just how good are the russian knockoffs?

[wblanchard]

Im just curious how they stack up. I shoot with my contax g2 atm, and always see ads on ebay for russian knockoff at a cheap price that supposedly are the same think as the leica or contax i have in a bag.

Are they talking about the camera mechanics, because i cant see their lens being top quality like zeiss or others. maybe im missing out on something.

Been wanting to try a zorki or something just for the heck of it and see.

Will

[sockeyed]

I've got a number of Feds and Zorkis, and I've had the Kiev copy of Contax. The bodies are built to last but don't expect them to match Leicas or Contaxes (sp?) in terms of materials and finish. Their weakest point is probably their small, dark viewfinders. That said, they are well enough made to take good pictures, and are reliable and serviceable.

Their lenses are probably actually their strong point. Again, not great in terms of materials and construction, but the glass can be very, very good. The sonnar-type Jupiter-8 (50/2) and Jupiter-3 (50/1.5) can be exceptional, with very nice sharpness, tonality and bokeh. The Jupiter-12 (35/2.8) has a deservedly good reputation as does the Jupiter-9 (85/2), another sonnar design. The Industar-61 is a slower 50 (f/2.8) in LTM that can be exceptionally sharp. The Helios-103 (only in Contax mount) is a very respected 50/1.8.

Jupiter-8:


Jupiter-3:


Jupiter-8:


Industar-61:


A J-12 on a Fed 3a:

[wblanchard]

oh my, that jupiter 8 has nice bokeh. Very nice images.

[manfromh]

You can get a good one, or you can get a bad one. It's like the lottery. Good ones work well for years, bad ones are a headache. But they are very cheap compared to any other interchangeable lens RF.

[wblanchard]

well ive had my eyes on a zorki 3m lately, might drop some change and try it out. Throw some HP-5 film in there and see what happens.

[robin a]

Good Choice,great big view finder ....................Robin

[VinceC]

For the most part, the lenses represent long-term production of Zeiss classic lenses of the 1930s, which at the time were superior to Leitz lenses. The Soviet lenses aren't "copies" per se, because they seized Zeiss lens and Contax camera manufacturing materials and techniques (and, in some cases, people) at the end of World War II, and moved them to Ukraine. Earlier FED cameras were introduced before World War II and are copies in every sense of the word. The cameras are chiefly noted for being time-capsules of 1930s photo technology, though the coatings were never very good compared to the originals, so the lenses really need lens shades.

[HankOsaurus]

Hello Will.

I use a Leica M3 (1959) with a 50mm f/2.0 collapsable Summicron (1953). I also have a Kiev 4a with a 50mm f/2.0 Jupiter 8M (both 1969). I bought the Kiev out of pure curiosity, and I was pleasantly surprised at what it can do.

The Kiev 4a is heavy and tough. Its fit and finish are not refined like the Leica's, but it consistently delivers very good images. The Jupiter's pictures are somewhat more contrasty than my old Summicron's, even after having Sherry Krauter at Golden Touch clean and service the Summicron.

After about two years' use, my K4a broke a shutter ribbon. I ordered some replacement "Arsenal" ribbon from Oleg Khalyavin at www.okvintagecamera.com in Russia. With Contax ribbon replacement instructions I found on Rick Oleson's website, I fixed it. It has been working splendidly ever since. Rick says that those ribbons are about all that ever goes wrong with a good sample, unmetered Kiev RF.

For me, the wee little viewfinder on the Kiev 4a is a pain to use with glasses. I use the viewfinder mainly for its rangefinder, which is long and accurate. I view the image with a Voigtlander Kontur framing device mounted in the K4a's flash shoe. That took a bit of getting used to. With the Kontur one shoots with both eyes open. One eye sees only the scene while the other one sees only the framelines. The mind brings them together.

The M3 is easier to use. The viewfinder window is far more generous and brighter. The shutter is smoother in its release. The hold is less awkward. The setting of shutter speeds and aperture is easier. But at ten times the price of the Kiev 4a, one might look at the images from these two cameras and reasonably ask "Whyever so much difference in the prices paid?"

If I were buying a Kiev 4a or any FSU camera today, I would just be sure to get it from a dealer who would stand behind it. I suspect that anything one would pay others to fix such a camera might exceed the initial price paid for it.

I don't have an LTM camera, but I am thinking about it.

P.S. Does anyone know what the "M" in "Jupiter 8M" means?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by VinceC

For the most part, the lenses represent long-term production of Zeiss classic lenses of the 1930s, which at the time were superior to Leitz lenses.

Disputable. Typically, Zeiss formulae had significantly higher contrast and significantly lower resolution. This mattered a lot more before lens coating and thin-emulsion films became widespread. With reduced flare in the lenses and more sharpness available on the film, Leica drew ahead.

But to answer the OP, I started using Soviet cameras and lenses in the late 60s and have owned many since. IF they are well assembled, they are pretty good, though way behind any modern designs. All too many are not well assembled.

Tashi delek,

Roger

[VinceC]

One nice thing about the Soviet lenses is that they are extremely light weight.

[Keith]

As said the soviet lenses can be very good ... the J3 comes to mind! I have two Russian cameras that impress me a lot ... my very early Kiev II and my Iskra. The Kiev impresses me the most because I had the Contax equivalent and sold it because the Kiev for me was the better camera ... I also have a Nkon S2 and the Kiev stacks up very well against that. I guess I'm fortunate that I have a good example that does everything right with no light leaks or frame spacing problems.

I also have a Fed 2 which has remained while Leica screwmounts have come and gone from my camera collection ... it's smooth, has a reasonably good viewfinder and feels like it will last forever!

[Brian Sweeney]

I would suggest getting a Russian camera that has been CLA'd recently by a good repairman. My Zorki 3M bought here, recent CLA, has done well. Very Smooth. I have not had much luck with Ebay cameras.

I use Russian lenses, mostly the J-3. I also bought an "Ebay New-Old-Stock" J-9 for the Contax. I had to make a shim for it, the focus was off. I did a comparison roll against a Nikkor 8.5cm f2 made for the 'C'ontax. The J-9 was lower contrast and not as "sharp". It also cost 1/10th the price and makes a fine portrait lens.

I'm assembling a gallery of several J-3's, running from 1953 to 1986.

http://www.ziforums.com/album.php?albumid=97

Runs the gambit from the best to the worst of the J-3's.. Short story: 1950's lenses have been the best, 1980s the worst. Several examples of each.

[ferider]

I shoot RFs and film for fun, tried a FED and a KIEV and they just didn't feel right. Maybe I'm spoiled, or had bad samples, don't know.

If you go for it, I recommend a Contax mount camera though - less potential issues with lens focus, etc. On the other hand, a real Contax is not so expensive either and works well with Russian lenses.

Cheers,

Roland.

[Brian Sweeney]

1935 Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm F1.5, wide-open. Set in a J-3 mount, and shimmed for the Leica.



The Zeiss lens is what the J-3 is based on.

1933 Leitz Summar 5cm F2, wide-open. Perfect Glass.

[FallisPhoto]

In my experience, they tend to be either very good indeed or very bad indeed, with not much in the middle. Your best bets are probably going to be the FED2, the Kiev 645 and the early Zorkies. With those you might get by with just a CLA. You might get lucky with an Iskra too, although I think the odds are a little lower than with the previously mentioned cameras. As for the lenses, the Industars I've bought tended to be mostly good, while Jupiters tend to be more of a gamble -- but if you do get a good Jupiter it is very good indeed. It's all pretty much of a lottery though.

[JJW]

They are tons of fun and very cheap. Samples vary and don't believe the usual conventional wisdom about dating the lenses. I have tested very poor examples from the late 50s (the so-called 'vintage years' of Soviet production) and have several lenses from the mid 1980s (my black J-12 in particular) which is OUTSTANDING. Really one of the best 35mm lenses I have ever shot with.

FED-2s are very workable screwmount copies. People here pee on them because of the viewfinders but they have built in diopter correction and are very sharp when adjusted properly. The rangefinders also have pretty long base lengths compared to the original Leica and Canon SM RFs.

Now the Zorkis are really nice. I once had a 3M that was the equal of anything else I ever shot with in a basic SM RF camera. The 5 and 6 are pretty comparable to early M bodies. The KMZ turret finder is also very good and spot on accurate (better than the CV finders, I have found).

If you are a snobby poopie pants about what you carry around, the Soviet cameras will never rate as status symbols to impress your Rolex wearing friends. But for sheer fun and no worry shooting, they can't be beat.

I'm thinking about pulling out my old Fed-2 and burning some film shooting street scenes this month.

[ferider]

They are only cheap compared to Leicaland, not in absolute terms.

For the price of a decent CLA'ed FED or ZORKI from Fedka, you can get a wonderful MF SLR from the 70s. Even a working 500EL or 500C Hasselblad can be had for just a little more (100-150 bucks). A Canon 7 or P can be had for around US 250 ....

Roland.

[JJW]

I paid $45 (with shipping from Kiev) for my FED-2 with one of those Industar 26 normal lenses and a smelly case. I got my J-12 for $55 PP.

I don't know where I can get a working 35mm SLR (not to mention rangefinder) body and two lenses which are both quite excellent for that kind of money, unless I go to yard sales or troll Craigslist.

Roland, if you have one, I would love a $100 Hassy 500C. I got cash in hand. I'll even pay you $40 for a Distagon.

[Keith]

My CLAD'd Fed 2 with an Industar lens came from Oleg at a grand total of $45.00 ... you're not going to get much else for that price ... and it may not arrive in brown paper tied with yak hair string!

[BillBingham2]

I look at my trips down FSU lane in a somewhat more negative light. I had Kievs CLAed as well as a FED-2 and they all came back less than good. I think if I had any time to tinker I could have gotten them working but time is a negative resource these days. I sunk a lot more money into several FSU cameras and lenses even after selling them off. The guy who purchased my FED-2 (which was a fun camera mind you) tried to get shutter bounce corrected very unsuccessfully so I split the cost of the repair attempt. I had did not see it in my test pictures but it was plain as day in his shots. I move to Nikon RFs and have never been happier. While the fit and finish is much better, to me the more important aspect is that I know the camera is going to work well when I pick it up. I take pictures to have them come out, I do not like playing Lotto with my equipment.

B2 (;->

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by JJW

I paid $45 (with shipping from Kiev) for my FED-2 with one of those Industar 26 normal lenses and a smelly case. I got my J-12 for $55 PP.

I don't know where I can get a working 35mm SLR (not to mention rangefinder) body and two lenses which are both quite excellent for that kind of money, unless I go to yard sales or troll Craigslist.

Roland, if you have one, I would love a $100 Hassy 500C. I got cash in hand. I'll even pay you $40 for a Distagon.

He meant for $100-$150 more than a CLA'd russian rangefinder you can buy a 500C body, and that's true. The body ONLY of a Hasselblad 500C is not expensive, $150-200. It gets costly when you add the A12 back and 80mm Planar, which brings you to $700 or so for a user condition camera outfit.

[Keith]

Speaking of Kievs ... what has happened to our most avid Kiev user ... Ruben?

[mh2000]

regarding VF's and RF's, the ones on my Leica IIIc are no better than on my FED-I... but my IIIc actually works...

I have a shelf load of FSU rangefinders on my shelf that don't work... in fact the only one that actually works is my nasty FED-5b, which is too ugly to use... even when I tried to go through Fedka, I went through 3 that almost worked... and then gave up. No one seems to have this bad luck with Leicas (one maybe, 10 lemons in a row, never).

The lenses can be good as has been said.

[kievman]

Oh ruben? where art thou? Your defense of the lowly rated FSU gear is dearly needed.....

[kievman]

Seriously Now... FSU gear is not nearly as bad as some folks here claim. I have seen plenty of cheaper fixed lens japanese RF's whose quality wasn't much better, and in fact slightly worse when you consider such things as- the chrome plating, thickness of the top covers and stamped parts versus forged parts on a lot of the FSU gear. I have had to bend a few hinged backs on some Japanese RF's so they would close properly!!!! never on FSU gear... . FSU does suffer from Quality control issues. but a good working CLA'd Kiev 3 or 4 is a joy to use and the same goes for a CLA'd Zorki 3m or 4 too... and a good industar 61l/d and Jupitar 8m are hard to beat for very good image quality for the price! Plus FSU gear will never break the bank like Leicas!!!!!! _Michael