Zenit-3M, What lenses to use?

[Sid836]

I have acquired yesterday a nice Zenit-3M with an Industar-50 lens on it for a mere nothing. When I got home, to my surprise, I could not fit to it the mint Industar-50 from my Zenit-B, I could fit to it a Jupiter-8, but could not focus. What am I doing wrong? I understand that it has not an M42 thread mount, but why my other M39 lenses cannot focus when attached to it?
Is there a specific set of lenses that can be used with it?

I would love using it. It looks nice, works as it should, but is there anything beyond that Industar-50 that I can use with it? It is as if that lens has been made exclusively for that camera!

 

[Peter de Waal]

The Zenit 3M is one of my favorite Soviet cameras. The 3M's mount is 39mm x 26 threads-per-inch (Leica screw), but with a back-focus distance of 45.2mm.

Sounds like your Zenit-B is late production with an M-42 mount, so naturally you can't spin the Zenit-B lens (M42) onto the 3M (M39). The hugely popular M42x1.0mm standard has a back-focus of 45.5mm. So beware when people say in ads that old M39 Zenit SLR lenses work on M42 cameras; they can, but only with quite some work. Maizenberg's book details the work needed to make a M39 Zenit lens operate correctly on an M42 body.

The Jupiter-8 is 39mm x 26 t.p.i. (Leica screw) with the standard Leica back focus of 28.8mm. Therefore it will only work in the macro range on a Zenit 3M.

The Zenit-C, 3 and 3M have the following lenses available for them: Mir 37mm f/2.8; Industar 50mm f/3.5, Helios 58mm f/2.0; Jupiter-9 85mm f/2.0, Jupiter-11 135mm f/3.5; Jupiter-6(?) 180mm f/2.8; Telear 200mm /5.6, Tair-3 300mm f/4.5 and a couple of longer mirror objectives.

Happy collecting!

 

[Sid836]

The difference to the back-focus distance among the M39 threaded lenses must be due to the fact that some lenses were made for rangefinder cameras and while 3M has a reflex mirror, its lens should compensate for the extra space in the back for that mirror. Am I correct?
Thank you very much for your invaluable help Peter! I like that camera a lot, and I will certainly replace the one it came with.

 

[wolves3012]

Because of the different working distance to accommodate the mirror-box, using a non-SLR lens is like fitting an extension tube but one that cannot be removed. You can use an RF lens but its focussing range is limited, doesn't correspond to the scale and only goes out to about 1.5m (135mm lens) or about 25cm (50mm lens). You cannot mount the Jupiter 12 35mm f/2.8 lens but the others should all fit.

The SLR lenses are often called M39 while the RF versions are often called L39 (Leica-39). If you look on the auction sites you will often see them mis-described as "for Leica/FED/Zorki" when they are actually SLR versions, with no coupling cam and no hope whatever of focussing at any distance. Caveat emptor!

 

[wolves3012]

I like that camera a lot, and I will certainly replace the one it came with.

Before you write off the I-50, try it out. You may be surprised! Although it's a bit slow, the I-50 is quite a sharp lens if you can live with f/3.5.

 

[locheeboy]

As said above, the flange focal distance/register is different for LTM (Leica thread mount), M39(Russian variation of LTM) and what should be referred to as ZM39. ZM39 is the correct term for FSU slr lenses with that thread mount. Some sellers use this term but many just say M39.

Some of these lenses are SLR lenses but it can be a minefield ascertaining them.

Ah have a Zenit 3M - ah use Helios 44 (silver and black/white versions). Helios 44-2, Industar and Volna are available in ZM39. Different focal lengths are also available. Try googling Russian lenses ebay.

You can use LTM/M39 RF lenses but they will only offer macro mode. A Jupiter 9 will give you close-up shooting - around half a metre. Handy but very limited - is it worth the premium?


A couple of links below but even the lens spec list is inaccurate in places.

Lens spec of Soviet-Russians

M39 lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ones to avoid 🙂

A Guide To Russian LTM Lenses - SLR Lens Review

 

[Peter de Waal]

The I-50 actually has the best performance of any Soviet standard lens: (centre/edge) I-50 = 38/22; cf. Helios-44 = 35/14.

Also, the Industar-50 only weighs about 45g, as compared to the 220g of the Helios-44.

The Zenit M39 Industar-50mm f/3.5 (Flange Focal Depth = 45.2mm) is actually identical to the range-finder Industar-50 (F.F.D. = 28.8mm), except that the RF version has a 16.4mm "extension tube" plus an internal coupling mechanism for the range-finder cam. It is possible to remove this "extension tube" from a FED or Zorki I-50 and use it on the M39 Zenit!

