02Pilot
Malcontent
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).)
I would be interested in seeing a test. Digital would be fine, but I'd really be interested in how the different lenses render on film.
02Pilot
Malcontent
Glad you've found it useful. I may try a color test at some point, but it probably won't be for a while.
Brian Legge
Veteran
FSU lenses are not at all complicated to take apart, clean and work on in general. Same is true for Canon LTM lenses. Frankly, it would be difficult to put them back together incorrectly perhaps with the obvious exception of threading the helical incorrectly (which is easy to spot and simple to fix).
I'm with those who think most of the issues people report with these lenses were factory issues or issues from people trying to assemble 'good' lenses out of a bunch of part lenses.
I'm with those who think most of the issues people report with these lenses were factory issues or issues from people trying to assemble 'good' lenses out of a bunch of part lenses.
goamules
Well-known
Yes, I realize. But hundreds of posters on this forum and others the past 10 years don't think there is any difference, and have been advocating the FSUs as suitable substitutes for the Elmar. Because they are the same speed, and similar designs (only the location of the aperture differs). I really should stop mentioning the Elmar, I really like FSU lenses, and shoot a lot of them. A lot more than Leitz. But the 50/3.5 FSUs I don't use, after my testing showed my copies have poor resolution, flare, and other aberrations.
Elmar:
Fed:
Wulfthari
Well-known
Yes, I realize. But hundreds of posters on this forum and others the past 10 years don't think there is any difference, and have been advocating the FSUs as suitable substitutes for the Elmar. Because they are the same speed, and similar designs (only the location of the aperture differs). I really should stop mentioning the Elmar, I really like FSU lenses, and shoot a lot of them. A lot more than Leitz. But the 50/3.5 FSUs I don't use, after my testing showed my copies have poor resolution, flare, and other aberrations.
Elmar:
Fed:
Actually that's ironic because if your scheme of the Elmar is correct it would mean that Leica copied the Soviets!
The Industar 22 was calculated in 1945:
http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?804100465
While the Elmar should have come in production in the 50s:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f28.htm
Ahahaha!
More seriously, I've some examples of extreme flare with the Summarit that for the record is the worst lens I own while my Jupiters 8 never created me problems, on the opposite front there are quite a lot of people who use Soviet lenses on Leicas and say otherwise, including me.
I'm more a Jupiter man, I have most of the range and sometimes I use them on my M3 and I'mn pretty satisfied, I can't speak regarding the Industar but my experience is that in the 85-90mm range a good Jupiter 9 is better than my Elmarit 90, in the 50 mm range the Summicron DR is better than the Jupiter 8 in terms of sharpness and especially because it can focus under 0.8 cm, in the 135 mm range I still have to find a Leitz lens but the Jupiter 11 is good besides the min focusing distance of 2.5 m that it's a serious limitation for its use.
In the wide angle area I think it's general consensus that the Jupiter 12 (and of course its "father", the Glorious Biogon 2,8/35) is one of best 35 mm ever made, a lot of people like the Orion 15 and the Russar MR-2 influenced most of the wide angles made by Leitz, Zeiss, or the Japanese, deny that these guys:
https://bef63e5b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/renatogucciardi/carl-zeiss/carl-zeiss-objektive/biogon/team-rusinov.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cpxN9VLRdfwsgdlQDQzfv-U_qotblqBZOJPSI2vhGKYKV8YQGslQlKzEwWzV7qF5OCCy_OXdGzJhSqgosfqzK5rf5BMPHALo2x43k_m0ColmDBTDX79qHB4JGbXyqsfJdOJbexxuab-fQnjMViq_qHqnyawyu2Bly3Rz9LK5Z6MlUqVZgXanfzIKtKwGj8b1hpt8AVVMchXw9tdwXGUYFG5yrYdkG4IpLZTVkXW30vHiVQIO5Q-s815W-sHQVYjn1VsSj9rRWH1MwQQN3fHmL-S0yRgiQ%3D%3D&attredirects=0
Didn't know how to calculate and produce lenses it's like to deny that Gagarin went out of space.
If you read Italian from this article:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Soviet_and_wide_lenses_on_Leica_M/00_p.htm
You can understand one thing or two regarding the comparison between a Leitz lens and a Soviet one, unfortunately the analysis is limited to wide angles.
