Russian/Soviet RF Lenses: more regarding quality

This thread pertains to a previous thread regarding FSU lenses.

 

I received a Helios 103 a few days ago for my Kiev 4a (contax mount). It went

on tight, but I did some tests today.

 

Having used FSU and Ukranian equipment, even though the cost is rediculously

low, these are outstanding cameras and lenses IMO. Not "Junk."

 

Not everything that is low cost is "Junk!"

 

I did some photography today with a few of these lenses on my Kiev 4a and I

want to show some results.<div></div>

Helios 103 (53mm f/1.8) at f/8, 1/500th<div></div>

Not junk, I have several that I love, but very variable in quality. Most need some kind of work

to be right...but, when they are right, they are great!

Jupiter 8 (50mm f/2) under low light at the Monterey Bay Aquarium taken at f/2 1/30th (some slight motion)<div></div>

Jupiter-12 35mm f/2.8, test shot last Saturday. Full frame.<div></div>

Jim, I totally agree. I once owned a 35mm Summicron (Canada) that I used on my M6. There was a nasty smudge in the interior center of the lens. fortunatly I discovered how to unscrew the front and rear modules of the lens and was able to clean the smudge. The smudge had to be a Leica factory goof. Nothing is perfect. However, I have used over 9 FSU lenses and not one of them was even close to being of poor quality.

I presently only own one FSU lens - the 85mm Jupiter. I love it. Sure its build quality is not up to a Leica, or NIkon or Canon forthat matter but its image quality is lovely. I used to own the 50mm Jupiter and likewise it made up for lower build in high image quality. I believe the same cna be said for the 45mm and the 20mm from what I have seen and would dealrly love both

There is no reason why they should not be good. The Russians sent all the factories from occupied Germany and other invaded countries back to Russia. I am sure it did not take them long to figure out how to get things rolling especially if they had captured the folks who used to work in those factories. Therefore, in some instances things may have been a bit crude but they looked like Leicas. And that the lenses fit the old Leicas is not an accident. They are knock-offs of the real thing.

I've purchased several FSU lenses from Ukranian and Russian sellers and have not been disappointed yet. I really have to disagree with those who say, "why buy junk"? The build quality may not be Leica, but the glass is top shelf! Even if you do get a dodgy one, most of these sellers will exchange it for another. These lenses are big bang for the bucks!

 

People ask, "why own a Leica if you don't use Leica lenses"? Well, I own a Leica because of the build quality and ergonomics of the camera body. Lots of Leica owners use Canon and Nikon glass and are very happy with their results. I am very pleased with the results from my $20-$30 FSU lenses.

 

Todd, I really do hate it when someone starts one of these posts about FSU lenses. It just keeps driving the prices up on ebay! :)<div></div>

It is well established that after World War II the Soviets took everything from the Contax factory in Dresden, including the engineers, and worked to make a Soviet Contax. The first units produced we often made from left over Contax parts and called Contax, and later parts were made using the tools and dies from the factory, eventually becoming the Kiev made at the Arsnel factor in the Ukraine.

 

The two bodies I have are flawless, and I have used at least 9 FSU lenses most often with the best results ever.

 

I'm just trying to understand why more people do not buy these wonderful camera kits for less than $100 US but will pay thousands for equipment that doesn't always show any difference. I think I know why, but ...

 

A few years ago I owned both a 50mm Summicron (collapsable) and a Russian Jupiter 8. I used them both on a leica IIIC, and I much preferred the Jupiter, hands down.

Stuart, I was just thinking the same thing. I've gotta shut-up about these wonderful lenses, and camera bodies, and keep those prices down!

Hate to rain on the parade, but while the factories may have been taken from the Germans, the workmanship was Soviet. I have owned four different FSU cameras (I still have a FED-5) and more lenses -- some were excellent and some were terrible. Lenses (like the 35mm Jupiter) which others have reported to be excellent I found so bad that 4x6 prints were obviously unsharp. The problem is not the design but the variability. If you get a good one, they are great. Unfortunately, many are not so good.

