FSU lenses compared to Leica - please discuss

[Florian1234]

Hello,

I just had a discussion with a fellow photographer. She owns a DSLR and a film-SLR and said the real Leica lenses would be way better than the FSU copies.

To what exstand is this right? I mean, are the real ones way more sharp? Do they focus better?

I tried to explain to her that I want to buy a set of filters for my camera (Fed-2) and she did not understand because it would just be wasted money.:rolleyes:

Please give me some comments on this, guys. :D

[Roger Hicks]

FSU lenses for RF cameras are copies of pre-WW2 Zeiss designs (not Leica) with extremely wobbly quality control. Current Leica designs are much more modern with better glasses, computer-aided design and much better quality control.

This is absolutely nothing to do with buying filters so I don't quite understand her point.

Cheers,

R.

[Florian1234]

Thanks Roger,

neither do I understand her point. But maybe that's just looking down from her SLR perspective. Not that I want to start a basic discussion here - Lord, no.

Her "point" was basically "don't waste money on that stuff". But it takes cool photos, as you know.

[wolves3012]

The real Leica lenses, as I understand it, are not "way sharper". Russian lenses are slated largely because they were cheap (subsidised), and hence carry no snob value. Don't confuse cheap with poor, it's not always the case. Your FED 2 has (presumably) an Industar 26; it'd be hard to find a significantly sharper lens.

Sounds to me like she's a bit of a snob, I wouldn't worry over it. If you want to buy a set of filters, go ahead since it's your money that will be "wasted" not hers. Whom will it make happy? Ignore her and indulge as you see fit, it's not for others to criticise your choice in such a matter.

One other thing to consider: the photographer makes the photo as much as any equipment does. Even the lowest quality camera can be used to make interesting pictures. Your FED 2, however, isn't in the "low quality" category.

[Uwe_Nds]

Well Florian,

Leica lenses are better than the old FSU glass, but I doubt that they are 20 or 30 times better.

And also, we are talking about FSU lenses minimum 20 years old - if not older.
In my opinion, a '60ies Jupiter-8 or Industar 61 holds up quite well against a '50/'60ies Leica lens and all of them still can be very fine performers, if maintained and adjusted properly!

It is most probably a mix of both wobbly QC (as Roger mentioned) and lack of maintenance and adjustment if a Russian lens does not perform well.

Just don't believe your fellow photographer! ;-)

Best regards,
Uwe

[wolves3012]

Thanks Roger,

neither do I understand her point. But maybe that's just looking down from her SLR perspective. Not that I want to start a basic discussion here - Lord, no.

Her "point" was basically "don't waste money on that stuff". But it takes cool photos, as you know.
Ask her a simple question: In 20 years time, will her all-singing, all-dancing DSLR still be working? Your FED is already older than that. If it is working, will it still be in use, or will it be a piece of worthless, outdated rubbish? You could also ask how good the pictures are when she's miles from anywhere and the batteries poop out...

Or you could ignore the snobbery and carry on enjoying the FED.

[Florian1234]

Thanks guys, so I think I was right to assume that she's kind of a SLR snob.:D

Btw, I will take a photography course in March. Curious if it will bring results to increase quality of my shots.

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks Roger,

neither do I understand her point. But maybe that's just looking down from her SLR perspective. Not that I want to start a basic discussion here - Lord, no.

Her "point" was basically "don't waste money on that stuff". But it takes cool photos, as you know.
Dear Florian,

Exactly. If you like the results, they're great lenses -- and filters make just as much difference as with Leica lenses.

I had a 50/2 once that was assembled so badly you could hear and see one of the elements flopping too and fro inside the cell. It still worked, surprisingly well.

They are not very sharp, because the purpose of the Sonnar design (50/1.5, 50/2, 85/2) was to maximize contrast, even at the expense of resolution -- and, as I say, they are 70-year-old designs, and it would be a bit odd if they were as good as today's lenses. The contemporary Leica designs had more resolution and less contrast. And they're not as good as later designs either...