02Pilot
Malcontent
Scrambler
Well-known
The f3.5 Elmar 50mm is from 1926:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Leica_A
The Tessar lens design used in the Industar dates from 1902:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tessar
I don't know when Zeiss first made an f3.5 50mm Tessar. Certainly before 1936:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1134244&postcount=6
Wulfthari
Well-known
If you read my first post I already wrote that the Industar is a Tessar clone, regarding the pre-war Elmar, besides the fact that I don't know what changed in the lens configuration in comparison to the 1957 version I wouldn't be bothered to get a pre-Summicron Leitz lens after my experience with the Summitar and the flare problems I've experienced.
Unfortunately I don't have the picture at hand to show the results of shooting with a Summitar slightly against the sun, but after that I swore I would never buy a pre 50s Leitz anymore.
Anyway the entire point of the discussion with the "colleague" was that while the Industar is a Tessar clone (so four elements in triplets) the Elmar is always "sold" by the "experts" as a modified Cooke triplet, if in reality the Elmar is another Tessar clone I don't know, but the comparison is between the coated Industar 22 or 50 and the 1957 2.8 Elmar, even if one is 3.5 and the other 2.8.
Anyway for what's worth here there is another opinion:
http://jay.fedka.com/index_files/Page444.htm
Unfortunately I don't have the picture at hand to show the results of shooting with a Summitar slightly against the sun, but after that I swore I would never buy a pre 50s Leitz anymore.
Anyway the entire point of the discussion with the "colleague" was that while the Industar is a Tessar clone (so four elements in triplets) the Elmar is always "sold" by the "experts" as a modified Cooke triplet, if in reality the Elmar is another Tessar clone I don't know, but the comparison is between the coated Industar 22 or 50 and the 1957 2.8 Elmar, even if one is 3.5 and the other 2.8.
Anyway for what's worth here there is another opinion:
http://jay.fedka.com/index_files/Page444.htm
Scrambler
Well-known
Wulftari, why is the comparison between the I-22 and the f2.8 Elmar? Surely the equivalent comparison would be between an I-61 and Elmar 2.8? And if Mr Rockwell is our reference, the I-61 has been made "since at least the early 1970's" (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/industar/55mm-f28.htm)
If the I-22 is the comparator it is the collapsible f3.5 Elmar that is the Leica lens that some people regard as equivalent.
Leitz might have copied the Tessar design. And their pre-coating lenses were prone to flare. On those points and many others I agree with you.
But the timing of the particular lenses in question (Industar-22 and Elmar) is clearly in favour of Leitz. As a prestige German firm, Leitz had competition with Zeiss, who invented the Tessar design to begin with. No competition with the Russians needs to be imagined.
The f2.8 50mm Tessar for 35mm film seems to be a postwar innovation, and whether East German Zeiss or the Russians did it first I don't know.
As for the f2.8 Elmar, clearly the design could be extended to that speed and Leitz would have been uncompetitive in the 50's with a 3.5. But uncompetitive would have been with the Japanese by then, rather than the Russians.
If the I-22 is the comparator it is the collapsible f3.5 Elmar that is the Leica lens that some people regard as equivalent.
Leitz might have copied the Tessar design. And their pre-coating lenses were prone to flare. On those points and many others I agree with you.
But the timing of the particular lenses in question (Industar-22 and Elmar) is clearly in favour of Leitz. As a prestige German firm, Leitz had competition with Zeiss, who invented the Tessar design to begin with. No competition with the Russians needs to be imagined.
The f2.8 50mm Tessar for 35mm film seems to be a postwar innovation, and whether East German Zeiss or the Russians did it first I don't know.
As for the f2.8 Elmar, clearly the design could be extended to that speed and Leitz would have been uncompetitive in the 50's with a 3.5. But uncompetitive would have been with the Japanese by then, rather than the Russians.
Wulfthari
Well-known
For what I can see the comparison is between the 2.8 Elmar adn the I-22 and the I-50 (collapsable design) because they are similar looking lenses that be used in the same application, at this point the I-61 should be considered a competitor to the rigid Summicron.