Somewhere there is a web page demonstrating this conversion. I think the early Zenit's are a marvelous piece of design. I intend to convert my Zenit 3M to instant-return mirror. I hear it can be done using the mechanism from a Zenit-E or TTL.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I have a Zenit 3M which I acquired last year from a local second hand market because I had designs on using its Helios 58mm f/2 lens with some of my M42 cameras. I'd written the Zenit body off as something not worth using, but on examination it seemed to be working well and appeared fairly well made, so I put a film through it, and surprised myself by loving it. It has its flaws, certainly, (such as no slow speeds, and viewfinder coverage rather less than 100%) but the plain ground glass screen is bright and snappy, and it's brilliant on a tripod, as the timer prefires the mirror a few seconds before the shutter actuates. In short, you have all you need to make images, and no distractions.

My example had a pinholed second curtain (no instant return mirror makes it more vulnerable than some SLRs to this occurring). A little liquid electrical tape soon sorted that. The black M39 Helios lens fitted to mine performs very well, and certainly compares favourably to the example I have of the CZJ 58mm f/2 Biotar it's said to be copied from.

I was kind enough to receive a Jupiter 11 lens in Zenit M39 mount offered in the Xmas giveaway thread and will be loading another film into the 3M soon. Both the Jupiter and the Helios are affordable and are worth acquiring, and there are plenty of sample images captured with them on the web (many of them digitally captured, but they demonstrate what they can do very well).

I'm not so sure about claims the Zenit M39 lenses can't be easily used on M42 SLRs, though. I have a cheap M39 -> M42 adapter acquired ex-ebay, and have used both the Zenit lenses on various M42 bodies with good results. In fact my recollection was that with the adapter fitted they could focus to infinity on most M42 bodies. So I've just fitted them to three M42 single lens reflexes ( Yashica TL Electro X; Olympus FTL; and Praktica FX). Doing an infinity test focussed on some distant house lights, and on some of the brighter stars visible this evening, both the Helios and the Jupiter appear to reach infinity on all those M42 bodies.

Regards,
Brett

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

It's not as complicated as it seems; the USSR in Stalin's days copied the Leica II and the Leica was made by a firm of microscope makers who worked to the old (1896) RMS spec for threads etc.

Then the Soviets improved things and simplified them. Plus the Contax works came into (legal) USSR ownership and so you had two threads running through Soviet camera design, which merged in the Zenits.

With the Zenits they basically took the FED/Zorki version of the Leica II and put a box on the front to let the mirror swing up without hitting the lens. Unlike (rant coming) a lot of people designing adapters for DSLR's to take old 35mm film lenses...

That meant shortening the lens barrel and doing away with the RF coupling, which is causing you problems.

So now we have the early Zenits as (roughly) a body and shutter based on what was copied from the Leica II, the shutter release position etc (and probably the DA) from the Contax II and the box on the front with a cut down version of the RF lens. And all of them improved by the Soviet engineers who weren't that stupid; f'instance the hinged back is blindingly obviously a good thing but... And they knew about screw gauges (cf Canon).

Then they added the lever wind, flash sync and, later on, used the M42 mounts, which their comrades in what was called East or the DR of Germany had standardised on. And that's the Zenit 3M and to complicate matters there's some labelled just plain "Zenit" that are 3M's.

All things considered a very interesting range of cameras. You need a carefully arranged photo showing them all from above to make sense of it easily.

Regards, David

PS If the repairer ever returns my Contax II I'll do the photograph.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Hi,

It's not as complicated as it seems; the USSR in Stalin's days copied the Leica II and the Leica was made by a firm of microscope makers who worked to the old (1896) RMS spec for threads etc.

Then the Soviets improved things and simplified them. Plus the Contax works came into (legal) USSR ownership and so you had two threads running through Soviet camera design, which merged in the Zenits.

With the Zenits they basically took the FED/Zorki version of the Leica II and put a box on the front to let the mirror swing up without hitting the lens. Unlike (rant coming) a lot of people designing adapters for DSLR's to take old 35mm film lenses...

That meant shortening the lens barrel and doing away with the RF coupling, which is causing you problems.

So now we have the early Zenits as (roughly) a body and shutter based on what was copied from the Leica II, the shutter release position etc (and probably the DA) from the Contax II and the box on the front with a cut down version of the RF lens. And all of them improved by the Soviet engineers who weren't that stupid; f'instance the hinged back is blindingly obviously a good thing but... And they knew about screw gauges (cf Canon).

Then they added the lever wind, flash sync and, later on, used the M42 mounts, which their comrades in what was called East or the DR of Germany had standardised on. And that's the Zenit 3M and to complicate matters there's some labelled just plain "Zenit" that are 3M's.

All things considered a very interesting range of cameras. You need a carefully arranged photo showing them all from above to make sense of it easily.

Regards, David

PS If the repairer ever returns my Contax II I'll do the photograph.

