucky you!

I was one of the first to thank you. Part of my research on the lens would be reading threads like this.

We also have another proof how higher Elmar price price gives consistent IQ in different copies and FED 50 3.5 to have more variations even if lens doesn't show any issues on glass and elsewhere, like my lens.

If I'll be skunked with I-22 I'm trying to get, at least I know here is the the Elmar.

I should point out that my second comment - the one regarding my intentions in conducting and posting the test - was intended to be directed generally, not to you specifically, Ko.Fe. I quoted your point on the FED lens, and then I failed to provide clear separation between that specific response and my later thought. Apologies for any confusion, and thanks for your support and participation.

 

[02Pilot]

Hi,

The real problem is that most screw thread lenses from the old USSR and from Leitz will be second-hand and anything up to 70 or 80 years old.

Pay a lot of money for a leitz lens and it's likely that it will have been treasured and looked after. Plus, if there are any faults, it will be repaired by a Leica trained technician and so on. Even so, duds turn up from time to time; just read the threads on RFF. But - strange to say - no one blames poor QC for them.

On the other hand, the old Soviet lenses are despised and cheap. People read on forums that they can be repaired at home and charge into it like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Read the threads on RFF and (again) you'll see it blamed on the factory...

The Leica technician will know how to take the lens apart and have the right tools and experience. He or she will also know which way round the various lens elements have to face and will put them back in the right order. And he/she will know what collimation means and how to do it.

Compare that to the non-technician unscrewing things at random and dropping lenses out and so on. Of course, we all know that it won't be his/her fault that it still doesn't work because we have all been told over and over again that it's poor quality control behind the failure.

Some of us can reason that an idiot taking it to pieces and so on and then selling it on ebay for another to take to pieces and so on will ruin the lens but the factory will be blamed; even 50 or 60 years after it left them.

Talking to the technician I trust with all my old Leicas, I was told that he wondered about Soviet lenses and so dismantled and checked some. He thought they were exact copies of the original and wasn't surprised as he'd experience of working on other USSR made ones and bodies.

I know other experts in their fields who have a high opinion of USSR optics and are in a position to compare them with the best in the world...

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David

I do think this is often the case, though I've seen and read of enough cases of actual manufacturing problems with the Soviet lenses - problems that would never have made it through a good QC program - to be willing to at least a bit more skeptical of any Soviet lens prior to personal inspection. For example, the screw mount on my FED 50/3.5 is indexed incorrectly; when you mount it the focusing tab is 90 degrees from where it should be. There's no way this is anything but a manufacturing defect (this is a late coated lens, not an earlier one that was indexed to the camera at the factory), and one that should have been caught.

In general, however, I do think the Soviet lenses are quite good, often unfairly maligned, and usually more than adequate for my own, albeit limited, skill set.

 

[snapper78]

Many years ago I did a not very scientific lens test on some lenses I had ( and probably still have) including a Leitz Summitar and the lens that had the best resolution was an Industar (collapsible). As far as I remember its apparent superiority didn't show up in ordinary shots. Many years later I tested another bunch of lenses in similarly non-scientific style and found that an Industar 61 was definitely superior to an Elmar 50m 2.8 but the Elmar had a 'cleaned' front element. I sold the Elmar. Individual lenses differ especially after fifty years of use.

 

[wolves3012]

For me, with a background as an engineer and a lens scholar, I call it like I see it too. And I have proof, I just showed you.

If you have a background as an engineer, you should not make an appeal to science and proof without it. Firstly, you should know that good science would demand more than a couple of side-by-side comparisons taken from a single sample of each lens. You need a statistically-valid (i.e. minimum 30) number of new examples of each lens and to subject them to repeatable (i.e. studio conditions) testing using a sensor that is far higher resolution than the lens and beyond reproach, so that it can show any defects, without question, to be real.

Furthermore, any such test would still not prove anything. You should also know that science never proves anything, it merely provides evidence that some theory is likely to be "fact" to a greater or lesser degree of certainty, usually stated. Before something is accepted in science as being "fact", it needs overwhelming evidence.

I base my decisions on facts, that are repeatable and I can demonstrate. I, for one, appreciate proper tests, like this excellent one:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137366

Your "facts", as I explained above, are not facts. There's proof enough in the shots you posted that your example of the Elmar gave better results on your body and under the conditions that obtained. This does not constitute "proof" of the general statement "the Elmar is better than the Industar", even though I believe that may well be the case as an absolute.