I'm afraid that any comparison between the f3.5 Elmar and the I-22 or the I-50 would be unforgiving for the Leitz lenses unless the Soviet lens is uncoated....but I assume we are talking about different things because you cite "commercial competition" and "prestige German firm", while I'm talking about using a I-22 or a I-50 on a Leica M3 and if you can get good results in comparison with the f2.8 Elmar, in short "the I-22 or the I-50 as a substitute fo the Elmar for a pocket crushable lens application".
Scrambler
Well-known
Wulfthari, we seem to be having a dispute over definitions, not lenses. I am considering comparable optical designs and I thought the question was who designed what when and how lenses test, as per the OP. You are considering form factor and use on an M3.
4 element, 3 group lenses cannot be as highly corrected as those with more groups. So I do not believe that the Tessar design I-61, even with L/D glass, is equivalent to a rigid Summicron, except for approximate external dimensions. And then the Summicron is built to a higher standard of lens mount (as well as lens design). And is 1 stop faster.
I can't find a direct comparison - something for someone to do - but I suggest you check Erwin Puts on the topic of the Elmar f2.8 (and others, but it's the Elmar we are discussing) - http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...=PmM-Yyp4GFUi_m_NT0XJMg&bvm=bv.55123115,d.aWc
The nearest comparison I could find: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113110
So if you are considering form factor only, yes, the collapsible Soviet lenses are all equivalent to the F3.5 Elmar, because they collapse as far as it does. They beat the f2.8 Elmar because they collapse further...
I am of course being silly.
Leitz coated their Elmars after the war. That gives more than 10 years of f3.5 Elmars before the first f2.8.
If you believe Erwin Puts (and most people do) the later Elmar-M is the one to go for.
4 element, 3 group lenses cannot be as highly corrected as those with more groups. So I do not believe that the Tessar design I-61, even with L/D glass, is equivalent to a rigid Summicron, except for approximate external dimensions. And then the Summicron is built to a higher standard of lens mount (as well as lens design). And is 1 stop faster.
I can't find a direct comparison - something for someone to do - but I suggest you check Erwin Puts on the topic of the Elmar f2.8 (and others, but it's the Elmar we are discussing) - http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...=PmM-Yyp4GFUi_m_NT0XJMg&bvm=bv.55123115,d.aWc
The nearest comparison I could find: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113110
So if you are considering form factor only, yes, the collapsible Soviet lenses are all equivalent to the F3.5 Elmar, because they collapse as far as it does. They beat the f2.8 Elmar because they collapse further...
I am of course being silly.
Leitz coated their Elmars after the war. That gives more than 10 years of f3.5 Elmars before the first f2.8.
If you believe Erwin Puts (and most people do) the later Elmar-M is the one to go for.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Every time I read threads like this I realise how incredibly lucky I have been with all my "Made in USSR" lenses. And I use them in the CL and M2 as well as the original bodies.
Regards, David
Every time I read threads like this I realise how incredibly lucky I have been with all my "Made in USSR" lenses. And I use them in the CL and M2 as well as the original bodies.
Regards, David
Wulfthari
Well-known
boomguy57
Well-known
Pardon my extreme ignorance on this topic but I've long been interested mn the FSU lenses. However, there are some things that I've read/heard:
1. Some of the FSU ltm lenses won't focus correctly on the rica due to how they were manufactured. Is this true? http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/entry/a-guide-to-russian-ltm-lenses-part-2
2. I'm never sure what state they will be in when they arrive from who knows where off of eBay. Who can work on these old lenses? What technicians would people recommend? Or better yet, how can you find copies that are in good condition without a CLA needed?
1. Some of the FSU ltm lenses won't focus correctly on the rica due to how they were manufactured. Is this true? http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/entry/a-guide-to-russian-ltm-lenses-part-2
2. I'm never sure what state they will be in when they arrive from who knows where off of eBay. Who can work on these old lenses? What technicians would people recommend? Or better yet, how can you find copies that are in good condition without a CLA needed?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I like how each part has its own page. Nicely done.
How is aperture size on the brighter I-26 comparing to J-8? May be it is opening larger...
Pitty, it seems your I-50 is "done" due to this issue with front element.
I sold my collapsible one. It was sharp. But not so good in build quality. Non-collapsible I-50 which just came couple of weeks ago on Z-6 is more interesting optically, but aperture ring and focus ring are too close to each other.
My FED 50 3.5 sits very good on Bessa R.
