User_4525289 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>A friend of my family in Russia gave up on the film photography and I asked him to give me his old Praktica which he purchased brand new in 1970-es in Moscow. It was practically impossible to get that camera in stores back then, however he had one. It came with dreadful Domiplan 50/2.8 which I tried to resurrect but finally gave up on that idea, because the pictures it produced were...well ...dreadful, plus it had the oil on the blades and I decided to toss it in the drawer and get Industar 61 l/z instead. I-61l/z is the brother of the I-61 l/d, but it is much less common. It did not come standard to any camera and most of the people did not bother to get one since Helios or Zenitars were much more desirable back in the USSR but some reasons. I-61 is the simple Tessar however by some accounts it consider to be one of the best Soviet standard lenses ever produced and some people even consider it to be better than its Western analogue. So that is how they look together.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>I take a walk to test how they work<br> Here is the picture I took right from my door steps.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>Since this morning it was 70 degrees in Maryland I went downtown and make some pictures.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>It was around 10 AM but since the tourist season did not start yet the streets are empty, well they are always empty.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>But I managed to try my Praktica on the human subjects</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>One more shot of the brick walls to test the sharpness of the lenses. I think I will like that I-61 at least for its sharpness and contrast.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markus.berndt Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>Wonderful pictures Kozma! That I-61 lens is as great in M42 mount as it is in M39 mount (that's the one I have). I like the second picture the most... interesting that there is a market for gallery wear, I wonder what it looks like :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvy Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>the industar lenses are lovely if you can get one in a nice workable condition, as yours appear to be. my specimen suffers from dired out lube :(</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_502260 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>I was interested in the 61 lz and bought one a few years ago from a seller in P'skov, Russia. The first International Money Order I sent never reached the seller and was canceled. The second one was sent by Registered Mail and did arrive. I think the lens went for a whole $15 (US) but shipping was more than $15. The lens came with a yellow filter which I think was in 49mm size. I tested it by using it with an adapter on a Canon F-1. The lens is quite good. It focuses to about 1:3 by itself. I had a chance to get the 50/2.8 Domiplan when I had an Exakta VX500. I chose the 50/2 Pancolar instead. The Pancolar was a little stiff to focus but reasonably sharp. Eventually I traded both the lens and the camera for something else. I would get another 50/2.8 61 lz if I could but it from a US seller. There were many available at the time I got mine.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Collins Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>Kozma, that's a very nice looking camera and it seems that the I-61 lens performs beautifully! Those pictures are well defined and sharp, and I love the tones in all of them.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 <blockquote> <p>interesting that there is a market for gallery wear, I wonder what it looks like :-)</p> </blockquote> <p>Markus, swear I have no clue. Never went in. I can do it tomorrow, but of 11 years leaving in that town never had a curiousity to check this store out.</p> <blockquote> <p>my specimen suffers from dired out lube :(</p> </blockquote> <p>Starvy, they are easy to clean and I-61 does not have automatic apperture I would not see that as a big issue.</p> <blockquote> <p>I would get another 50/2.8 61 lz if I could but it from a US seller.</p> </blockquote> <p>Jeff, I have got mine from a guy in Donetsk, Ukraine for $30. The price for FSU lenses are skyrocketing and there are not to many US sellers.</p> <blockquote> <p>Those pictures are well defined and sharp, and I love the tones in all of them.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thnx, Andy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>Nice Kozma. If you can find a Tessar, or still better, a Biotar, it would be more "compatible," but of course the old Soviet lenses are good for shooting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>JDM,<br /> I specifically opted for I-61 because there is a very persistent opinion amongst the Russian speaking community that I-61 l/z beats German Tessar at least in terms of sharpness. Plus I like the quality mark on the side of the lenses. Looks cool. And Biotar costs more. But you were right Domiplan is so dreadful as it can be.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subbarayan_prasanna Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>KP that Downtown picture is superb! Others follow. I have a few Industar 61s including an LD on my FEDs. Praktica Super TL is a lovely camera, derived from the higher priced Praktica Mat. Only difference is that it stops at 1/500 sec., instead of the 1/1000 sec., in the Praktica Mat. Lovely pictures, keep them coming. Regards, sp.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>Thanks SP,<br> It is getting much warmer and I will try to get more pictures. I hope to get soon more Soviet stuff. Surprisingly they are not so bad as we believe for ages. I love that Praktica, especially after CLA, unfortunately the exposurmeter behaves funny, it is somehow inconsistent sometime it gives the accurate numbers, sometimes it does not. Still did not figure out why.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subbarayan_prasanna Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>KP, I love my FEDs and Zorkis for the pictures they make and the ease with which they handle. The Soviet lenses were a notch or two above the other makes in general. I learned taking pictures and dark room work with FED 2 in the 1960s. I have had horrible experiences with Canon cameras and repairers, in my Detroit years. My experience with DDR and the Soviet ones has always been good to excellent. I don't have a single DUD camera from DDR or USSR. Though a lot of people have recorded their experience to the contrary especially in terms of quality control in production and packaging. I guess that many people do not care to learn to repair and lubricate them at home. And the professional repairmen don't care to repair less expensive cameras as that would not give them much income. Thus, the DDR and USSR cameras get junked and branded as poor quality!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_daneliya Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>Kozma, I like you pictures. </p> <p>I have experience with I-61 in three versions - M39 both for rangefinders and for slrs, and M42. It's definately a good lens with excellent sharpness and contrast. And I prefer earlier versions with single coating even more for b&w (also because they are built much better then more modern MC versions). Slr versions also don't need hoods. I find I-61 particularly good for landscapes (and city landscapes as on your photos). But it is quiet limited for other purposes - very harsh for portraits with, well, not best bokeh. That's why I prefered Jupiter-8 as a standard lens for my zorkies, and white early Helios-44 for my zenits (in fact I more often used my Zenit-C with a mirror lock-up for portraits with Jupiter-9).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_the_waste Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>Kozma, I've had a number of Praktica Super TL's over the years. I've resold a couple of them, and got another one in their place... again. I keep coming back to them. They don't have a flash shoe or self timer, but otherwise they're quite dependable. The one I have now has a problem with the meter, but I don't worry about that anyway. The Industar 61 to me is a beautiful lens. I have one with my Fed and I love it. The lens that I originally got with my first Praktica is a Pentacon Electric 1.8/50 (or rebadged Oreston). I still have that lens which I picked up for $10.00. Congrats on a good find.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>Subbarayan,<br> It took some time to start appreciating Soviet rangefinders. Their main problem is not even the quality. Since most of the people did not make more that 10 films in a year that cameras simply did not have an opportunity to break down. However the luck of automatic futures finally drew the occasional amateurs away. Does not matter if optically they were equal or better of their western counterparts and mechanically they were OK for amateurs, most of people could not get a right exposure without meter and eventually opted for plastic point-and-shutters. Unfortunately Soviet industry did not manage to produce professional cameras. Albeit some people could shut up to 10 films per day with Kiev RFs but that was not a rule but exclusion mostly. Prakticas were much better in that term and all professionals opted for it. Praktica MTL3 with Pancolar cost twice or three times of the Zenit TTL and were simply unavailable.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>George,<br> Did they make I-61 for SLRs in M39? I looked through Abramov's web site and it remains unclear to me. Yes I-61 is a bit hars for portraits, but I have Kiev with J-8 and J-9 and I have J-9 for M42 so I am covered. Although I shut my sons picture with I-61 on the fully open and it did not look repulsive, of course for older folks I would prefer softer lenses like J-8. I do not like my Helios 44M-7 It does not get sharp pictures does not matter what. Probably I should look for a better one or get a Zenitar 50/1.7 but in the USA they cost as much as Zuiko 50/1.4 and I better get the latter for my OM system. Have you ever tried lenses called Volna? I am just wandering how good they are...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>Rob,<br> I try the Oreston should I find one for 10 bucks.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou_Meluso Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>Nice shots, Kozma. I have no FSU gear but have thought many times about a Kiev or Zorki rangefinder. Its good to see the excellent results from your I-61 lens. Your Praktica looks in nice shape, too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subbarayan_prasanna Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>KP, thanks for the edification on consumer preferences in USSR. It is interesting. I had some architect friends from Prague, and Llubljana in the 1970s on and they shot mainly B&W and processed at home. They were not professional photographers but were excellent in their work; possibly because they used photography in their architectural work too. I can't imagine any of them abandoning good cameras and going in for point & shoot stuff, though. Of course, the larger market is not made of such people.<br> The Meyer Oreston may be difficult to buy at the price you mention. You may get a Pentacon 50mm 1.8 at that price from Ebay UK, though. Though they are the same; possibly the Pentacon has better coating too! Strangely, the Meyer Oreston has gone up in price, sky high, recently. Possibly the brand name attraction. All the best, sp.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>Louis it actually was CLAed. Not by me, I am not that skilled. But CLA did not cost me a fortune and 45 bucks did the trick )</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_daneliya Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>Kozma, I have I-61 for slrs in M39. It is single coated. The lens barrel is made of brass, it is very similar to M42 version (differencies are in color and size of numbers and other minor details). Buy the way, it is quiet easy to convert any M42/M39 I-61 to M39/M42 - just screw up screw mount from the back of the lens and change it to another one.</p> <p>I don't think J-8 is softer than I-61. It may be less contrasty, but it is not soft at all, if to close the diafragm a bit (to 4 or 5.6).</p> <p>I used Volna (in K-mount) lens only once - it is very sharp and contrasty. But I didn't like bokeh. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now