Confession: I like my Soviet Leica clones ;)

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After I started to use family FED-2, I started to get correct exposures and on slide film.

I also learned how to fix and CLA this camera and Zorki.

I like them to the point I sold two Leica M, never bothered to get LTM Leica again and keeping just one M4-2.

Next time it will crap out again, i'll use my FSUs. I also using them not just in between M4-2 repairs.

They are nowhere near to M ergonomics, but Jupiter-3.is as good (for my taste) for bw film and darkroom prints as any Leica lens.

Oh, I'm picking up form post office another FED-2.from legendary Oleg .

[mikemgb]

A very interesting read, thank you for taking the time to write this.

 

I have been considering adding a Russian clone or two to my small collection just for fun. On a related note, I have a Jupiter 8 that focuses perfectly on my Leicas, I wonder if I got lucky or if it was adjusted to work on a Leica, it did come from Ukraine. Based on this what are the chances it will also focus well on a Russian camera?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[schattenundlicht]

A very interesting read, thank you for taking the time to write this.

 

I have been considering adding a Russian clone or two to my small collection just for fun. On a related note, I have a Jupiter 8 that focuses perfectly on my Leicas, I wonder if I got lucky or if it was adjusted to work on a Leica, it did come from Ukraine. Based on this what are the chances it will also focus well on a Russian camera?

Thanks for the kind feedback!

 

Since I do not have extensive first hand experience, I am a bit hesitant to answer your question, but I will, to the best of my knowledge, relate what I have gathered from some extensive reading, which is a bit inconclusive:

 

On a Zorki, you should be rather confident that the aimed at flange distance (propably not achieved in every specimen) is the same 28.8 mm as with an original Leica and the lenses are adjusted for this. The FED's are said to have used different flange distances and/or different helicoid pitches in early production.

 

However, another line of lore has it that the Russian camera designers used the Zeiss/Contax reference specifications in order to design their Leitz/Leica clones, which would make them technically incompatible on a formal level. However, this tiny difference should only be noted with longer, faster lenses and would not become apparant in a typical shooting situation of a 50 mm lens at f/5.6 or f/8. Wide open you might run into problems hitting infinity and/or get spurious focusing accuracy close-up.

 

Since the flange distance is adjusted by paper shims under the body's lens flange, this would be body-dependent and not lens-dependent. The lens itself could also be shimmed. A different helicoid pitch, however, could not be 'adjusted' easily. Depending on shimming, it would either miss infinity, or close, or both

 

Hopefully, somebody with more inside knowledge on this topic can further elaborate on this subject!

 

Kind regards

Mathias

 

As an afterthought, the old adage stiĺl rings true: "Your lens is only as good as it's history", thus individual tolerance, servicing or often lack thereof, and (mis)handling may play a bigger role than the original design specifications in many specimen available today

[mikemgb]

Thanks for the kind feedback!

 

Since I do not have extensive first hand experience, I am a bit hesitant to answer your question, but I will, to the best of my knowledge, relate what I have gathered from some extensive reading, which is a bit inconclusive:

 

On a Zorki, you should be rather confident that the aimed at flange distance (propably not achieved in every specimen) is the same 28.8 mm as with an original Leica and the lenses are adjusted for this. The FED's are said to have used different flange distances and/or different helicoid pitches in early production.

 

However, another line of lore has it that the Russian camera designers used the Zeiss/Contax reference specifications in order to design their Leitz/Leica clones, which would make them technically incompatible on a formal level. However, this tiny difference should only be noted with longer, faster lenses and would not become apparant in a typical shooting situation of a 50 mm lens at f/5.6 or f/8. Wide open you might run into problems hitting infinity and/or get spurious focusing accuracy close-up.

 

Since the flange distance is adjusted by paper shims under the body's lens flange, this would be body-dependent and not lens-dependent. The lens itself could also be shimmed. A different helicoid pitch, however, could not be 'adjusted' easily. Depending on shimming, it would either miss infinity, or close, or both

 

Hopefully, somebody with more inside knowledge on this topic can further elaborate on this subject!

 

Kind regards

Mathias

 

As an afterthought, the old adage stiĺl rings true: "Your lens is only as good as it's history", thus individual tolerance, servicing or often lack thereof, and (mis)handling may play a bigger role than the original design specifications in many specimen available today

 

I guess what I really need to do is buy a camera and find out.

[schattenundlicht]

I guess what I really need to do is buy a camera and find out.

This is always a good idea!

[schattenundlicht]

A very interesting read, thank you for taking the time to write this.

 

I have been considering adding a Russian clone or two to my small collection just for fun. On a related note, I have a Jupiter 8 that focuses perfectly on my Leicas, I wonder if I got lucky or if it was adjusted to work on a Leica, it did come from Ukraine. Based on this what are the chances it will also focus well on a Russian camera?

I have stumbled across a post by Kim Coxon who has serviced quite a number of Soviet lenses:

 

"[...]However putting aside, the ones that may have been worked before, I have noticed a huge variety in what should be the same lens. Nearly all have different thicknesses of shims in them. Now as has been pointed out, they were originally shipped with a test certificate showing their measured focal length. This points towards the fact that they were not “precision” engineered in the way we expect today but rather adjusted as they were assembled. As I said earlier just about every J9 I have worked on has been slightly different. I have managed to adjust most of those but there was one I couldn’t get close. So I have come to the belief that there are also “Friday afternoon” lenses out there which may have been put together after a certain amount of vodka. In the end, it is a bit of a lottery when you buy one and that doesn’t depend if you are going to try it on a Leica. Several have been out even for a Soviet body.[...]"

 

And another interesting link may be

http://aperturepriority.co.nz//wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Jupiter-3-Shimming-Instructions.pdf

 

Kind regards

Mathias

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My last Jupiter-8 from Ukraine came without alligment shim.

Buy and Try is low chance lottery with FSU gear, you also can't trust most of the FSU sellers for camera been serviced and tested. The only one I trust and who is available is Oleg. Here

Is Fedka as well and this is it from those who are known and long enough in business.

As for Jupiter 8 or any FSU LTM lens it could match Leica or FSU or no alligment at all.

Where are free manuals how to do it, available online.

I re-shined collapsible Industar as well for Leica.

Nothing complicated. I cut shims from paper.

I recommend to re-lube focus helicoid as well, also available on-line.

My Jupiter-3 and Jupiter-12 are incredibly smooth to focus.

[schattenundlicht]

For those with an interest in the Russian/Soviet Leica clones, there is a brand  new book by Dieter Wälholz, (the book is in English language). I have no afiliation whatsoever with the author or the publisher and I have not received my copy yet, because it is fresh in print, so no formal endorsement from me:

 

Fed-1, Zorki-1, Zorki-2
The Soviet Copies of the Leica II.
Von Dieter Wälzholz.

190 Seiten mit ca. 300 Farb-Fotos und -Abbildungen im Digital-Druck, Text englisch, 21 x 28 cm, Stuttgart 2018, gebunden

 

http://www.lindemanns.de/shop/fotobuchhandlung/64067f-dieter-waelzholz-fed-1-zorki-1-zorki-2.php

 

Kind regards

Mathias

Edited June 16, 2018 by schattenundlicht

[wlaidlaw]

Russian clones are absolutely fine as long as you obey the rule: Russian lenses on Russian cameras and non-Russian lenses on non-Russian L39 cameras. I am sure many of you will know the reason for this but it is very simple. Russian lenses use the Zeiss thread pitch in their focusing helicoids and it is fractionally different from the Leica helicoid thread pitch. The original reason for this is that Zeiss helped Russian industry with the set up of their infant camera lens industry in the 1930's, then in 1945, Russia removed most of the lens and camera making machinery from Zeiss in Jena, then in the Russian occupation zone, to Moscow and Kiev. The end result is that although you can set up a Russian lens so that it focuses correctly at a set distance, it will not then focus correctly at other distances. It is possible to correct this by adding metal by brazing to the RF cam on the lens and then having it reground but the cost of this is prohibitive. Because the discrepancy is not huge, at smaller apertures you can get away with using a Russian lens on a Leica body or vice versa. This only applies to Russian lenses, since as far as I am aware, all other countries who made their own version of L39 Leica lenses and cameras (UK, Japan, Italy, etc), all used the Leica focusing helicoid thread pitch. 

 

Wilson

Edited June 27, 2018 by wlaidlaw

[willeica]

Russian clones are absolutely fine as long as you obey the rule: Russian lenses on Russian cameras and non-Russian lenses on non-Russian L39 cameras. I am sure many of you will know the reason for this but it is very simple. Russian lenses use the Zeiss thread pitch in their focusing helicoids and it is fractionally different from the Leica helicoid thread pitch. The original reason for this is that Zeiss helped Russian industry with the set up of their infant camera lens industry in the 1930's, then in 1945, Russia removed most of the lens and camera making machinery from Zeiss in Jena, then in the Russian occupation zone, to Moscow and Kiev. The end result is that although you can set up a Russian lens so that it focuses correctly at a set distance, it will not then focus correctly at other distances. It is possible to correct this by adding metal by brazing to the RF cam on the lens and then having it reground but the cost of this is prohibitive. Because the discrepancy is not huge, at smaller apertures you can get away with using a Russian lens on a Leica body or vice versa. This only applies to Russian lenses, since as far as I am aware, all other countries who made their own version of L39 Leica lenses and cameras (UK, Japan, Italy, etc), all used the Leica focusing helicoid thread pitch. 

 

Wilson

 

I agree with this. You will notice initially some difficulty putting the lens onto a Leica screwmount. If you are using a Russian LTM lens on an M camera there are less difficulties once you get the lens screwed onto a suitable adapter. I found this when doing tests for my recent article on the Jupiter 3. The lens worked well at all apertures and distances on a digital M.

 

William

[wlaidlaw]

William, 

 

I have been told there were Jupiter 3 50/1.5 lenses made in Leica thread pitch helicoid or with an RF cam ground to compensate, like the new Jupiter 3 lenses being sold by Lomography, which are Leica compatible. These were designed for the export market. I wonder if your Jupiter 3 might be one of those lenses. Are there any marks on yours to indicate that this might be the case? The same person who told me about the "Export" Jupiters said they were usually marked in Latin not Cyrillic script. 

 

Wilson

[willeica]

Thanks Wilson. My Jupiter 3 lens was bought in St Petersburg and has Cyrillic script on the front. I have tested it with film on a Zorki 2C where it was fine. It is also fine on a digital M with an adapter. It seems to indicate different distances on an LTM Leica IIc/f to those indicated by a Summar on that camera, but I have not yet tested it with film on that or any other Leica LTM camera. I will probably do that soon and report back. I think that your point has validity for Jupiter lenses made for the Russian market, but an LTM/M adapter seems to iron out the differences. 

 

William

[Reini]

I have a Industar 22. it' better than some other Leica Lenses.

Of course you can catch a bad one. But some Russian lenses are better than their reputation.

[schattenundlicht]

I have a Industar 22. it' better than some other Leica Lenses.

Of course you can catch a bad one. But some Russian lenses are better than their reputation.

+1, especially with regard to the coated Industar-22. And the later one is more ergonomic to use than the Elmar, too (aperture setting).

[pico]

Good for you, schattenundlicht. (Light and its shadow as one?)
 

Technical issues have been posted. My minor comment - adventuring with so-called less desirable brand lenses is a virtue. We will never know how a lens' rendering might please until we try it. There are no aesthetic metrics, thank goodness.