In other words, don't let the snobs persuade you they're useless -- but don't let the reverse snobs persuade you that they are superb lenses, either. If they were put together right (many weren't) they were very good lenses for their day, but their day was a long time ago. The only one I'd call good was the 135/4; the worst, by a long chalk, was the 20/4. But both the 85/2 and 50/2 are great, if you like the look.

Cheers,

R.

[nzeeman]

here is one small test between jupiter and summicron. there is no differences in my opinion.
http://www.ragarecords.com/photo/index.html

[varjag]

First generation Summilux is not a better lens than Jupiter-3, and I've got negs from both. Then there is collapsible Summicron, which I never used but nearly all wide-open examples posted are underwhelming.

These are 1950s lenses, from 1960 and on there is clear improvement.

[oscroft]

Don't worry about the quality of images from your FSU lenses Florian.
Many Leica owners use Jupiter and Industar lenses.
I'm one of them - two of my favourite lenses are my Jupiter-8 50/2 and my Industar 50/3.5, and I use both of them on my M6. (I think I paid about $20 for the J-8, and the Industar came with a Zorki-6 that cost me about $30).

Just use the lenses you enjoy using and which give you results you like.

[giovatony]

Maybe a good time for me to interject this.
I`ve been shooting FSU`s for a few months now and have been thrilled with the quality of pictures and just as thrilled shooting with my Kievs, Zorki`s and the Fed 2.equipped with Soviet lenses.
So much that I decided to step up to the more costly world of Leica because I felt the overall experience just had to be even better than with a FSU so I bought a nice looking recently CLA`d Leica IIIf. (not cheap)

Yesterday I shot a test roll of film with it and the results were really very good using with my Jupiter 8 , Industar 22, and Fed 50 lenses all performed admirably. Detail was excellent as usual but certainly not any better than pictures from any of these lenses used with my FSU`s. Obviously the lenses will produce pretty much the same pictures regardless of what brand camera they are attached to.
I was however quite dissaponted in the camera itself. Mainly with the VF and the RF focussing itself. Although the VF glass was clean and clear and the RF accurate , my Zorki 2C is better , especially in the darker situations . The Barnack Leicas are absolutely no match for my Kievs . I can see why Contax was such tough competition for Leica at that time but that`s for another time and story.
Not having any Leica glass I am not qualified to comment on a comparison . I would expect Leica glass to be among the best since you have to spend so much hard earned cash to own one.
That said , I know perfectly well what a sharp picture looks like and I can recognize the effects of distortion, flare and contrast. My experience with the many FSU lenses I have clearly shows me they are undoubtedly one of the best bargains (if not the best) that can be found on the entire Ebay scene.
For her to imply they are a waste of money is nothing more than ignorance.
John

[Brian Sweeney]

I wonder how many people could have picked the J-8 out from its Japanese and German contemporaries in my "ultra-boring test" if I had not labeled each lens:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53811&page=1

[Florian1234]

Thanks to all of you for your contribution to this. Especially to Roger, and Brian: must have took some time to make this test.

I think I'll make a deal with Yuri of Fedka soon. :angel:

[gb hill]

Florian, One of my favorite lens has become the black Industar 61 off of my Fed5. It's now on my Bessa R and gets more use as of late than my 35/2.5 color skopar or my elmar 50/3.5. Don't pay any attention to others, just shoot and be happy.

[Brian Sweeney]

My Industar 61L/D will have to wait until my Nikon RF test of Ten 50mm lenses on the Nikon SP.

It's a great lens. I modified it for the Nikon Mount.

[DoxLeica]

Hi All,

I've used many FSU lenses and while some are rather poor (a trait that can be utilized even if by plain dumb luck) others are amazing. Here's a shot with an Orion 15 (28mm). As you can see, rather amazing!

J.

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=302213092&albumID=503928&imageID=3119753

[Brian Sweeney]

Can't make a LTM J-9 into Kiev mount. But they are not expensive! Have one of each.

[wolves3012]

I've been searching for a J9 in Kiev mount for ages.
They're all in the States and these guys won't ship to Europe:bang:
One went for £30 or so on Ebay, earlier today...silver version, I was tempted.

[skahde]

:bang::bang::bang: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150211336737

On topic: The best FSU lenses approach sharpness and resolution of some Leica lenses of the mandler era. But colour and flare resistance of the Leica lenses has always ben one step ahead of what I see from the FSU gear. There may be exceptions but roundabout I think that is all there is.

Stefan

[wolves3012]

Hey Wolves, Do you think there are significant quality differences between the silver and later black Jupiters, generally, 8s, 9s and 12s ?


pitxu. pitxu,

I don't own a J-9 (sadly), never mind several to compare! I have only a black J-12 in LTM and a silver in Kiev-mount and I don't notice any difference in photos. In J-8 I have several: black LTM, silver LTM and Kiev-mount. Both the silver LTMs have a lot of fine cleaning marks, too many to make a fair comparison against the black ones. For black LTM vs silver Kiev, again I see no difference. I have one black LTM that Kim Coxon adjusted for me, to go on my IIIC, but I've yet to try it. It was certainly "off" on the IIIC, however.

So, to sum that up, apart from the possibly-off black LTM J-8, no I haven't noticed a difference.

[Nando]

I have a J3 "Brianov" and love it. I really like the "Sonnar look" it gives and the fact that it is so compact for a fast lens. I use it on my Leica bodies all the time.

[Brian Sweeney]

On the J-3's, I find the 50s and 60s lenses to be sharper than the 80s lenses. I have used several Black J-3's from the mid 80s. I replaced the front element of a 1959 J-3 in LTM with one from a 1986 lens with very good results. My feel is the optics are on par with the earlier lenses, but the optical fixtures were simplified and did not allow as much fine adjustment.

[brachal]

One point about filters -- FSU lens or otherwise ...

I like to have a UV or clear glass filter on my lenses. It's kept me from putting dirty thumbprints on the front element of my Jupiter-3 at least twice. That alone makes it worthwhile in my mind.

[shadowfox]

Hello,

I just had a discussion with a fellow photographer. She owns a DSLR and a film-SLR and said the real Leica lenses would be way better than the FSU copies.

To what exstand is this right? I mean, are the real ones way more sharp? Do they focus better?

I tried to explain to her that I want to buy a set of filters for my camera (Fed-2) and she did not understand because it would just be wasted money.:rolleyes:

Please give me some comments on this, guys. :D

I can give you some shots from a dinky FED 50/3.5 LTM. You can ask for samples from Elmar from other forum members. And then show those pictures to her, let her pick out which one is from a "crappy" FSU lens and which one from a Leitz lens.

I'd be interested how would she fare?

[Valkir1987]

Two lenses of the same kind, are alway's different. Not every piece of glass is the same. Modern (expensive) lenses have minor quality differences and offer a high resolution. But sometimes I don't want tecnically perfect images, its how the image draws on the print in the sharp and unsharp fields. Some old lenses can create an atmosphere modern lenses can't. You can read the philosophy about it in some leica books.

I'm very satisfied with the results of the Fed 3,5, uncoated and coated versions. I also like the industar 61 and the Jupiter 8m. I tried my Fathers Summar as wel, but not to often.

[ruben]

Hi Florian,

I will throw here an "educated guess", out of common sense.

I assume Leica lenses are really "outstanding", but perhaps too pricy for their quality.

I know that Soviet lenses are very good, but too underpriced for their real quality. According to my statistics there is a chance of 10% a Soviet lens you buy will be crappy, and 15% it will be "superb", while all the remaining in the middle will range from "good" to "very good".

Now, in order to state that buying Soviet lenses will be a waist of money, you have to own such a budget, that not only Soviet lenses will be a waist of money but many others as well. This is a viewpoint of "all or nothing", an extreme viewpoint, and therefore a mistaken one.