FED 50 3.5 on Bessa R. by Ko.Fe., on Flickr
But once sun is lower and it is near the frame it is terrible on light catching.
Heavy-Light Beam. by Ko.Fe., on Flickr
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Most competent technicians can and do work with lenses all the time. The can be easily recalibrated to work with any other camera body, if necessary.
My 2d worth is to suggest you buy the best looking one you can find and then get it sorted out, if any work is needed after a film test. Work on lenses doesn't cost the earth; a repair to my Leica M2's standard lens and the part needed cost me UKP20 a year or two back and a cleaning and checking of an Elmar from 1939 cost about UKP 15 a few years ago. I've not had any work done on an ex-USSR lens and so can't comment but my ones only date from about 1936 to 1996 and were bought in flea markets, charity shops and off of ebay.
BTW, a lot of people like me think they work and work well and a lot think they don't and threads like this just run and run and run. What you should bear in mind is that we are talking about second-hand lenses and their history has a lot to do with their condition but just how do you find out their history? I only know the history of two of my ones.
Regards, David
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
FSU lenses are in general, good performers, and can be an excellent bargain, but a bit of care is required. Looking at your two points:
1. Yes, there is a fundamental difference between the FSU lenses and those made by Canon, Leica etc as explained in your article- the 51 vs 52mm standard. In reality, this difference is in most cases of no consequence except for the fastest lenses, J3 and J9, and is usually overwhelmed by the unit-to-unit variability caused by original manufacturing variations and the hard knocks of the last 60 years. VERY early FED lenses like the first interchangeable Leitz lenses, were not manufactured to an exactly-controlled flange-to-film distance, and so may not focus properly. Any coated lens will be way past this problem.
2. Most cameras and lenses from Russian or Ukraine sellers on ebay are just fine for use. I limit myself to vendors with a fairly high feedback score, and will avoid ones selling fakes without making it very clear in the text that they are indeed fakes and being sold as such. And concerning the condition, if it is not spelled out in detail in the listing, just ask them specific questions- Does the lens focus smoothly? Is the aperture smooth but not loose? Is the lens free of scratches, fog, mold, and "cleaning marks"? If they answer your questions, you have the information you need. If they don't- don't buy from them. FSU vendors know they have to fight an uphill battle about customer perception of quality, and they will jump through all sorts of hoops rather than receive negative feedback on ebay. I have almost never bought a lemon from these vendors by following these simple rules.
The FSU lenses are in no way of the same quality as ones from Leitz, but in almost every case they are quite good enough for the job at hand. I would love to believe that my photography is so good that I will always be able to notice the small improvement to be found in using a $3000 lens rather than an $80 one, but sadly that isn't often the case. The best lens for the picture is always the one you have with you, and you can miss a lot of opportunities for fine pictures saving for ten years to buy the ultimate in optical perfection.
Cheers,
Dez
mburns
Established
Boomguy67,
So, after studying your linked article, all this discussion of shimming Jupiter lens for use on a Leica reduces to a 1.4% back focus. The manual remedy for this is to reset the rangefinder result to 98.6% of the measured distance. Try the manual remedy in order to see that this correction is quite small.
So, after studying your linked article, all this discussion of shimming Jupiter lens for use on a Leica reduces to a 1.4% back focus. The manual remedy for this is to reset the rangefinder result to 98.6% of the measured distance. Try the manual remedy in order to see that this correction is quite small.
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
I suspect you are quoting the 98.6% number with tongue in cheek, but even if it were practical to measure distances to that accuracy, there is just too much variation from unit to unit. The usual simple shimming mod can correct the close-focusing accuracy, often at the expense of infinity focus. Getting them both right is rather difficult. Since the J3 and J9 usually back-focus, there is a fairly easy way to get the close focus shim right. Simply unscrew the optical unit slightly from the focus mount until the true focus lines up at the distance indicated by the rangefinder, note the amount of rotation needed to do this, and multiply the fraction of a turn by the thread pitch, which as I recall is 1mm. That will tell you the amount of shimming you need to add.
Cheers,
Dez
Cheers,
Dez
mburns
Established
I would rather, then, that any lens be calibrated at infinity for either Leica or FSU cameras. It seems that my copy of an Industar-61 was correctly calibrated, as well as any other small camera lens in my possession, before it was exported to me from Ukraine.