 

My favorite example was when a Zorki literally sprang apart when I was taking pictures of a visiting Russian group. They all laughed and told me (in Russian) that I should have used a good German camera instead of "Soviet sh*t" (their words).

 

YMMV of course :-)

Who cares if they are German or Soviet or Vietnamese (those Pentax DA lenses- what marvels are from Vietnam!)? If you have them, put them to use.

 

Good stuff, Todd! Keep going...

John,

 

My reference to the German technicians referred only to the Contax models and what was taken from the Contax factory. However, I have friends who have consistently good results with Feds and Zorkis, many of which were made before and during the war, and I have two current Kiev 60 6x6 units that are wonderful. I have used many vintage Leica cameras and lenses and have had numerous problems with them, expecially locked-up aperture rings, hole in the curtain, broken slow speed rings and such. These problems can happen with all mechanical devices, not just Soviet. For the current price on most Soviet cameras you really arn't taking much of a risk.

 

Vivek,

 

I use the finder you sent me for the 35mm lens on the Kiev! Thank you again.

Todd, in the aquarium shot the background looks to be half in focus and half not. Is it just different distances I'ms seeing?

For any one who could love these awful, inconsistent, and unfaithful Soviet cameras, look at

 

http://www.kievaholic.com/ and

 

http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/index.html

 

Somewhere, though I can't locate the site right now, there are instructions on recentering the lens elements, which, as I had posted elsewhere the other day, is one of the most common problems with the FSU lenses. I have a late model Kiev (Contax II) with a set of Soviet Socialist lenses and I practically giggle every time I shoot with it. I've also got FEDs and Mir lenses, etc. I got them from the old country, and none of them are awful, 'though some are definitely better than others.

 

The Soviet concern, ideologically reinforced, was to produce for the masses. "Elite" production with lots of extra adjustments and tweaking to get it just right was foreign to a system of MASS production. As someone on one of the FSU sites points out, the standard practice was to buy your camera and take it to someone to complete the "fine-tuning" and final assembly (sort of the way I had to do with my last American car back in 1965).

I was the one who started the post mentioned, in which a troll popped up and called FSU lenses "junk". I think he is no longer with us today.

 

Since reading the responses to my question, I've done a little shopping and I've ordered a Industar 61LD and an Industar 22 along with an adapter to use the lenses on my M6's. I ordered from Fedka.com. I expect I paid a little more than going through ebay but the prices for the lenses were incredibly low.

 

After a little research I had already learned that some Russian/Ukrainian equipment is highly regarded although there are reported to be wide variations in quality. I've been wanting a collapsible lens to use on an M6 and the Industar 22 was immediately appealing and the reports I've read about the 61LD was too good to overlook. The Kiev and Helios combination mentioned by Todd in this thread also looks pretty attractive.

 

The variation in quality from sample to sample is no big deal when the prices are as low as I'm seeing advertised. Hell, I'm debating right now on whether to send a current production Canon EF lens to Canon to see if it's worth them tinkering with and getting it to become sharp at ANY aperture. Several years ago, I had a bought-new 90mm Summicron that was so poor I seldom used it. Considering how much I paid for them, I won't be very disappointed if I get a lemon Russian lens at a fraction of the cost.

Todd Frederick , Aug 31, 2007; 08:11 p.m.

 

And the others. Must be a law or something,somewhere,against such postings.

 

Thou Shoult Not Be Posting Such Quality Photos With Cheap Russian Lenses on the Leica Forum.

 

Rogering Hicks will be most upset. He is putting pen to paper to the moderators.

Peter,

 

Regarding focus, I also noticed the soft area on the left bricks in the aquarium photo. That was taken with a well used Jupiter 8 50mm f/2 and I have no clue about the problem. Below is another photo taken at the same place on the same day with the same lens and there is no problem. Strange.