Cheers,
Ruben

[Roger Hicks]

I can give you some shots from a dinky FED 50/3.5 LTM. You can ask for samples from Elmar from other forum members. And then show those pictures to her, let her pick out which one is from a "crappy" FSU lens and which one from a Leitz lens.

I'd be interested how would she fare?
Depends on whether they are test targets or real photographs...

In black and white in particular, by the time you have allowed for grain, camera shake, focus, etc., it can be VERY hard to tell what lens you use for which picture, except for unusually bad lenses (worse than most competently made lenses from the former FSU, for a start). In tranny it's a bit easier -- you can see 'signature' in some shots -- but how many people shoot tranny nowadays? I've not shot a single roll in 2008, though there's plenty waiting in the 'fridge..

There's also the question of aperture: differences between a 35/2.8 FSU and a 35 Summicron will be a lot greater at f/2.8 than at f/8. And the question of focal length: the wider the lens, the lower the quality, is a fair rule of thumb for FSU. The 135/4 is excellent, the 85/2 and 50/2 are good, the 35/2.8 indifferent, the 28/6 perhaps a fraction better, and the 20/5.6 awful.

Sure, I prefer Leica lenses: faster handling, better ergonomics, more durable under hard use, better lubricated, better flare suppression (especially under demanding circumstances), and under the right conditions I can see extra quality; but it has to be the right conditions.

Cheers,

R.

[Spider67]

To come back to you original question:
It's very comforting to have simple answers like "Russian stuff bad/Western stuff good" aka "My stuff/yourStuff". The thing is just to compare photographs. Invite her to a photowalk each of you with an FSU RF and the compare results. As this is clearly to reasonable it won't happen. Thus said enjoy using your FSU gear and buy with care.

[Tegla]

If i can afford i would have complete Leica MP ala carte system. Starting with Noctilux :)
I'm very happy with my Kiev system of 4 bodies and few Jupiters, few Zeiss lenses and one Helios 103. My favourite at this moment is Helios 103 53/1.8. SCARY SHARP lens.
For comparision i have one Leic R4 with 50/2 Summicron, and i don't see big difference than Jupiter 8M or Helios 103. They are all great performers.
And because i play with Kiev since i was 10yrs old, i gave up Leica R. :eek:

[pfoto]

On the J-3's, I find the 50s and 60s lenses to be sharper than the 80s lenses. I have used several Black J-3's from the mid 80s.Before I bought any FSU lenses I did a fair amount of research and the general concensus is that FSU lenses from the 50's and 60's seem to be better made and more reliable than others. I have a J-8 and a J-11 from that period and they are both very good. The J-8 is not so well made but the J-11 is perfect; a terrific lens. Not quite as good as my Leica TE but it's a 1/4 of the weight so it goes into my travel bag every time. The only test I've ever done is an Elmar 50/3.5 and a FED 50/3.5 and they were indistinguishable, I was amazed. The Elmar cost $149 and the FED was $20. I use all my FSU lenses on Leica bodies with no problems. My sense is that the FSU optics are truly excellent but the mechanics less so.

[shadowfox]

Depends on whether they are test targets or real photographs...

In black and white in particular, by the time you have allowed for grain, camera shake, focus, etc., it can be VERY hard to tell what lens you use for which picture, except for unusually bad lenses (worse than most competently made lenses from the former FSU, for a start). In tranny it's a bit easier -- you can see 'signature' in some shots -- but how many people shoot tranny nowadays? I've not shot a single roll in 2008, though there's plenty waiting in the 'fridge..

There's also the question of aperture: differences between a 35/2.8 FSU and a 35 Summicron will be a lot greater at f/2.8 than at f/8. And the question of focal length: the wider the lens, the lower the quality, is a fair rule of thumb for FSU. The 135/4 is excellent, the 85/2 and 50/2 are good, the 35/2.8 indifferent, the 28/6 perhaps a fraction better, and the 20/5.6 awful.

