Interesting article on Russian lenses

Huss · Jan 28, 2022

drmoss_ca said:
I have never considered which Spice Girl I would be. The phenomenon of how we do not listen to new music after a certain age (~27 in my case) saved me from an awful lot of rubbish.

You also missed out on a lot of amazing music too.

flavio81 · Feb 1, 2022

Nodda Duma said:
I have spoken to Hamish and Chris about Omnar, and

Can somebody give me a brief explanation of what's Omnar and what are they doing? The blog only says that "Omnar is the Spice Girls if camera lenses. "

Nodda Duma · Feb 1, 2022

https://omnarlenses.com/our-story/

and

https://www.35mmc.com/15/10/2021/omnar-lenses-cn26-6-26mm-f-6-my-first-lens-coming-to-market/

__Brian · Feb 3, 2022

What is a Jupiter 5? It's a story by Arthur C Clarke. What does that have to do with Russian lenses?

If you want to know which Jupiter-3's use Schott glass, just unscrew the fixture for the rear triplet. If the threads are on the front that screws in, and it has a guide ring around it, look like these two- it is made using Russian Glass. If it does not have a separate fixture, it has Russian glass and was made after 1962. The type of glass is important to the design, properties such as index of refraction and dispersion are important to the fundamental design of the lens. The Schott glass used on the Wartime Sonnars, and the post-war ZK and J-3 make them some of the best performing Sonnar formula lenses ever made. The wartime Sonnar has better edge-to-edge performance in terms of flatness of field compared with the Jupiter-3+.

"Schott Glass, Russian Lenses, And A Jupiter 5 Do Over"- What is a Jupiter 5???

__Brian · Feb 3, 2022

If the rear fixture of your J-3 has numbers like this,

It is really a German Sonnar with a J-3 name ring. Do not think of it as a counterfeit J-3, you will find it as good as a Wartime German Sonnar.

__Brian · Feb 3, 2022

If the threads are towards the back of the rear fixture, it has German glass in it. The shape of the rear triplet was changed.

The Jupiter-3's with German Glass have less field curvature than those that followed.

__Brian · Feb 3, 2022

Can you really tell the difference?

Not by center sharpness wide-open. This is with a 1956 KMZ Jupiter-3 with Russian glass, a "v2". Edge-to-Edge, the J-3's with German glass perform the same as the Wartime Sonnars. And cost a lot less. I also have a 1956 KMZ Jupiter-3 with German Glass.

__Brian · Feb 3, 2022

Avoid Valdai lenses- overall the quality control was no where near as good as the earlier J-3's.

Filings left in the lens, found on more than one of these.

Whoops. I guess he missed the first time.

Glad I put the scribe to mark the correct one.

And the Helical could not drive the lens to infinity, mount had to be ground down and helical repositioned.

After all that, new taps for the focus ring, add almost 1mm to the shim, and taps for the aperture- works well. Nothing 12 hours can't fix.

Read that guy's article- I'd really like to see a picture of a Jupiter-5. He is also clueless on focusing a Russian lens on a Leica, never noted that the Russian lenses are built to the 52.4mm focal length. Chris at Skyllaney fixes that problem by moving the rear group closer to the front, which reduces the focal length. I started doing that some 15 years ago. I'll be getting one of the pre-production Bertele Sonnars from Chris.

AgX · Feb 4, 2022

__Brian said:
Avoid Valdai lenses- overall the quality control was no where near as good as the earlier J-3's.

Well, I took a Valdai lens of mine and compared it to same model made by KMZ: Same pristine workmanship.

We all know that at plants of soviet photographic industry samples left the plant that never should have.

But to put things into pespective: I got 4 new, out-of-the-box Manfrotto tripod-heads and stands, ordered at Manfrotto, that are shit, either in workmanship or design (thus broken within minutes). Worse than anything soviet I got.

__Brian · Feb 4, 2022

The KMZ lenses are high quality, much more consistent performance. The Valdai lenses- I went through 12 to find a really good one. It is about consistency. The one shown is the best of the 12 I went through.

I have taken apart over 200 Jupiter-3's and about 70 Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnars. After a while you form opinions. Most people do not go through the trouble I do to validate an opinion.
Avoid Valdai unless you can inspect and return. Buying KMZ- expect less trouble on average. Earlier ZOMZ from 1958-1963, almost as good as a really good KMZ.

My Goldcrest Model 1068 Tripod bought in 1970 has withstood 50 years of use with me. $28.

__Brian · Feb 4, 2022

As for the Author of the article linked to by the OP: The author could not get the title of the article correct and thinks he knows something about Russian Lenses. If he never took the time to proof read the title, why should anyone take his writing seriously. He seems more angry that Chris told him to do some research on glass instead of just wanting everything explained in 25 words or less. Those words would be "The Schott glass has higher index of refraction and has low dispersion. In the Nikkor Tales, the Nikon designers address this, that their glass was not as good as the German glass."

https://cameraderie.org/threads/jupiter-3-plus-compared-with-three-rare-sonnar-lenses.39055/

I have Sonnar lenses from 1932 and will soon add one from 2022, as soon as the lens is fabricated.

