Leitz Elmar

A user Leica III body can be had for $150 or so. Incredibly cheap for what you get. Screw on the Elmar and it’s home where it belongs.

RLangham said:

You know... I feel like I have to defend the FSU cameras a little. A lot of them were very well made at the time--it's just that most of them don't get CLA'd. If you buy a Leica a CLA seems like a small and worthwhile expense. Not so for a FED 2 you spent 20 bucks on. Judging a camera that's never been CLA'd against a family of cameras that are probably some of the most commonly CLA'd is a little unfair. Now obviously the engineering and workmanship is better on the Leicas, because it was literally some of the best work done in the camera world ever.... but most FSU cameras, especially in the old days, were pretty well-done on their own terms.

I encourage budding photographers who can't spare the money for a Leica, but who want a similar experience, to buy FED 2 or Zorki 4. They're cheap, they have good lenses and most of the repair can be done by amateurs. I had never worked on a FP shutter when I adjusted the curtain springs on my FED 2.

As for the lenses, nothing is as good as Leitz, but a lot of the Elmar magic is simply being a modified Tessar with an early coating... and guess what the Industars are? I have gotten beautiful performance out of the most basic Soviet lens, the 26m Red P. Sharpness? Not on the level of the Elmar. Flare performance? Probably inferior to the Elmar. Worth it for the cost? A thousand times over.

And honestly when you can get a Sonnar clone for 30 bucks do you need the quality to be right up to Leica standards?

Click to expand...

I never owned 50 3.5 Elmar. I used all common 50 FSU RF lenses on Leica, Bessa.
If it is for bw, film, not large prints, no Leitz lens needed.
As for FSU RF cameras, they are not well made. Some simple as Fed-2, Zorki are doable,.but rollers springs seems to not provide stable exposure anymore.
I CLA’d two dozens of FSU RF. The ex Leica technicians were, are not taking them for service. I had honour to know one. Then I asked, he told me, comparing to Leica, with FSU you never know if it is going to work once it is re-assembled. This is what I learned on practice. So, how many curtains you have replaced and how many gummed roller springs you have relubed in FSU RF cameras?

RLangham said:

As for the lenses, nothing is as good as Leitz, but a lot of the Elmar magic is simply being a modified Tessar with an early coating... and guess what the Industars are?

Click to expand...

Agreed. I have various FSU lenses, M39 and Contax mount, and the Industar offers the most modern rendering. In fact many decry them for being too neutral and sharp. My favourite 50 is the Helios 103, which manages to combine sharpness with character, however the Industar is permanently affixed to my Bessa and does the job very well.

FSU rangefinder cameras are a mixed bag, generally speaking the earlier the better. By the 1970s they were being thrown together and build quality is pot luck. Whether Barnack, M-mount or Contax, it's unreasonable to expect a vintage camera to work properly without attention. People capable of doing the job properly charge more than the casual buyer expects to pay, which is why FSU models - and less desirable Barnacks - are passed around until they disintegrate.

blockend said:

Agreed. I have various FSU lenses, M39 and Contax mount, and the Industar offers the most modern rendering. In fact many decry them for being too neutral and sharp.

Click to expand...

That's very interesting. I wouldn't have thought of "neutral" to describe the two Industar 26m I've shot with, and I've found that the sharpness mainly comes out at f/16, but then again, the 26m is essentially the bottom-end 50's and 60's FSU lens--mine are "Red P" but I've never really seen any that weren't.

I've found the color rendition, subjectively speaking, warm and vintage-looking, much like the Argus Coated Cintar or even my Pre-AI NIKKOR-S f:2 5cm. One of the two Industars does have a terrible flaw in the form of an large group of air bubbles that catch the light and lead to a slightly blurry, greyish bright patch in the center of the negative if the subject was too bright. The other has plenty of dust in it but performs very serviceably, leading me to think that it would be an excellent performer if it were professionally cleaned.

Again, I'm not arguing with you regarding your assessment of the Industar. My sample size is rather miniscule and some of the color response may be chocked up to the fact that I buy two-to-three year out-of-date Superia in bulk at the discount tienda here.

Soon I'll be trying out an Industar-50 for m39 Zenit C, which should be even more comparable to the Elmar in terms of optical formula. As I understand it, the Elmar is a modified Tessar with the aperture in a different space in the formula. The Industar-50 should be a normal Tessar of the same focal length and maximum aperture as the Elmar, so I would expect similar performance but perhaps a difference in the way the sharpness and IQ changes at different apertures?

Ray Morgenweck said:

A user Leica III body can be had for $150 or so. Incredibly cheap for what you get. Screw on the Elmar and it’s home where it belongs.

Click to expand...

That is true. But consider that the body and lens likely need cleaning and mechanical adjustment. To use them reliably, you need to budget for the maintenance. 60plus year old cameras are not "cheap."

RLangham said:

As I understand it, the Elmar is a modified Tessar with the aperture in a different space in the formula.

Click to expand...

There likely is a misunderstanding or miswording. I do not know of any Tessar-type lens whith the aperture not in the 2nd air-space from the front.

RLangham said:

I wouldn't have thought of "neutral" to describe the two Industar 26m I've shot with

Click to expand...

I should have made clear I was talking about the Lanthanum coated Industar 61D. This is notably superior to my other 61s, although all of them stand comparison with typical SLR lenses of similar vintage.

AgX said:

There likely is a misunderstanding or miswording. I do not know of any Tessar-type lens whith the aperture not in the 2nd air-space from the front.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... I've done a search, and I found diagrams confirming this. The modifications from Tessar to Elmar appear to be in the glass, not the diaphragm. I wonder where I got that information...

blockend said:

I should have made clear I was talking about the Lanthanum coated Industar 61D. This is notably superior to my other 61s, although all of them stand comparison with typical SLR lenses of similar vintage.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have considered buying one of the lanthane glass 61's myself. One little piece of trivia does interest me with those: is it true that the aperture only goes down to 16 rather than 22 as on the 26m? And are some of them clickstopped?