Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,765   Posts: 1,484,090   Online: 1005
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Russian lenses?

  1. #1
    spiralcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chicago Il.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    118

    Russian lenses?

    How many people own a Russian made 35mm lens?
    Comments abouit the quality would be appreciated.

    I've been looking at a MIR M-42 on ebay. Im just not sure I want to experiment with old Russian technology.

    The lens was priced to sell, it just may be worth the buy. Im at a cross -roads.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    I recently was bitten by the Russian/Ukranian camera bug. Thus far, I've felt free to experiment freely since the cost is low and the results, thus far, have been very pleasing.

    I have no experience with the MIR. I have a couple of Kiev's that I enjoy using even though "state-of-the-art" they are not. They are very 1930's technology but they're fun. I have several normal lenses for the Kiev's--Jupiter-8 and Helios-103--some are poor at wide apertures but get better stopped down and some are very good across the board. I especially like the Jupiter-8. I also have two 39mm Leica thread mount lenses--Industar-22 and Industar-61LD. I use these on Leica M bodies with adapters and, I must admit, both are excellent lenses. The Industar-22 is over 50 years old and flares wildly under backlit conditions but it makes some nice images under normal conditions.

    I believe all the Russian/Ukranian lenses made after WWII were based on Zeiss designs although they made lots of cameras that were Leica copies. The Industar-22 I have looks like a collapsible Elmar but, inside, it is reportedly a Tessar design. Those more experienced than myself agree there is a lot of variation in the quality of the lenses from sample to sample but good ones are really good.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,572
    The Ru lenses are ok they are real cheap. They may have been loved or mistreated...

    Noel

  4. #4
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,280
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Jupiter-9, Industar 61 L/D, Industar-22, -50 and FED 50mm f:3.5's.

    all usable.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  5. #5
    Jersey Vic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Columbia County NY
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    3,919
    Images
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole View Post
    Jupiter-9, Industar 61 L/D, Industar-22, -50 and FED 50mm f:3.5's.

    all usable.
    Agreed-All optically excellent but they can be mechanically challenged. Usually nothing some lighter fluid, an eyeglass repair kit and a suitable grease can't fix.
    Holga: if it was any more analog, you'd need a chisel.

  6. #6
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,280
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Fed 50/3.5 example HERE. I rather like the look of it wide open!

    The Jupiter-9 85mm f:2 is the most "risky" one: The optics are good, but once the mechanics start going bad they're basically trash. I've got one goot one, and one trash. I may decide to take a hacksaw to the bad one and use it on 6x9 sheet film!
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #7
    Jersey Vic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Columbia County NY
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    3,919
    Images
    187
    That's a GREAT shot Ole and an excellent example of the contrast and sharpness of russian lenses. I shot this with a Kiev Rangefinder with the 53mm f2.0 Zeiss clone. $50 for both:

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...00&ppuser=2517
    Holga: if it was any more analog, you'd need a chisel.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,231
    Images
    9
    Just remember that the Vodka flowed freely in the QC department.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole View Post

    The Jupiter-9 85mm f:2 is the most "risky" one: The optics are good, but once the mechanics start going bad they're basically trash. I've got one goot one, and one trash. I may decide to take a hacksaw to the bad one and use it on 6x9 sheet film!
    Are you talking about the rangefinder version? I've heard that one can give trouble due to the complex rangefinder coupling.
    I've got the M42 mount version of the Jupiter-9 and it works very smoothly, I haven't heard of there being many problems with the M42 mount version.

  10. #10
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,280
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Yes, it's the Leica-thread rangefinder version which is infamous for mechanical breakdown.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin