| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| seany65 |
Posted - Sep 12 2016 : 6:10:52 PM
Sorry if there's a thread about this already, but I've done a search and can't find it.
What I'd like to know is, from what I've seen written about these lenses, the I-61LD is a 4 element in 3 groups design and the J-8 is s 6 element in 3 groups design, and yet it seems the I-61LD is a little sharper than the J-8.
How Could this be? Is just the Lanthanum glass?
I've also read that the I-61LD is a bit more contrasty than the J-8. Could this be the reason why the I-61LD seems to be sharper?
So is it sharper or does it only seem so?
|
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| seany65 |
Posted - Oct 10 2016 : 3:38:01 PM
Thanks for the links Michael. :-)
Unfortunately I can't read German, and I don't know how to use google translate to translate an entire webpage. |
| europanorama |
Posted - Oct 09 2016 : 8:03:51 PM
http://www.g-st.ch/privat/kameras/zorkiobjektive.html
zorki_lenses shown
www.europanorama.ch.vu
3DStereo-Aeropanorama
Swiss Alps like never before
Marspanoramas in 3D
sorry temp.ltd. access
3DSTEREO-Media
Photos/Panoramas/Videos
|
| seany65 |
Posted - Oct 07 2016 : 5:46:53 PM
Old FSU lenses do seem to be quite popular in the digital world. I've seen a few comments on them being better than the supplied modern lenses.
Quite and inditement on the companies that make the modern stuff, really. |
| onre |
Posted - Oct 07 2016 : 12:15:15 PM
I-61 L/Z focuses much closer than the M39 version. Here is a picture I took with a digicam and I-61 L/Z. I use it often with digicam because it is better than the Canon lens that came with it.
Full size:
https://anteek.fi/~esp/mxr-remontti-huge.jpg |
| seany65 |
Posted - Oct 06 2016 : 11:21:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jacques M.
quote:
Originally posted by seany65
The I-61LD has one advantage over the J8:
1) When turning the aperture ring of the I-61LD, the focus ring won't move. :-)
Why couldn't they sort that out on the Jupiter?
It's only on later Jup 8 that the whole front body rotates when you focus. No problem on the Jup 8 from 1950 to 1970. A different build probably for economical reasons.
Jacques, What about the chrome/silver version that has a body that seems to be the same shape as the black one? If I turn the aperture ring does the focusing ring also move, because it's the same shape/design as the black one, or does it not move because it's made the same as the earlier chrome ones but the body is a different shape?
Here's a couple of pics showing what I mean. In the first pic look at the lens on the right, and compare to either lens in the second pic:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/8fea17508152459 http://www.imagebam.com/image/34ead0508152528
Credit and thanks to sovietcams.
|
| Alfa2 |
Posted - Oct 06 2016 : 01:03:05 AM
No, it would not. 
The letters D and Z comes from russian names which are equivalents of SLR and "viewfinder camera". As you know SLR and "viewfinder camera" have different register distance. Register distance is more important than diameter of thread.
You can always use lenses M39 produced for Zenit 3M and attach them to M42 Zenit. You need only simple adapter M42/M39. But you cannot use Jupiter 8 on Zenit 3M in spite they have the same M39 thread. |
| seany65 |
Posted - Oct 05 2016 : 4:58:39 PM
I see. Wouldn't it have been simpler to call one "61L39" or "61LM3" and the other "61L42" or "61LM4"?
|
| seany65 |
Posted - Oct 04 2016 : 12:49:54 PM
Thanks Fotohuis. |
| Fotohuis |
Posted - Oct 04 2016 : 12:33:36 PM
You have also the L/Z version Z stands for M42 thread.
Robert
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"
http://gallery.fotohuisrovo.nl/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotohuisrovo/ |
| seany65 |
Posted - Oct 04 2016 : 11:32:00 AM
Thanks for the info fotohuis.
D stands for m39 thread.
Is that it? Seems a bit odd to me, after all the N-61 is also m39 thread.
|
| Fotohuis |
Posted - Oct 04 2016 : 11:25:32 AM
D stands for M39 thread.
Robert
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"
http://gallery.fotohuisrovo.nl/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotohuisrovo/ |
| seany65 |
Posted - Oct 04 2016 : 11:16:20 AM
Something I didn't realisde earlier, is that it seems both the N-61 and 61LD are 'lanthanum' optics. So I was wondering if this impression is correct and if so, what does the 'D' stand for in 61LD? |
| Fotohuis |
Posted - Sep 23 2016 : 1:06:20 PM
In the Dutch analogue photo forum I made a test between the I-61, I-50 and J-8 versus Leica Summicron F/2-50mm. Conclusion: If you have a good FSU lens, CLA and put in the right way together the difference with a Leica Summicron is not that big. Yes on full aperture he Leica lens is the best, followed by I-61, J-8, I-50 but making just in practice a photo on e.g. F5,6 enlargement on 18x24cm you really have to look very good at the corners to find the differences. So you can be very happy with a good FSU camera (I prefer the Zorki-6 or a Kiev-4) with some good serviced lenses. I do not collect them, I use them all incl. my Leica M7. Looking at price-quality these lenses and cameras are amazing.
Robert
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"
http://gallery.fotohuisrovo.nl/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotohuisrovo/ |
| seany65 |
Posted - Sep 23 2016 : 12:43:41 PM
@fotohuis, thanks for the info about the 'differences' between the two versions of the I-61 lenses. Id been wondering about that for a day or two. |
| Fotohuis |
Posted - Sep 23 2016 : 12:35:21 PM
I did some extended tests with the J-8, I-61 and I-50. At full aperture the I-61 is the sharpest lens however take in mind that J-8 =F/2 I-61=F/2,8 and I-50=F/3,5. At F/4 I-61and J-8 is about the same. The biggest problem is that a lot of crappy assembled lenses are going around so what you have to do first is a professional CLA and aligning on a collimator. And of course it will cost more then the whole lens which is normally Eur. 20 for an I-61. The difference between I-61 or L/D type (Lanthanium) is really a minimum difference, I would say neglectible.
Overall the I-61 is also a newer design then the J-8 made on old Zeiss pre-war calculations. In all round I would say the J-8 is a very good performer. I have the lens in LTM and Kiev/Contax mount.
Robert
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"
http://gallery.fotohuisrovo.nl/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotohuisrovo/ |
| seany65 |
Posted - Sep 23 2016 : 10:43:25 AM
@alfa2, Glad to be of use. :-)
@Jacques M., Thanks for the info. I presume this means the aperture ring won't move the focusing ring when changing aperture? Interesting. wonder if they even thought about that 'porblem' when changing the design? |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Sep 23 2016 : 05:01:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by seany65
The I-61LD has one advantage over the J8:
1) When turning the aperture ring of the I-61LD, the focus ring won't move. :-)
Why couldn't they sort that out on the Jupiter?
It's only on later Jup 8 that the whole front body rotates when you focus. No problem on the Jup 8 from 1950 to 1970. A different build probably for economical reasons. |
| Alfa2 |
Posted - Sep 23 2016 : 04:55:49 AM
Thank you Sean for showing me the link. I haven't seen this test earlier. Results of my tests are similar. Maybe my I50 is little bit better.
I have compared 50mm lenses for M39, mainly collapsible.
Prewar I 10, postwar coated I 10, I 22, I 50, coated Elmar 3.5/50, not coated Elmar 3.5/50 and Jup 8. |
| seany65 |
Posted - Sep 22 2016 : 11:14:23 AM
@Alfa2, how does your I-50 compare to the one tested by xya? If you haven't already done this, I'd say look at the lens tests done by xya. Just click on the "a7camera" link in xya's post, and then click onthe 'apha7 comparison page' link.
I keep going pback to that page. It's rather interesting.
|
| seany65 |
Posted - Sep 22 2016 : 11:04:31 AM
Hmmm. It seems the J8 has 4 advantages over the I-61LD:
1) The J8 has less 'vignetting' in the corners at full aperture, which I presume get's less at f2.8, which I think would 'show up' the I-61LD quite badly in comparison.
2) The J8 can go to f2, a 'bit of a stop' wider, (dunno exactly how much that works out at, though). Even though t's a little 'soft' at f2, does give the option if sharpness isn't too important.
3) The J8 can go down to f22, which is a good option in very bright light.
4) The J8 has lines on it going from the f numbers to the distance scale, giving a better idea of depth of field than just having the f numbers being adjacent to the distance scale.
The I-61LD has one advantage over the J8:
1) When turning the aperture ring of the I-61LD, the focus ring won't move. :-)
Why couldn't they sort that out on the Jupiter? |
| Alfa2 |
Posted - Sep 22 2016 : 06:05:42 AM
I have tested recently a few M39 lenses. They were selected from a few items of the same type. E.g Jupier 8 was selected from about 5 pieces. I'm really surprised how good is Industar 50. |
| SteveA |
Posted - Sep 19 2016 : 1:45:46 PM
Agreed - I tested a Industar 61 LD and Jupiter 8 on a FED4; the Jupiter 8 was better. I had a few flare issues with the Industar, unfortunately there was slight damage (fungus) to the front element which could have caused this. That said, the best of the images were very pleasing, it seemed to perform well at F2.8
Steve |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Sep 18 2016 : 7:18:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by seany65
@Jacques M, thanks for the reply. I thought the Lanthanum was the type of glass used?
Yes, I was too fast. Lanthanum was included in glass to improve the contrast. Considered as excellent, but the photos I made were not completely convincing. Single coated, if I remember (?) |
| seany65 |
Posted - Sep 18 2016 : 6:10:31 PM
@Jacques M, thanks for the reply. I thought the Lanthanum was the type of glass used?
