Industar LTM Elmar versus Industar 10 - 50/3.5

Industar M39 lenses
The only reason why I ordered I-22 yesterday is because original Elmar is expensive to me. :)
 
I think many of us have seen comparisons of Elmar to FSU collapsibles before. On the whole and over the entire meta-comparison, the elmar overall is the better performer. But, sometimes a particular copy of FSU lens shines. And, more importantly, the FSU lenses perform admirably and give great results. They're worth owning and using.
 
I think my I-22 went with me to Yellowstone once. Got some great images. I know it was on my Zorki-C at the rodeo when I snapped one of my favorite rodeo images ever. I love the expression on the kid :)

(It was not with a J-8 as I mistakenly wrote in another thread somewhere)
34618761.96e6f9e8.640.jpg
 
I compared a Fed to an Elmar here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113110

Then later I compared several other FSU collapsibles to an Elmar here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130386

If you don't have time to look, the results show the Leitz Elmar is much better than the Feds. "I've tested several and none were as good as the Elmar. Even people that think they've got a good one, may not have ever done an A to B comparison with an Elmar. Others just repeat what is said online, that "they're just as good." I'm an engineer, and I like proof. I'm not saying they all are bad, just that a buyer better understand he may easily get a bad one."
 
johannielscom said:
The Russian lenses have a Tessar optical layout, four elements in three groups. The Elmar is five elements in three groups. Aperture in front of rearmost group in both lenses.

An Industar-22 can be as sharp as a clean Elmar and the design isn't what limits sharpness, it's quality control. As others have pointed out, there are bad Industars and good ones out there and it's a gamble what you will get, unless you can test before purchase.
Click to expand...

Johan,
I believe that all of the lenses discussed here are of 4 elements in 3 groups design, including Leitz Elmar. The main difference is in the position of aperture blades. Elmars have there aperture blades located behind front element, or first group. Zeiss Tessar and most FSU clones have their aperture blades located between second and third groups. I might have read somewhere that there were some early uncoated pre-war FED lenses, that were true copies of Elmar, just like FEDs were copies of Leica II.
Max Berek positioned aperture blades behind front element to get around Zeiss patent.
Early Leitz Anastigmat and Elmax lenses were indeed a 5 element in 3 groups designs.
 
goamules said:
I compared a Fed to an Elmar here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113110

Then later I compared several other FSU collapsibles to an Elmar here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130386

If you don't have time to look, the results show the Leitz Elmar is much better than the Feds. "I've tested several and none were as good as the Elmar. Even people that think they've got a good one, may not have ever done an A to B comparison with an Elmar. Others just repeat what is said online, that "they're just as good." I'm an engineer, and I like proof. I'm not saying they all are bad, just that a buyer better understand he may easily get a bad one."
Click to expand...
True - just to add that it seems the old 3.5/5cm uncoated Elmar is much underrated nowadays.
It's a fabulous little lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top