David,
my own 3M is actually badged as a "Global". The name Zenit doesn't appear anywhere on it. They were sold under the Global name in Australia, presumably for political reasons. I'd prefer a Cyrillic script version myself, but this one works well and is tidy enough, so that's the main thing I guess.
Regards,
Brett

 

[Sid836]

O.k. I have loaded it with a test film and try out the stock Industar-50 that came with it. I was considering replacing that lens because it had dust all over it and its aperture ring seems misplaced; it goes further away from f/16 when closing it down and stops before f/3.5 when opening up.
If I disassemble that lens for cleaning it up, would it need any sort of calibration?

 

[David Hughes]

David,
my own 3M is actually badged as a "Global". The name Zenit doesn't appear anywhere on it. They were sold under the Global name in Australia, presumably for political reasons. I'd prefer a Cyrillic script version myself, but this one works well and is tidy enough, so that's the main thing I guess.
Regards,
Brett

Hi,

That's what I love about old cameras you never quite get to the bottom of things.

But don't you wish we had some ex-USSR/Soviet based members on these forums?

Regards, David

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Hi,

That's what I love about old cameras you never quite get to the bottom of things.

But don't you wish we had some ex-USSR/Soviet based members on these forums?

Regards, David

For sure David.
The example I own looks identical to the one in the final photograph on this page.

Cheers,
Brett

 

[wolves3012]

O.k. I have loaded it with a test film and try out the stock Industar-50 that came with it. I was considering replacing that lens because it had dust all over it and its aperture ring seems misplaced; it goes further away from f/16 when closing it down and stops before f/3.5 when opening up.
If I disassemble that lens for cleaning it up, would it need any sort of calibration?

You would not need to calibrate it after cleaning. The I-50, especially the Zenit version, is very easy to disassemble. To clean the lens elements, unscrew the front block by turning the outer of the rings just around the front glass. The inner ring removes the front element alone from that block and the rear element comes out from the back. At that point you can also access the iris but I suggest you do nothing more than carefully removing dust from that. The aperture scale can be adjusted to correct the misalignment. When re-installing the front element, tighten the retaining ring until it loosely contacts the glass, then tap the assembly on a flat surface, glass-upwards. Tighten a little more, tap again and repeat until the glass is secure. That will centre the front element.

 

[Sid836]

Thank you very much for the advice. Now my Industar is clean inside out.
A silly question, is there a way to adjust the focussing tension? My problem now is that focussing is relatively easy and when I adjust the aperture, focus get of by a bit.

 

[archive59]

Hi,

That's what I love about old cameras you never quite get to the bottom of things.

But don't you wish we had some ex-USSR/Soviet based members on these forums?

Regards, David

The USSRPhoto Forum (www.ussrphoto.com) seems to concentrate a little more on the history side of FSU cameras than here. There does seem to be a cross over of members from both forums, but it is nowhere near as active as RFF. Brian (Sweeney) occasionally puts in an appearance there.

Cheers
Mark

 

[wolves3012]

Thank you very much for the advice. Now my Industar is clean inside out.
A silly question, is there a way to adjust the focussing tension? My problem now is that focussing is relatively easy and when I adjust the aperture, focus get of by a bit.

Yes, you can correct a loose focus - by re-lubricating the helical:

Look carefully at the knurled ring that you use to focus. There are 3 very small screws set into it (grub screws). Loosen them equally, a little at a time, until the whole focus collar comes off. Be very careful doing this, it is very easy to have them come out and be lost - work over a tray. After the collar is off, look at the thick ring just behind the aperture ring. You will see a cut-out there. Turn the focus almost to infinity and the stop-screw is aligned with the cut-out and can be removed. When the screw is out, turn the focus beyond infinity and make a careful note of how far it can turn until it stops; write it down.

Now you can unscrew the entire focus helical by simply turning anti-clockwise until it comes out. I cannot remember if the thread is a multi or single-entry type, so it would be wise to note the exact positions of the two parts as the thread comes free and to refit from that position afterwards. Clean the old grease from both parts of the helical and re-grease with something like a white lithium cycle-grease. Don't overdo the grease, just use enough to coat both parts lightly. Don't use a thick, heavyweight grease either or the focus will be stiff.

Just reassemble by reversing the procedures above. Be sure to screw the focus back in until it stops, then back it out by your noted amount and install the stop-screw. When re-fitting the focus collar, be sure to re-align the scales correctly before tightening the tiny screws - and do not tighten them too tight, they do not need much force to grip.

 

[Sid836]

Thank you very much for your advice! Now my Industar feels just like I wanted on my Zenit-3M.
It took me a while because it has been my first time messing with lenses disassembly, but thanks to your advice it has been successful!

Thank you!

 

[David Hughes]

The USSRPhoto Forum (www.ussrphoto.com) seems to concentrate a little more on the history side of FSU cameras than here. There does seem to be a cross over of members from both forums, but it is nowhere near as active as RFF. Brian (Sweeney) occasionally puts in an appearance there.

Cheers
Mark

Hi,

That's interesting, I'll have a look at them.

Regards, David