Roger - right click on the page of interest, not the address -- should do it.
Originally Posted by DWThomas
Thanks also to Steve who sent a PM.
Let's see if this works...
Just curious, which FSU lenses do you consider mediocre/underwhelming? After reading a lot and looking at other people's pictures, I have a couple - Jupiter-9, Industar 61 L/D, and the collapsible Industar-10 that came with my recently acquired FED-2.
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
I know this is subjective, but I quite like the 61 L/D for sharpness and resolution, and the Jupiter-9 helps to take great portraits (from the limited tests I've done the "good bokeh" argument is valid). And, well, the price/performance is fantastic
Now, I don't have any Leica or real Zeiss glass to compare them to directly, but presumably you have, so I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
As a starving student, I bought a full set of L39 lenses to go on my "cheap old" Leica IIIa. I had an Orion (?) 28 mm f6, Jupiter 12 35 mm f2.8, Jupiter 8 50 mm f2 and Jupiter 11 135 mm f4. I used to use them for press work where definition was not ultra-critical and I never enlarged beyond 8x10". I was not very impressed with any of them except the Jupiter 11 135 mm, which seemed to be up there with Leitz glass. I sold my original lens a long time ago and bought another example 4 to 5 years ago, which seemed just as good.
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
Generally, the wider, the worse. The two 20/5.6 Russars I've ever tried (one owned, one borrowed) were awful in every way (sharpness, resolution, vignetting, contrast). The 28/6 is not very sharp (I've had about five or six, in Zorkii and Kiev fit) and every 35/2.8 I've had is again pretty uniformly awful -- and I even found a 'new, old-stock' one of those once. Again I've had several.
Originally Posted by mabman
The 50/2 is kinda romantic but quality control is all over the place, and the best I've had (out of maybe 10) haven't been outstandingly sharp. The slower 50s are among the best, again subject to quality control, but again I've even found new ones to be lacking in contrast. The 85/2 is a wonderful portrait lens but (again) lacking in resolution -- I half wish I'd not got rid of my last one, but a friend fell in love with it for portraits -- and while the 135/4 is impressively ugly and rather slow it's probably the best of the lot, but I've only had two or three.
Next to current (or indeed most post WW2) Leica lenses all the FSU lenses lack 'sparkle' on trannies though as I say there can be a vintage charm on mono: I still use my 1936 50/3.5 Elmar sometimes for its vintage look, though the 50/1.5 Sonnar-C that I currently have for review is both 'vintage' and 'sparkly' -- possibly my favourite 50 ever, and I've tried most except Leica 50/1.2 and 50/1.4.
Hope this helps.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If you are looking for something with a nice big viewfinder (that leaves the FED's and screw mount Leica'f out) and a really sharp lens, look at a Minolta HiMatic 7s or 9. You can pick one of these up for $30. The lens is fantastic, with auto and manual exposure and a great big viewfinder. For something a little smaller, look at the HiMatic 7sII or Canonet. I've also heard good things about the Olympus's.
Yikes, just over night and there's so much to read!
It seems like there are a lot of cameras to choose from, but since Roger highlighted the ones that have good image quality and a nice viewfinder, I am leaning towards the Konica SIII. My budget may seem low and I can expand that, but at the moment, I am trying to have both of best worlds (meaning digital and analog). Call it blasephemy, but since I have been unofficially dubbed our church and family photographer, it seems like digital is indispensible. However, for the past month or so, I've been purely shooting in analog and I must say, I enjoy it a LOT.
Again, I appreciate all of your responses. Thanks so much for helping me out!
My personal favorites are the:
Canon QL17 Giii 35mm film rangefinder with 40mm lens
Minolta Hi-Matic 9 35mm film rangefinder with 45mm lens
Actually, by sheer chance, I picked up a Zorki 4 at our local market today for £10. Its viewfinder is considerably larger and brighter than any other FSU rangefinder I've tried.
re: FSU lenses. I've enlarged shots from an Industar 61 L/D to 8x10 and the prints were great. Easily a match for, for example, the SMC-A Takumar 50 f1.7 I have. I haven't enlarged to a greater size, though, so I don't know how well the lens would stand up to more enlargement. The Jupiter-8 I have is quite nice, but definitely not as sharp as the Industar. A little soft (although I like the look). The 85mm Jupiter 9 is, as Roger says, quite nice but definitely a 'portrait' lens.
Interesting thread, thanks everyone
I've just bought an Olympus 35RC from eBay based on some good things I've read, and am awaiting delivery - I like the XA, but found it too fragile and it broke down in my pocket (however, I seem to be alone in this) as did the modern Stylus Epic - but I also hear good things about the 35RC (although metal, somewhat bigger and heavier), which I'm hoping will be just as good image-quality wise and just about as portable, while being more robust
I'm also looking at a Konica Auto S2, which doesn't have quite as many features as the S3, but is not as popular and therefore cheaper. It seems somewhat heavier, but that's OK for me. So, please don't outbid me
So, yeah, I've got a bit of GAS at the moment, but at the prices for FSU rangefinders and 1970's/early 1980's-era fixed-lens rangefinders, who can resist