Edited June 27, 2018 by pico

[schattenundlicht]

Good for you, schattenundlicht. (Light and its shadow as one?)

 

Technical issues have been posted. My minor comment - adventuring with so-called less desirable brand lenses is a virtue. We will never know how a lens' rendering might please until we try it. There are no aesthetic metrics, thank goodness.

One has to keep in mind that the extreme sample variance makes the Russian cameras and lenses a bit of a sweepstake game. If you get a lucky draw, they can be nearly as rewarding as their Wetzlar peers, with the added exhilaration of procuring them for peanuts. If you draw a blank, they can be very frustrating. Bodies seem to be more problematic than lenses, as they suffer more severely from inferior metals and increased wear.

 

A lesser specimen lowers the bar for doing your own CLA or repair attempts, thus even a dud can be fun to play with.

Edited June 27, 2018 by schattenundlicht

[wlaidlaw]

I am sorry folks I disagree. We would complain bitterly and rightly so, if Leica lenses had these focusing errors, so why are you prepared to put up with them on Russian lenses. The wrong tool for the job. They are designed and only designed to work properly on Russian Cameras, whose rangefinders are calibrated for the Zeiss focusing helicoid pitch. Sadly, Dante Stella's excellent technical article about Soviet lenses is no longer available as he no longer hosts DanteStella.com. However it is exactly the same issue that makes Contax and Nikon RF lenses incompatible, with each others' cameras. 

 

Wilson

[pico]

[...] We would complain bitterly and rightly so, if Leica lenses had these focusing errors, so why are you prepared to put up with them on Russian lenses. The wrong tool for the job. They are designed and only designed to work properly on Russian Cameras, whose rangefinders are calibrated for the Zeiss focusing helicoid pitch. Sadly, Dante Stella's excellent technical article about Soviet lenses is no longer available as he no longer hosts DanteStella.com. However it is exactly the same issue that makes Contax and Nikon RF lenses incompatible, with each others' cameras.

 

My friend, we are not discussing Leica lenses or Leica cameras, other than rare instances where a Russian lens tolerance just happen to fail and acidently focus properly on a Leica body.

 

It is pretty much a crap shoot, mind fu*k. No?

[schattenundlicht]

I am sorry folks I disagree. We would complain bitterly and rightly so, if Leica lenses had these focusing errors, so why are you prepared to put up with them on Russian lenses. The wrong tool for the job. They are designed and only designed to work properly on Russian Cameras, whose rangefinders are calibrated for the Zeiss focusing helicoid pitch. Sadly, Dante Stella's excellent technical article about Soviet lenses is no longer available as he no longer hosts DanteStella.com. However it is exactly the same issue that makes Contax and Nikon RF lenses incompatible, with each others' cameras. 

 

Wilson

I share your reluctance. I tend not to mix systems or manufacturers in my kit, thus a Zorki lens will sit on a Zorki camera and, provided both are good samples, there is no issue for me.

 

With regard to the nominal focal length, nominal flange distance, lensmount thread and helicoid pitch issues, there is a lot of conflicting and sometimes inconsistent information around, with proponents of all sides giving more or less convincing arguments, measurements and examples. The postwar „hijacked Zeiss Jena stock“ hypothesis would not account for the documented prewar incompatabilities. Maybe it is all due to spurious sample variation.

 

Anyway, I am rather reluctant, to say the least, of mating one of my precious Leicas with a potentially dubious lens or even adapter. I appreciate my „poor man‘s Leicas“ for their specific historic context, and for the sheer bravery of trying to duplicate German engineering and manufacturing, in an impoverished and underdeveloped country suffering from, amongst others, dearth of commodities, misadministration and workforce demotivation.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ko.Fe.]

It is myth among theoretical forum users.

Again, I wrote many times and Brian S and his followers like me did it many times.

FSU lenses are perfectly fine and most are easelly adaptable for M and LTM Leicas.