@xya, I've just spent about 30 minutes looking at your lens tests. Quite interesting. Anyway, you may think your testing wasn't all that scientific, but a magazine called 'Amateur Photographer' in Britain used to do their lens tests by photographing a ship with the bow and portholes in the centre and at the edge, and showing cropped sections of enlargements. This gave a more realistic idea of a lens than the 'LPM' graph used by 'What Camera Weekly', which was it's main rival. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Sep 18 2016 : 12:08:10 PM
Yes, the Industar 61 LD had modern coatings: they used lanthanum coatings (yellow tint) which were considered as excellent.
But frankly I don't think they could compete with a good Jup 8, even if some users found them better.
Jacques. |
| seany65 |
Posted - Sep 18 2016 : 10:55:55 AM
Thanks to everyone for the replies and the info.
Hmmm. I presume that even the last Industar lenses they made don't have modern coatings.
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 11:30:38 AM
Curious.
On the official site: http://www.fed.com.ua/ , also in English, there is nothing about Fed lenses...
I thought that production had completely stopped in the nineties, to turn towards aeronautic stuff.
What they exactly say :
From 1995 to 2005 it was the reorganization of the a scientific production association FED into JSC “Corporation FED”, and at the same time plant finished production of any types of cameras. Upgrading of the pump – regulator NR-3VM (VM-A) into NR-3VM-T, (VMA-T) for using in tropical climate for the engines TV3-117VM (VM-A). Mastered production of aggregates GP26, ND450 for engine AI-450, aggregates NDMS2, AUKPV-MS2, for engine AI-450MS, aggregate DT-400 for the engine MS-400
|
| Moxies |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 04:26:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
Yes that is correct, FED and LZOS (Some I-61's were made by them) are no long producing them, unless Lomographic Society is cooking something up. The only active lens manufacturer on the territory of FSU is KMZ making the Zenit lenses (former Zenitar, Helios). There may be some lenses made by some special order by LOMO but those are either cine lenses or ones made for Lomographic society.
Cheers,
Vlad
I don't know if they are still active, but they also produce(d?) lenses :
http://www.focusinc.ru/indexr.htm
Catalog : http://www.focusinc.ru/forcameras.htm
Or maybe it's part of LOMO? Most of their lenses were before produced by LOMO. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Sep 16 2016 : 10:50:49 PM
Yes that is correct, FED and LZOS (Some I-61's were made by them) are no long producing them, unless Lomographic Society is cooking something up. The only active lens manufacturer on the territory of FSU is KMZ making the Zenit lenses (former Zenitar, Helios). There may be some lenses made by some special order by LOMO but those are either cine lenses or ones made for Lomographic society.
Cheers,
Vlad |
| Moxies |
Posted - Sep 16 2016 : 5:52:56 PM
FED doesn't produce camera and lenses anymore afaik. I think they stopped the production at the end of the 90's.
Here is about FED
http://plantfed.all.biz
|
| seany65 |
Posted - Sep 16 2016 : 5:42:14 PM
I read somewhere that they still make I-61LD's. I was wondering if these later ones use modern coatings, or do they retain the old ones? Also, if they do still make them, what serial Numbers would the start with? Is the year still the 1st 2 digits? |
| seany65 |
Posted - Sep 14 2016 : 5:35:58 PM
Thanks for the replies everyone.
A website I've seen (could I find it again? Fat chance), which mentions the 'official' LPM design parameters for the J-8 and I-61LD, (which says the LPM figures are higer for the I-61LD), also mentions the I-50 f3.5. It seems it's figures are alittle higher than the J8!
I fully understand the 'particular example' problem, and that how a lens is used and steadiness of hand play a big part, but I'm still interested in this sort of thing. |
| xya |
Posted - Sep 13 2016 : 2:59:19 PM
as far as I know, the number of groups is more important than the number of elements. it's the outer surfaces of a group that create reflections which means less contrast. coating however could help a lot. in general, less groups and more modern coating is the best for contrat and sharpness.
I have tested several of both. moxies is right, at f2.8 they are both good and equal. if the j-8 is a bit soft at f2, at least you have f2 as an option.
just recently I tested several versions of the helios-44. it confirms that modern coating helps a lot.
www.a7camera.com www.120folder.com www.instantphoto.eu |
| contronatura |
Posted - Sep 13 2016 : 05:11:31 AM
Number of element/groups does not necessarily correspond to sharpness. Industar is a Tessar scheme, Jupiter is a Sonnar. Tessars are known to be sharp. But in practical terms this is irrelevant. Both are excellent lenses if you find a good example. As Moxies said, quality can vary wildly, but at least they are still dirt cheap to get. |
| Moxies |
Posted - Sep 13 2016 : 04:20:04 AM
Sharpness usualy varies from one exemplar to another.
Also need to keed in mind that Jupiter-8 has max apperture f2 whereas Industar-61 - f2.8. I'm not sure I-61 is sharper than any Jupiter-8 @f2.8.
Lantharium glasses helps yes. |