Before you accuse me of pedantry, people are expressing the view that they are tired of people saying lens A is the equal to lens B and here are a couple of shots to prove it. Equally bad is those who offer proof to the contrary that is only marginally better.

EDIT: I forgot that there is, of course, the subjective aspect of "better". Better in what way?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Some liked VW bugs, some liked Citroën 2CVs. You get what you pay for. If after examining hundreds of Flickr pictures you feel you cannot see the difference, that's fine. For you. For me, with a background as an engineer and a lens scholar, I call it like I see it too. And I have proof, I just showed you. You say you've made a personal choice to buy cheap lenses. That's fine, but don't try to influence anyone else with your abstractions. Everything is compared with side-by-side testing. Cars, computers, house paint, everything. Some people don't want to see that, and want to make do with whatever is cheapest. I'm often doing it too. But not when the cheapie is so obviously inferior. I admit defeat, and am willing to spend more for a 50/3.5 than the cost of a couple cheeseburgers.

I base my decisions on facts, that are repeatable and I can demonstrate. I, for one, appreciate proper tests, like this excellent one:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137366

I like FSU gear, sorry.

I'm an engineer too and work in television where IQ judged often visually by the picture, including still.

The cars analogy on photography is as useless as "test" of old lenses on cropped digital cameras.
But if you like, it is same like testing of trucks' winter tires on Honda Civic.
It will give some results, but irrelevant for what those tires were designed for.

Not only I choose to buy less expensive collapsible FSU lens, but I prefer FSU RF for this lens. It is very cheap pocketable kit, has its own feel and makes it very comfortable to use it as everyday, anytime, any weather kit. If I'll broke or lost it, no big deal.

I have more expensive Leitz, Voigtlander and other manufacturers lenses. Some at the price mark which is more than double from Elmar price .
But if you haven't noticed it yet, this thread initially was not about Elmar at all.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Hi,

The real problem is that most screw thread lenses from the old USSR and from Leitz will be second-hand and anything up to 70 or 80 years old.

Pay a lot of money for a leitz lens and it's likely that it will have been treasured and looked after. Plus, if there are any faults, it will be repaired by a Leica trained technician and so on. Even so, duds turn up from time to time; just read the threads on RFF. But - strange to say - no one blames poor QC for them.

On the other hand, the old Soviet lenses are despised and cheap. People read on forums that they can be repaired at home and charge into it like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Read the threads on RFF and (again) you'll see it blamed on the factory...

The Leica technician will know how to take the lens apart and have the right tools and experience. He or she will also know which way round the various lens elements have to face and will put them back in the right order. And he/she will know what collimation means and how to do it.

Compare that to the non-technician unscrewing things at random and dropping lenses out and so on. Of course, we all know that it won't be his/her fault that it still doesn't work because we have all been told over and over again that it's poor quality control behind the failure.

Some of us can reason that an idiot taking it to pieces and so on and then selling it on ebay for another to take to pieces and so on will ruin the lens but the factory will be blamed; even 50 or 60 years after it left them.

Talking to the technician I trust with all my old Leicas, I was told that he wondered about Soviet lenses and so dismantled and checked some. He thought they were exact copies of the original and wasn't surprised as he'd experience of working on other USSR made ones and bodies.

I know other experts in their fields who have a high opinion of USSR optics and are in a position to compare them with the best in the world...

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David

Here is my REAL problem with old Leitz glass vs FSU glass.

It is very easy to find unused, like new 50 and 35 mm LTM FSU prime made in eighties. Under $100 price, with caps and hard case. The only reason why is because they were made in millions of units.
The funny thing - here is almost none of them with fungus, lens separations and coating loss. The only common problem for spotless old FSU prime from fifties would be stiff lubrication. Which is doable at home, because it is well documented. Actually, I prefer those DIY instructions in English, because they are more easy to follow.

Leitz LTM glass is completely opposite. KEH and e-bay have a lot of offers with significant problems. Including how trashed some lens are from abuse.

I saw here copy of the bill from local technician for LTM Leitz lens service once.
It was insane in terms of pricing.

Cheers, Konstantin.

 

[apostasiometritis]

Here is my REAL problem with old Leitz glass vs FSU glass.

It is very easy to find unused, like new 50 and 35 mm LTM FSU prime made in eighties. Under $100 price, with caps and hard case. The only reason why is because they were made in millions of units.
The funny thing - here is almost none of them with fungus, lens separations and coating loss. The only common problem for spotless old FSU prime from fifties would be stiff lubrication. Which is doable at home, because it is well documented. Actually, I prefer those DIY instructions in English, because they are more easy to follow.

Leitz LTM glass is completely opposite. KEH and e-bay have a lot of offers with significant problems. Including how trashed some lens are from abuse.

I saw here copy of the bill from local technician for LTM Leitz lens service once.
It was insane in terms of pricing.

Cheers, Konstantin.

This is very important. Say what you want of FSU lenses, but they rarely exhibit some of the nasty haze/fogging/separation that Leitz lenses show. Even the oily aperture is almost a non issue, because 99% of them can open up *very* easily, for cleaning or ventilation.

The problem with FSU lenses is that:

a) Consistency on the production line was never great it seems.

b) Many people open them up without actually knowing what they are doing. I don't think people open up summicrons with the same ease.
Hell, I am guilty of this.

c) Lots of them have just sat in damp drawers for millions of years.

I had a recent experience that summarised all three of the above, will write a different thread on this.


As far as as performance goes, they are not up to modern or even (their) contemporary standards apart perhaps from the first years when they were close to the originals with regards to technology.

But they are better than most of us are photographers and definitely more than adequate. The character & performance when they are there, are in my opinion a bonus.

 

[02Pilot]

Back on the original topic, Part III is now available HERE.

 

[MikeDimit]

I am a FED 2 and Zorkii 4k user with Industar 61, 26 and 26 m, Jupiter 8. Well, I would say that Industar 61 is sharp, sharp. The 26 versions are not much of a difference except on small apertures. Colors are much alike, only 26 version desaturates a little. Jupiter 8 is nice all purpose lens. No flare with any of them. May be I am lucky? I am planning for tomorrow to buy a Kiev with Industar 103 if I get lucky.

 

[02Pilot]

I am a FED 2 and Zorkii 4k user with Industar 61, 26 and 26 m, Jupiter 8. Well, I would say that Industar 61 is sharp, sharp. The 26 versions are not much of a difference except on small apertures. Colors are much alike, only 26 version desaturates a little. Jupiter 8 is nice all purpose lens. No flare with any of them. May be I am lucky? I am planning for tomorrow to buy a Kiev with Industar 103 if I get lucky.

Interesting that you see little difference in color between the I-26 and the I-61 (I'm assuming you have the L/D version - is that correct?). My understanding, which admittedly is based largely on inference and assumption, was that the I-61 tended to offer better color rendition as well as improved sharpness.

I tend to agree that the Jupiter-8 is the most flexible all-purpose lens - it's what lives on my FED-2 most of the time.

 

[MikeDimit]

As a matter of fact I have two plain I-61 - one silver and one zebra ( black and silver coating). I had somewhere a contact sheet of a film on witch I shot 4 frames of a forest with 4 different lens - just one was desaturated. Others had little to no difference. I could organize a test with my Canon 500D - all lens on a raw if there is some interest. Just write the aperture. On film it will take me some time ( no scanner). 🙂)

 

[Wulfthari]

Ko.Fe, my test was addressing several things. One, all the unsubstantiated posts for years saying "the Fed and Industar copies of Elmars are just as good, at a fraction of the price." Bull. They are not, unless you like trying a bunch and hoping to find a good one.

Dear colleague,
do you realise that the Industar 22 is a scion of the Zeiss Tessar while the Elmar is a variation of the old Cookie triplet so they are NOT the same lenses and nor the I-22 is a copy of the Elmar?

 

[Wulfthari]

Back on the original topic, Part III is now available HERE.

I must say that your comparison is VERY interesting, but I would ask if you can make any comparison with colour films, I'd be curious to see what happens.

I've many SU lenses, but they are all different, now I'll try a I-61LD and a I-50 against my J-8s, I'm curious to see the difference.

Unfortunately it seems that the Soviets were mostly concentrated on 50mm and wide angles, for 85 mm and 135 there are only Jupiters.