Sure, I prefer Leica lenses: faster handling, better ergonomics, more durable under hard use, better lubricated, better flare suppression (especially under demanding circumstances), and under the right conditions I can see extra quality; but it has to be the right conditions.

Cheers,

R.

Thank you Roger, that's part of my point, how often do we have the luxury to control all the above variables? To me, that determines how far the opinion holds true.

There is no doubt in my mind that different lenses exhibit different results. Although one thing that FSU excel at is reproducing the results from the lenses they copy the design from.

[Florian1234]

A big thank you to all contributors to this topic. I think - that's what I did before, but I had a lack of arguments for the fellow "photographer" (basically she takes photos of flowers and from an ant's perspective ;) not that bad, but not really my cup of tea, if I'm allowed to say so).

So I'm getting more and more into the topic of FSU stuff, but somehow I'd like to have a Bessa R2A or similar - problem is (as nearly everywhere in life) the budget. I think in two months or so I could go for it.
Meanwhile using the Fed-2, or at least I try to since we again have rain, rain and rain. :bang:

[Roger Hicks]

Thank you Roger, that's part of my point, how often do we have the luxury to control all the above variables? To me, that determines how far the opinion holds true.

There is no doubt in my mind that different lenses exhibit different results. Although one thing that FSU excel at is reproducing the results from the lenses they copy the design from.
Dear Will,

We are of one mind on the first paragraph. On the second, we agree insofar as they got it right (most of the time, at least to begin with). Remember the old Soviet-era saying, "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

Cheers,

R.

[dee]

I have several Ussr 50m lenses, plus a clean Elmar and uncoated Summiter.
Some will not mount on the adapter of my M 8 , the Industar infinity lock jams , but Fed '' clip '' Elmar copies do .

Others are out of register with all my Leicas ...

BUT one humble as new Fed 50/ F 3.5 clip collapsible is absolutely stunning on my M 8 - it's as if a light comes on .. it may or may not be ''sharp'' in '' as - sharp - as - my kiev Helios '' , but the atmosphere beats both Leica lenses and my J 8 .

Frankly I was amazed and stunned !

I would have no porblem using a balck j 8 on my M 8 - it a heck of a lot lighter too !

dee

[Dogman]

I have three FSU lenses in LTM I use with adapters on Leica M bodies. They are "okay" but they have nowhere near the sharpness, "look" or build of the older Leitz and newer Cosina-Voigtlander M-mount lenses I use. It's not an issue for me--I use them mostly at smaller apertures and they do a satisfactory job. They do perform significantly better than their price would lead one to believe. I also have numerous J-8 and Helios 50mm lenses in Contax/Kiev mount. Most of them do a fine job at smaller apertures but not so well wide open. I bought a couple of bargain Zeiss 50/2 Sonnar lenes with a few scratches and dings. They perform much better than the FSU lenses and those are the lenses I use on my Kievs.

Overall, I'd say FSU lenses are fine for their price but not outstanding in performance.

[raid]

I wonder how many people could have picked the J-8 out from its Japanese and German contemporaries in my "ultra-boring test" if I had not labeled each lens:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53811&page=1

In one of my earlier tests I had the images without labels, and some people here chose the images taken with my J-3 as "best".

[sovietleica]

When I started to ski, someone told me, Albert, there is not good and bad snow, there are good and bad skiers.
I believe that if we remove the part of the myth, between the Soviet and German lenses, there is not so much difference.
I live very happy with my Jupiter ... 9,8,3,11,12 I Orion-15 ... if my brain sees bad pictures, they take bad pictures, but if my brain sees good pictures, they take good pictures. Certainly, a good lens help, and Industar, Jupiter, Orion, are good lenses.
I have recently purchased a OLYMPUS-E510 (sacrilege!!! :eek: ) And use it with my Jupiter-9 and my Helios-44, M42 threaded adapter, with very good results.
Here they leave a link, at least curious.
http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/index.html#slr