 

JDM,

 

I also don't mean to give the impression that this equipment is flawless and never fails. Far from it. It's like any other kind of equipment. It can all fail eventually. For the price, I think it does a fine job and generates considerable interest when I'm out in public with it.

 

Allen,

 

Most appreciated. I am ready to be suspended for posting a quality photo taken with a junk camera! ;>)<div></div>

JDM,

 

Thanks for the links. I've seen them. There are many and some are very humorous, but true. There are also good sites for instruction manuals in English. That's important for operating the Kiev 4/4a (Contax).

 

On the Keiv Survival Site, the picture of the string tied paper wrapped package is very true. My 35mm Jupiter 12 came in a paper wrapped package in a near perfect ball with string around it and more tape than needed. It was nearly impossible to open. I truly think you could have dropped that over a cliff and nothing would damage it. When I received my Helios 103 the other day it was sent in a soft padded envelope but was wrapped in bubble wrap that it was a really fat envelope and well protected. See photo below.

 

I like these East European and Russian sellers. They are very kind and they want to please the buyer. To me, that is what capitalism and free enterprise is all about; not greed and fraud.<div></div>

By the way: look up at the 35mm Jupiter 12 photo of the shed and windows. I have not used that lens very much, but every time I pass by that photo, it just looks very good...by that I mean: resolution, sharpness, and contrast. I was told that it is a good lens and I need to use it much more, especially with zone focusing.

Oh, and I should add that the Jupiter 12 is an expensive lens. I think I paid $35 for it. ;>)

 

Have a good holiday (in the US).

Todd,

 

NO ONE who has used them could ever possibly have thought that

 

"that this equipment is flawless and never fails."

 

I certainly did not assume that you gave such an impression. For that matter, pre-war Contaxes have their own problems, many of which were only inherited by the Kievs, not created in them. I always wanted a Contax II, but even now they are a little more than I am interested in paying for them, but now I have one in all but name (I'm still looking for one of the relabeled Kievs from someone over there who will take PayPal--preferably one with a presentation inscription from H. Göring ;)). I also lamentably gave up a Leica III, but not to worry, FED is here. While they grind a little, and the lens mount on the Kiev is a little difficult at times, they produce negatives that are sharp and consistent across the whole range of apertures and shutter speeds. What more could anyone ask? I sure wouldn't shoot a friend's wedding on one as the only camera; but, as I say,I come very close to giggling when I use them. Alas, there seem to be no adapters for Contax RF mount to EOS, and I am not even sure whether the distances are compatible, but if I could find one, I'd buy it. I could imagine a Helios or a Iupeter would produce nice APS-sized images.

Few years ago, i have used both Helios 103 53 mm f/ 1,8 and Jupiter 12 35 mm f/ 2,8 in Kiev mount: both was very good in performace (not the cameras, the Kiev 4a and 4am, mechanically very poor). Now i own the Jupiter 12 35 mm f/ 2,8 and the Jupiter 9 85 mm f/ 2: i love both very mutch.

Ciao.

I'm going to dissent a little. And remind you that 35 mm isn't the only film format that was used in the Soviet Union.

 

A while ago I bought an Industar-51. This is a 210/4.5 tessar clone, presumably was made for use on a 13x17 camera. At all apertures mine is too soft centrally to use. Not at all what I expected, but the price was very right.

 

I have three other FSU lenses for formats larger than 35 mm.

 

I've managed to shoot one of them, a Lomo 450/10 RF-5. This is a slow double Gauss type, very sharp but seems a bit less luminous than expected. It stays home because it is to close to my 420 and 480 Apo Nikkors.

 

The other two are, respectively, a 105/2.8 Era-7 and a 100/2.5 Uran-27. The Era-7 is a complete mystery, the Uran-27 is an aerial camera lens. Both hard, possibly impossible, to adapt to any of my cameras.

 

None of these lenses seems flimsy or badly made, but then all are in barrels so don't have the focusing mount complexities of lenses made for Leica and Contax mounts.