Zenit: someone use them?

[M-88]

But just as the basic design is generic throughout many models and as there are quite few around the Zenit should be a good base for repair training.

It is indeed generic. In fact, first Zenit came to be from Zorki camera, which was in turn a crude copy of Leica. They "just" added a mirror box. Later models didn't evolve much in terms of mechanics and it's arguably the easiest SLR to service on your own, until it comes to adjusting shutter curtains.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

just been given one to use for a class.what a tank; robust enough to put nails in the wall!

 

[M-88]

I have committed unprecedented act of idiocy and stuffed my Z-11 with Ektar 100. I just have a thing for Industar 50-2 lens and can't be bothered with buying any other M-42 body. Wish it was sunny, E-100 yields so much different results in good weather.

 

[AgX]

Great that someone is using a Tessar-type in an SLR, as japanese makers made us think SLR life only starts with a Double-Gauss lens.
(Well, Pentacon even offered a plain triplet for their SLR's.)

 

[M-88]

Great that someone is using a Tessar-type in an SLR, as japanese makers made us think SLR life only starts with a Double-Gauss lens.
(Well, Pentacon even offered a plain triplet for their SLR's.)

I was contemplating a purchase of 'father' of this lens, silver Zeiss Tessar 50/3.5 for SLR on M42 thread, with some fancy coating, but in the end that money went elsewhere. After all, it would never be my daily shooter lens and 70$ is a fair amount of money out here.

Zenit looks like a concrete block compared to any post-1972 Japanese camera and I quite frankly am accustomed to lightweight, ergonomic and functional cameras from four islands in Asia. However, their stock optics, normal 50 mm lenses with f/1.8 are somewhat dull. Yes they are sharp, yes they are good performers (some of them - great performers actually), but they all lack character and sometimes I want some beautiful rendering instead of clinically sharp images. And that's where M42 comes in. Tessar scheme specifically. Of course I use Flektogon and Biotar b*stards from Russia as well, but Tessar has some punch.

 

[Huss]

Zenit 12SD, Helios44 58 2.0, Tri-X f

 

[SilverShutter]

I was contemplating a purchase of 'father' of this lens, silver Zeiss Tessar 50/3.5 for SLR on M42 thread, with some fancy coating, but in the end that money went elsewhere. After all, it would never be my daily shooter lens and 70$ is a fair amount of money out here.

Zenit looks like a concrete block compared to any post-1972 Japanese camera and I quite frankly am accustomed to lightweight, ergonomic and functional cameras from four islands in Asia. However, their stock optics, normal 50 mm lenses with f/1.8 are somewhat dull. Yes they are sharp, yes they are good performers (some of them - great performers actually), but they all lack character and sometimes I want some beautiful rendering instead of clinically sharp images. And that's where M42 comes in. Tessar scheme specifically. Of course I use Flektogon and Biotar b*stards from Russia as well, but Tessar has some punch.

I agree, the industar 50-2 is one of the few lenses I carry with me everywhere, i have an adapter for my EOS film cameras as well to use it there and it's simply brilliant. Perhaps the only thing I do not quite like is how prone it is to flare, but then again for such a cheap and small lens there's not much room to complain. At this moment I have it on a Chinon CS-4 and the whole set up is quite small and light, although I do sometimes miss my clunky Zenit.

 

[M-88]

I agree, the industar 50-2 is one of the few lenses I carry with me everywhere, i have an adapter for my EOS film cameras as well to use it there and it's simply brilliant. Perhaps the only thing I do not quite like is how prone it is to flare, but then again for such a cheap and small lens there's not much room to complain. At this moment I have it on a Chinon CS-4 and the whole set up is quite small and light, although I do sometimes miss my clunky Zenit.

I have a few issues with it too, like you said, it's prone to flare. Most Soviet lenses are, thanks to "super" coating and in case of Industar 50-2, its glass is tiny, stuck in front without anything remotely similar to hood, filter thread is of odd size and one can't find a hood easily either. Second complaint is regarding the aperture control. it's in the wrong place and it's too easy to go off-focus while trying to adjust the aperture. Luckily when using on APS-C sensor wide open I get equivalent depth of field f/5.2 which is ok. As for using it on Zenit, I just like to complicate my life sometimes.

 

[AgX]

Yes, ergonimics of lenses is an issue. Click-stops could conúnteract a wrong location of an aperture dial. Otherwise one can dampen it strongly so that twisting the helicoid would be much easier than the dial.

 

[M-88]

Yes, ergonimics of lenses is an issue. Click-stops could conúnteract a wrong location of an aperture dial. Otherwise one can dampen it strongly so that twisting the helicoid would be much easier than the dial.

Interestingly, original Zeiss lens had a bit better aperture ring with sort of a grip on the barrel. I imagine it would be easier to operate the aperture this way, rather than on Industar. Not sure about clickable stops though, I don't own Zeiss unfortunately.

Soviets often simplified (and crippled in the process) German lenses. Biotar, for example was made into Helios-44 and first it had 13 aperture blades. Final model had only six. Not to mention degradation of glass and lack of qualified personnel.

 

[AgX]

What is strange with soviet filter thread sizes? I never looked into that matter so far.

 

[M-88]

What is strange with soviet filter thread sizes? I never looked into that matter so far.

It was 33 mm initially. Later it was changed to 35.5 mm. Both threads are uncommon nowadays.

 

[AgX]

35.5mm is a standard item at Heliopan for instance. But 33mm ?? That is why I take any filter I find at the rummage box. One never knows. (Well, I leave behind UV and Pol in standard sizes.)