Which FSU Lens to Choose for my Lieca II...

R

RanceEric

The name is Rance
Local time
9:27 AM
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
681
Hey everyone,

I recently aquired a beautiful b.p. Leica II from Cal. Until I can afford to get a Leica lens, I want to pick a Russian copy to play with. I'm torn between the Industar-22 (collapsible Tessar copy) or the Jupiter 8 (Sonnar copy)... I've never used either and would love to see shots taken with them.

Thanks!
 
Word of warning: while all Jupiters I ever owned fit my Barnack bodies seamlessly, the Industar-61s I had never fully threaded into a Leica Barnack body.

I'm a Sonnar fan anyway so I was okay with that:D

Currently I have a Sonnar Krasnogorsk (Jupiter-8 predecessor) on my chrome Leica II and it looks the world! A perfect combo!
 
The collapsable Industar 22 will look like it always belonged on your Leica II and it is a good performer.
 
I LOVE my I-22, the one I currently have is super sharp and clean as a whistle tho. It's just as good as it's German twin. Keep in mind that with FSU, youre milage may vary. Ive had a few others and some were ok and some where total crap.
 
I got a I-50 for my IIIF and it is perfect. I was actually looking for elmar in similar vintage but after researching the consensus is that the FSU collapsibles are a better option, both in price and optics. While it is very hard to find elmar in good optics, not as hard for the FSU ones. In addition, Tessar formula with aperture blades located closer to the mount with coated optics result in high resolution and resistance to flare.

I also like Jupiter 3 but it does not look or feel as good on leica screwmount bodies as collapsible lenses or small footprint lenses.
 
What Frank said. An Industar 22 or 50 and a Jupiter 8 . I've got an I22 and an older J8 with a focusing tab and they are both wonderful. Good Luck and Enjoy. Joe
 
Get both! If you can find a J3 for a good price, consider it instead of the J8... It's as good (or even better) at all apertures as the J8 + you get all the f1.5 Sonnar magic!
It's quite small and it looks nice on a screwmount Leica :cool:

Also worth considering: a Jupiter-12... but you'll need an extra viewfinder for 35mm.
 
I'd say get a J-8. Most copies are usually pretty good, don't need shimming to work on a Leica, and don't cost much at all.

Classique said:
I got a I-50 for my IIIF and it is perfect. I was actually looking for elmar in similar vintage but after researching the consensus is that the FSU collapsibles are a better option, both in price and optics. While it is very hard to find elmar in good optics, not as hard for the FSU ones. In addition, Tessar formula with aperture blades located closer to the mount with coated optics result in high resolution and resistance to flare...
Click to expand...

I would not agree with the above comment that the I-22s and Fed collapsible lenses are a better option than an elmar. Far from it. First you have to "get a good one", then I suppose, they can be OK. Their mount feels and looks like something someone cast in their backyard, and their threads can be a a poor match to Leicas if you get an early one. Here is a test I did between a coated Elmar and Fed (I mistakenly called it an I-10 back then), both with decent, coated glass. The Elmar is markedly better. I no longer use FSU F3.5 lenses, I've tried a bunch.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113110
 
What Frank said. And what buzzardkid said, too!
J-3 lenses can be very good but finding one that is sorted to use on a Leica is more difficult
than finding a good I-22, I-50, or J-8.
Filters and hoods--should you want/need 'em--will be easier to get for the J-8.
Rob
 
I have an I50 which I love. I couldn't tell the difference between shots from it and an Elmar so the I50 stayed. I had a J8 but eventually picked up a J3 instead. In hindsight, I would have been totally happy sticking with the J8.

For me, the main advantage of the I22/I50 is the compact size. It comes at a big ergonomic cost though as the aperture is much harder to easily adjust than the J8/J3. If I had to pick only one, I'd probably go for a good J8.

The other challenge with these lenses is finding on which matches your camera body. The early Industars seem much less likely to focus correctly than the later I22/I50s. My J8 was very slightly off but not enough that it ever bothered me.
 
goamules said:
I'd say get a J-8. Most copies are usually pretty good, don't need shimming to work on a Leica, and don't cost much at all.



I would not agree with the above comment that the I-22s and Fed collapsible lenses are a better option than an elmar. Far from it. First you have to "get a good one", then I suppose, they can be OK. Their mount feels and looks like something someone cast in their backyard, and their threads can be a a poor match to Leicas if you get an early one. Here is a test I did between a coated Elmar and Fed (I mistakenly called it an I-10 back then), both with decent, coated glass. The Elmar is markedly better. I no longer use FSU F3.5 lenses, I've tried a bunch.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113110
Click to expand...

Not to flame but that comparison isn't really valid. That Industar seems to have issues resulting in flare (similar to what you would see in Jupiter 3 wide open). The I-50 I got from Fedka does not flare even if I try to make it by placing a strong light source near the edge of the frame.

Get the elmar if you want an authentic match but only if it is priced right, clean, and the coated version. Otherwise, get I-22/50 for much less and more money left for film!
 
Most importantly, get a lens that is clean and functional. :) Condition is more important than in many cases than which lens was originally better, etc.
 
The decision is the same as the decision between an Elmar and a Summitar, except at one fifth the price.

For a slim, pocketable camera with a slow lens, go for the I-22 or I-50. For a somewhat bulkier camera with a fast lens, go for the J8. In either case you will be happy with the results if you are fairly careful and get one in good shape.

Don't feel bad if you can't decide. Neither can most of us on the list, who typically use both.

Cheers,
Dez
 
I think I'm going to go with the I-22. I don't really need a fast lens for my Leica (wouldn't be the camera I use for low light, that's for sure.) and I love the look of the collapsible lenses on the Leica. Since they're so cheap, I probably will end up getting both, but I'll just play with the Elmar copy first..

Now I just need to wait for its new leatherette to come in so I can recover this beauty. Feels good to have a Leica again! (I'll be posting photos once the setup is complete)

Thanks for the input everyone!
 
Another vote for Fedka. I have two I-22 lenses from Yuri, 1950 vintage, and they've worked fine on my IIf with Tri-X and BW400CN. Nice condition, fit well on the screw mount, very sharp. He also supplied a KMZ push-on yellow filter in excellent condition.
 
RanceEric said:
I think I'm going to go with the I-22. I don't really need a fast lens for my Leica (wouldn't be the camera I use for low light, that's for sure.) and I love the look of the collapsible lenses on the Leica. Since they're so cheap, I probably will end up getting both, but I'll just play with the Elmar copy first..

Now I just need to wait for its new leatherette to come in so I can recover this beauty. Feels good to have a Leica again! (I'll be posting photos once the setup is complete)

Thanks for the input everyone!
Click to expand...

Good choice. The camera is wonderfully compact with such a collapsible lens.

Then keep you eye out for a J8 faster 50, and a J12 35mm lens.
 
Classique said:
Not to flame but that comparison isn't really valid. That Industar seems to have issues resulting in flare (similar to what you would see in Jupiter 3 wide open). The I-50 I got from Fedka does not flare even if I try to make it by placing a strong light source near the edge of the frame.

Get the elmar if you want an authentic match but only if it is priced right, clean, and the coated version. Otherwise, get I-22/50 for much less and more money left for film!
Click to expand...
That FSU lens did need a clean, so it flared. But if you look at the closeups, the Elmar is much sharper, flare aside. You said earlier it's "hard to find a clean Elmar" which I don't agree with. And FSU lenses have been treated a LOT worse over the years than quality Elmars, many are beat after rattling around in boxes in Russian flea markets for the past couple decades.

Classique said:
...I was actually looking for elmar in similar vintage but after researching the consensus is that the FSU collapsibles are a better option, both in price and optics...
Click to expand...
Exactly where did you hear that?! There's no consensus on that hypothesis. A $20 lens has better optics than the original it's copying?! The Elmar is considered the classic Leica lens. Probably the sharpest, and much revered for half a century. I'm usually not convinced Leica glass is worth the money, so usually like FSU. But with the 50/3.5 copies I must say the Elmars are better than the copies. I believe in putting your money where your mouth is. A few years ago I'd read posts like yours, that the I-22 was "just as good." But I had to see for myself, so I tested one. Today, you've talked me into testing 2 more. Again, the Elmar is better. Can you prove different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom