FED & ZORKIS with 'Quality' lenses?

[SCOTFORTHLAD]

Just musing on this Saturday afternoon, and recalling my approach in the past when I took up an SLR for the first time.

Being a dyed-in-the wool cheapskate,I resolved that cheap and basic M42 bodies,ie.Zeniths and Prakticas would serve me well,but that I should attach to them as good quality lenses as I could afford.Hence many years of success with 3 used Pentax Takumar prime lenses--35,55 and 135.

I now have three nice FSU rangefinders,at extremely low cost,plus the highly recommended J8 and I61L/D FSU lenses,again at low outlay,and have no complaints about results,but,I wonder if there is anyone following my earlier method by matching,in theory, higher quality lenses,to their Feds/Zorkis,and if so how successful this has been.

Cheers,
Brian.

[xayraa33]

I think Raid Amin uses japanese LTM lenses on his Zorki 4 and 4k.

[ZorkiKat]

Does a war-time uncoated Summitar count as a 'quality lens'?



Maybe. But camera pictured below (a Japanese FED copy ) definitely has
one with quality:



Jay

[SCOTFORTHLAD]

They certainly look grand,I guess my musing was over whether the extra cost for the 'quality'would give corresponding better results than good examples of the FSU range.Pretty subjective I suspect.

[ZorkiKat]

We'd all like to fit all those nice LTM lenses from other makers, but certain issues prevent this from being realised. The shape of the lens RF cam (many Leitz lenses like the Summaron 35mm and Hektor 135mm, as well as Canon/Serenar 85, 100, and 135 mm have tounge-shaped cams) and FED/Zorki mount thread variations don't allow such fittings.

Jay

[fraley]

I've had no problems with a CV 50/2.5 that is LTM and various FSU bodies.. Also a CV 35/2.5 and an external viewfinder. But sometimes a good old J-8 or Industar just feels better on these bodies...

[mike_j]

Going the opposite way I found that my J8 which was an poor performer on a Zorki 4 was vastly better on a Bessa R2. Some slight alignment/registration problem on the Zorki presumably.

[hitmanh]

I've been happy with a Canon 1.4 50mm on my Zorki 4k.

Cheers

Matt

[dll927]

Basically, FSU lenses seem, if anything, to have a better reputation than some of the cameras. The Jupiter-8 usually gets pretty glowing compliments.

I have several Zorkis, three Kievs, and a couple of FEDs. All of them, whether through evil-bay or Yuri in NYC, came with 50mm lenses, mostly the J-8s. Needless to say, it's the lens that makes the picture on whatever body may be handy, so I see no reason to worry too much about the lenses. If there are problems, it may be, as mentioned above, with the body rather than the lens.

[SCOTFORTHLAD]

Originally Posted by ZorkiKat

We'd all like to fit all those nice LTM lenses from other makers, but certain issues prevent this from being realised. The shape of the lens RF cam (many Leitz lenses like the Summaron 35mm and Hektor 135mm, as well as Canon/Serenar 85, 100, and 135 mm have tounge-shaped cams) and FED/Zorki mount thread variations don't allow such fittings.

Jay

Jay,
Thanks for the insight,I wasn't aware of those technicalities.Actually picking up on another comment,the Jupiters and Industars do tend to always look and feel right with their FSU stablemates.
Brian.

[xayraa33]

Originally Posted by dll927

Basically, FSU lenses seem, if anything, to have a better reputation than some of the cameras. The Jupiter-8 usually gets pretty glowing compliments.

I have several Zorkis, three Kievs, and a couple of FEDs. All of them, whether through evil-bay or Yuri in NYC, came with 50mm lenses, mostly the J-8s. Needless to say, it's the lens that makes the picture on whatever body may be handy, so I see no reason to worry too much about the lenses. If there are problems, it may be, as mentioned above, with the body rather than the lens.

I agree with you here, most problems with FSU gear is not the quality of the image we get from FSU lenses, but the mechanics, of mostly the body QC problems

[SteveM(PA)]

I usually choose other bodies these days, but I'll continue to choose the Fed 3B for snowy weather this winter (it was involved in some huge snowball battles last winter). I only have one collapsible lens, the Summicron, but it makes for a flat enough proposition that I will choose it over the J8 just so I can slip the kit into my coat pocket. I took this pic with the lens I WISH I could use, the Canon 135.

[ZorkiKat]

Originally Posted by mike_j

Going the opposite way I found that my J8 which was an poor performer on a Zorki 4 was vastly better on a Bessa R2. Some slight alignment/registration problem on the Zorki presumably.

Ditto with a J-9 which I left sitting for ages because I thought that it suffered from serious focusing issues. The I put it on a Leica IIIc and was quite surprised that it focused perfectly. It is now with the other performing J-9s.

Jay

[ZorkiKat]

Originally Posted by SCOTFORTHLAD

Jay,
Thanks for the insight,I wasn't aware of those technicalities.Actually picking up on another comment,the Jupiters and Industars do tend to always look and feel right with their FSU stablemates.
Brian.

Brian

It is indeed true. I feel that this has more to do with the way the barrels of Industar and Jupiter objectives were made and shaped. For instance, the Apollo module-shaped Industar-61 goes better in the hands when it's on a rather bulky FED-5 or FED-3 than a svelte Leica IIIc or even Zorki-1

Jay

[vanyagor]

Originally Posted by ZorkiKat

Ditto with a J-9 which I left sitting for ages because I thought that it suffered from serious focusing issues. The I put it on a Leica IIIc and was quite surprised that it focused perfectly. It is now with the other performing J-9s.

Jay

Jay, the easiest explanation I could think of is that the camera you used it on before did not keep the film flat and at exact same plane where it was. Even small deviations of the film whould throw the sharpness off for big apertures.

Could that be the problem, what do you think?

[ZorkiKat]

Originally Posted by vanyagor

Jay, the easiest explanation I could think of is that the camera you used it on before did not keep the film flat and at exact same plane where it was. Even small deviations of the film whould throw the sharpness off for big apertures.

Could that be the problem, what do you think?

Yes, the camera was the problem. I never bothered to recalibrate that camera because the lens which came with it was perfectly matched for it. For the most part, however, a majority of my FED and Zorki are all recalibrated so that their lens to flange distances are at 28.8 mm.

Jay

[ZorkiKat]

Originally Posted by patrickjames

I think the major problem with FSU bodies is the rangefinder alignment. I have several and they all needed to be adjusted, but they work well now. There are instructions on how to do it somewhere in the forums. It is really easy and takes only a few minutes as long as you have a camera that the back comes off. I think some of the bodies are jewels. My favorite is a Z5 first version that is quieter than my M3 and a Fed2 that has a beautiful rangefinder and has been painted completely black.

Rangefinder calibration is only half of the equation. Earlier FED and Zorki were in a similar situation as the pre- "O" Leicas were- the lens flange to film distances were not standard. Those early Leicas would only work with a specific set of lenses whose working registers matched the body.

Later FED and Zorki (like the FED-2 and Zorki-5) on the other hand likely conformed to the needed 28,8mm register required. In these cases, rangefinder calibration for both infinity and minimum foci were the only fixes needed.

Body (lens flange-focal plane) calibration here:http://jay.fedka.com/index_files/Page433.htm

The early FED and Zorki also had bodies which warped rather easily so perfect alignment wasn't always possible.

Jay

[dee]

hi.
I am new to this forum, and new to Rangefider cameras. I have an autisic glitch and recently discovered that I can ''connect'' to Leicas and USSR cameras, in a way that my MInoltas, over the years do not. Typically, a small inheritance and e-bay clearances, has been ''invested'' [ i.e. lost ] , in 2 leica IIIc's, a IIIf Summitar , and two black II's with nickel Elmars.
Prior to this, being at that time normally without funds for ''toys'', I bought 3 copy Leicas from moscowphoto with Ind. 22 Elmars, and 1 affordable dinted IIIc body.
These are as much fun ,as the real Leicas , but my ''dee's lexia'' causes much anxiety about cyrillic letters, that I will continue to treat myself to the ocasional ''pretender ''
So, qualiy lenses on ...er...suspect hosts ?
Well, my best prformer on a rare hoilday was a stylish silver/ black Elmar I 22...well up to my sole post war Elmar....and the only camera that performed faultleesly , was my ex-Zorki, ID compromised,'' Olympic '', in immaculate silver/black from Mika at Moscow... the poor IIIc protested at lack of tlc, by blacking out half of the frame of many slides !
So, yes, I would mount my Ind 22 ''Elmar'' , or my new unused J8, on my Leicas....once they have been CLA'd
That was the question wasn't it ?
Oh, and I started long ago with Takumars mounted on Prakticas...

Pleased to be here

dee

[oscroft]

I haven't shot with them, but my CV lenses (15, 21, 35, 75) fit fine on my FED and Zorki bodies and appear to focus correctly (the rangefinders work fine and the distance scale agrees with the same focus on my new Bessa-R). I wouldn't expect any problems, and I'll try actually shooting with various combinations just as son as my obsession with my Bessa-R subsides

[Valkir1987]

I recently took some color shots testing a self repaired Zorki 1 with a collapsible Industar 22, taking the right film is a must for every lens. The results where very good, I used my canon flatbed scanner to scan the negatives. I like the way the Industar 'draws' the image. The contrast is very good. It is not always a matter of sharpness, the J8 and J9 are much sharper. The industar produces a sharp but quite soft and natural image. (My praktica slr for instance takes sharper images, but the unsharpness in other dept areas is not 'it'. ) (I shall try to upload the pictures some day)

Try both lenses (the I-22 and the J8), when you are half way your film, carefully exchange the lenses away from direct (sun) light. Make sure the shutter is unwound when you change them.

Greetings,

[rolleistef]

Do 3.5/50 Elmars mount Zorki 4 or are there pbs when mounting them?

[rolleistef]

up... about elmars on Z4?

[shadowfox]

2nd bump! I'd also like to know which of the Leica lenses can be used on the Z4 (heheh, I like my Zorki already, and I haven't put a film through it yet).

[Valkir1987]

The Summar F 1/2 should fit any FSU Leica mount camera. The tele Hektor 135mm has a tongue shaped cam and it can have serieus problems when mounting.
I attached a picture taken with a Zorki-1 and a Industar 22, as promised. It didn't look like it would perform like this.

[shadowfox]

Hmmm, at first I wonder if it's my eyes or monitor, but the picture looks ... "blotchy" meaning, where I expect to see texture or detail, I instead saw a watercolor-like washed "blob".

I am new to FSU camera and lenses, so I don't know if this a typical result from this combination...