__Brian · Feb 4, 2022

A quick read on glass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-dispersion_glass
Probably explains why some Canon lenses etch so badly.

I should take on a new name from this.

"Old Spice", previously known as Lenshacker.

__Brian · Feb 4, 2022

So the guy buys random lenses off Ebay, throws them on a Leica and decides if they are good or bad. I read his article on the I-26m. It is not based on the Elmar. It is based on the Tessar. The I-50 collapsible is really nice. Based on the Tessar 5cm F3.5, but uses high index of refraction/ low dispersion glass.

https://cameraderie.org/threads/industar-26m-5cm-f2-8-early-tabbed-version.39351/

https://cameraderie.org/threads/industar-50-collapsible-mount-50mm-f3-5.49070/

Kodachromeguy · Feb 4, 2022

__Brian said:
The type of glass is important to the design, properties such as index of refraction and dispersion are important to the fundamental design of the lens. The Schott glass used on the Wartime Sonnars, and the post-war ZK and J-3 make them some of the best performing Sonnar formula lenses ever made.

How does the 1950s Canon 50mm f/1.5 compare? Did they use new glass sourced from Japanese glass companies? That was an expensive lens when new. Worth buying now?

__Brian · Feb 4, 2022

https://cameraderie.org/threads/jupiter-3-nikkor-sc-5cm-f1-4-canon-50-1-5-visit-udvar-hazy.39043/

A comparison of the Jupiter-3+, Canon 50/1.5, and Nikkor 5cm F1.4.

You have to be careful that the surface behind the aperture is clean. Mine is. There was some time that Canon used some awful lubricant- and it damaged the glass.
Also: The Canon 50/1.5 seems to have been optimized for F2 or F2.8, I adjusted mine for wide-open use.

The prices on the Canon 50/1.5 are way down from a few years ago- worth getting if it is clean. Hard to find 40mm filters and hoods, but they are out there. I picked up a Canon 50/1.2 made in 1957, came on the Vt deluxe 1st version, placing it early 1957. Glass is perfect. Same with an early Canon Black 50/1.8, perfect glass- one of the first few thousand out. I'm thinking 1958 was a switch to the horrible glass etching lubricant.

AgX · Feb 4, 2022

__Brian said:
I read his article on the I-26m. It is not based on the Elmar. It is based on the Tessar.

Both are "Tessar Types", from its history the Elmar is even based on the Tessar. So your differenciation/critique does not make sense to me, unless the I-26 is a copy with all details of the Elmar.

__Brian · Feb 4, 2022

AgX said:
So your differenciation/critique does not make sense to me, unless the I-26 is a copy with all details of the Elmar.

Why do you think the I26M is a copy with all the details of the Elmar? The author of the article claimed it was based on the Elmar, not me. Among other things- the focus mount is completely different, the focal length is different, and the placement of the aperture is different.

The placement of the Aperture on the Elmar is different from that of the Tessar, look it up. The guy that wrote the article stated the I26M was based on the Elmar. It is not. The Elmar is a 51.6mm focal length lens, the Tessar and I-26M are 52.4mm. The I26M must be adjusted to work on a Leica. The Tessar in Contax mount is best used with an adapter with an indexed cam.

The Tessar came first. The original Russian Industar 22 also has German glass in it. The guy that wrote the article does not check his facts. I do.

AgX · Feb 4, 2022

My point was that differenciation only makes sense if one goes into detail. And you did.
By the way, the original article was unreadable for me.

This discussion now taught me how ignorant I am on the Elmar. (I got not Leica RF, but am more knowledgable on SLR lenses). Up to now I was in the belief that the Elmar was of the Tessar type, thus with all major characteristics being the same. All text books on this I got say so. One important book on lenses even gives for it the schematic of the Tessar with the aperture in the 2nd space.
Only just now I realized that the Elmar got it in first space. (I only could find one lens diagram of it...)

bluechromis · Feb 4, 2022

I have heard some opine that most currently made Japanese lenses suffer because they avoid the use of toxic materials like lead, arsenic, not to mention radioactive materials in the glass. The same people also suggest the Ziess still uses materials like arsenic and it gives them an advantage. Are lenses with lead and arsenic really a terrible environmental threat? Probably not because the toxic materials are fairly insoluble bound up in the glass. But what to do with particles that come off in lens grinding? Those may be a bigger problem. It may be possible to safely manage those wastes, but it creates added costs.

DonW · Feb 5, 2022

bluechromis said:
I have heard some opine that most currently made Japanese lenses suffer because they avoid the use of toxic materials like lead, arsenic, not to mention radioactive materials in the glass. The same people also suggest the Ziess still uses materials like arsenic and it gives them an advantage. Are lenses with lead and arsenic really a terrible environmental threat? Probably not because the toxic materials are fairly insoluble bound up in the glass. But what to do with particles that come off in lens grinding? Those may be a bigger problem. It may be possible to safely manage those wastes, but it creates added costs.

Without credible attribution I would say the comments about Japanese lenses is total BS.

AgX · Feb 5, 2022

There are worldwide only a handfull of glassworks busy with optical glass anyway. In the EU we got two sets of regulations that restrict or threaten the use of certain heavy metals in optical glass. One thus may argue that EU manufacturers are at an disadvantage, but one may not overlook that these regulations basically also apply on imported goods. And as long the EU is an important export market for non-EU manufacturers there may be a levelling effect. This all is still evolving.

__Brian · Feb 5, 2022

The type of glass used, the refractive index of the glass, dispersive properties of the glass, curvature of each surface, and distance between each element of the lens are all factors in what my Optical Engineer called "The prescription of the lens". The block diagram shown in most books and data sheets is important, think of it as placing the lens into a family. The Elmar is in the Tessar family, four elements in 3 groups, 1-1-2. The original KMZ Jupiter-3 "version 1" Optics using Schott glass is a copy of the wartime 5cm F1.5 Sonnar. The individual elements can be interchanged with the wartime Zeiss lens. The two use the same glass, have the same surfaces, and same placement. The Focus Mount is an improved design over that of Zeiss. Once the Schott glass ran out, different glass was substituted and the "Prescription" changed: Different curvature, different shapes, different placement. Since all that changed, the rear fixture changed.

The I-26m gets a "bum rap". I post links to my lens threads as most shots are with an M9 or M Monochrom. The pictures here OF the lens- are also of course Digital. That's Okay on this forum, as I understood it from years ago.

The Leica 50mm F1.0 Noctilux was made using glass made in the US, by Raytheon. When Raytheon got out of that line, the design changed.

Nodda Duma · Feb 5, 2022

bluechromis said:
I have heard some opine that most currently made Japanese lenses suffer because they avoid the use of toxic materials like lead, arsenic, not to mention radioactive materials in the glass. The same people also suggest the Ziess still uses materials like arsenic and it gives them an advantage. Are lenses with lead and arsenic really a terrible environmental threat? Probably not because the toxic materials are fairly insoluble bound up in the glass. But what to do with particles that come off in lens grinding? Those may be a bigger problem. It may be possible to safely manage those wastes, but it creates added costs.

Ohara not using toxic materials and Schott still using toxic materials for optical glass is blatantly false.

Both companies conform to RoHS standards. Even CDGM is lead-free.

Currently I consider Ohara glass to be superior and use it whenever possible. From a quality perspective they are equivalently the best, but Ohara has better selection and much better lead times than Schott.

(Infrared materials is a whole different story, but not relevant to the topic at hand)

AgX · Feb 5, 2022

Nodda Duma said:
Ohara not using toxic materials and Schott still using toxic materials for optical glass is blatantly false.

Both companies conform to RoHS standards. Even CDGM is lead-free.

The situation is more complex. It is not only about RoHS-2. Schott indirectly has been lobbying the last years in the hope to be exempted as long as possible from the regulations, which themselves periodicaly are getting more strict. Just a few months ago the legal situation changed again. The head of Schott research on this stated that such exemption is a prerequisite for the future of the optical world with the tasks laid upon them.
This notwithstanding new formulations are being made.

What I find interesting about this is that at other sectors of industry the manufacturers praised themselves for omitting certain chemicals, or refused to talk about this issue and here a reasarcher spoke about ongoing lobbying for exemption from those regulations.

Nodda Duma · Feb 5, 2022

AgX, I’m aware of those details but you have the story wrong. What I wrote at the very end is important.

Here is the rest of the story:

Schott’s optical glass types were reformulated to be lead-free in the 1990s / 2000s. Lead glass hasn’t been available for visible optics for years. They are not lobbying to change that back.

What Schott is worried about are infrared materials… chalcogenides in particular. Why?

Because in 2015 the Schott facility in Duryea, Pennsylvania caught fire and sustained $50 million in losses to the plant. This was the primary location for manufacture of exotic materials including chalcogenides. This was a huge blow to the optical design community outside of the visible spectrum and caused significant delays in many development programs.

Some of Schott’s R&D and manufacturing capability was rebuilt. The rest of it — including chalcogenide manufacture — was moved back to Germany. The German factory is *just* now getting to the point where they can manufacture these unique materials which use arsenic, selenium, etc etc (you can google to find the formulas). Sadly, the quality is not near as good as it was at the US facility.

In any case, they are investing a huge amount of money at the same time that Germany is tightening its regulations. This is why they are lobbying: because if they are denied the ability to manufacture then they just wasted a massive investment that might cripple that division. They are not happy about it.

There are alternative suppliers. One other in Germany and another in China. The Chinese supplier is often not useable, so the inability of German manufacturers to use those materials has significant repercussions in certain industries.

Schott will likely get a waiver, but it won’t be due to them asking for themselves. It will be because NATO countries need them to supply exotic infrared optical materials.

of course those details are well beyond the scope of this thread.

Interesting article on Russian lenses

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency