bluestar01
Member
I am choosing between 2 different Industar-61 L/D lenses to purchase, where one has a serial number corresponding to 1985, and the other has a serial number of 1993.
I was wondering if there are any differences in lens character or quality control in the Industar-61 L/Ds as the years went on? Did production quality increase as time went on or decrease; would the '85 or '93 model be likely to have better quality, or would there be negligible difference in the two? The '93 model is half the price of the '85 model, fwiw..!
I was wondering if there are any differences in lens character or quality control in the Industar-61 L/Ds as the years went on? Did production quality increase as time went on or decrease; would the '85 or '93 model be likely to have better quality, or would there be negligible difference in the two? The '93 model is half the price of the '85 model, fwiw..!
No difference that I have ever seen. Go for the one in better condition.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
In my experience, post-Soviet cameras are considerably lower quality/more problematic than the late-Soviet stuff. As a result, I'd be inclined to pass up on the '93 unless it was very cheap or I had the option to return it at no cost if something was wrong.
That said, I'll agree with Brian: I'd rather take a chance on a 90s lens in good shape over an 80s one that's been absolutely thrashed.
That said, I'll agree with Brian: I'd rather take a chance on a 90s lens in good shape over an 80s one that's been absolutely thrashed.
bluestar01
Member
Thank you both ! I was pretty sure I had heard/read somewhere about the post-Soviet copies being of a lower standard than the pre-ones, that's what prompted me to ask..! I did in the end go for the earlier '85 model and it seems to be in decent shape !
My only issue now is that all of my Soviet lenses (Industar И-61 52/2.8, Jupiter 8 2/50 AND the new Industar-61 L/D 55/2.8) suffer from back-focusing when mounted on my M-mount R-D1 via an URTH adapter :/ still tryna figure out how to correct that..!
My only issue now is that all of my Soviet lenses (Industar И-61 52/2.8, Jupiter 8 2/50 AND the new Industar-61 L/D 55/2.8) suffer from back-focusing when mounted on my M-mount R-D1 via an URTH adapter :/ still tryna figure out how to correct that..!
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
This is an inherent problem with Soviet LTM. They're built to the Contax rangefinder standard with a Leica mount, which means they always back-focus unless they're modified. Brian's talked a lot on here about modifying Jupiters 8 and 3 to focus accurately; I'm not sure anyone's ever bothered doing it with the Industars, to be honest.
If you only plan on using Soviet lenses, you *could* recalibrate the R-D1 to the Soviet standard, but I wouldn't recommend it.
You need to increase the shim on the FSU lenses to use on a Leica standard camera.
This is one I shimmed several years ago, wide-open on the M9. Required about 0.15mm.
This is one I shimmed several years ago, wide-open on the M9. Required about 0.15mm.
I've shimmed the I-61L/D, I-61 Panda, I-50 collapsible, I-26m, I-22 Collapsibe, I-22 Rigid (uncommon!), all with good results.
The I-61L/D:- I converted a couple to Collapsible Mount for the Contax and Nikon S-Mount.
I can't help it... They are all good lenses, and are quite sharp once calibrated for Leica.
I found the machining on the post-Soviet Menopta 53/1.8 to be better than the later 1984~1985 Helios-103. I bought a dozen or so, shimmed them for Nikon S-Mount and sold on RFF years ago.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I prefered 61 without Л/Д. More aperture blades, better bokeh. Or even industar 26m. 61 l/d only benefit is for color film. Newer the lens is the better.
bluestar01
Member
Ahhh I seee! Yea I was aware of some of the problems with old Soviet lenses on other systems, had never quite managed to wrap my head all around it though..!
I do have 2 other Voigtlander lenses that I use, so I'll probably not be recalibrating my R-D1 anytime soon haha!
Apologies for the daft question - I say I'm still tryna understand all the intricacies with these..! - but you say about increasing shim on these old lenses to make them work on M-Mount, that is increasing the thickness/distance from sensor right? Rather than shaving thickness off?
How did you go about doing that on the I-61 L/D ? Would love to get that thing workin' well on the R-D1 !
I do have 2 other Voigtlander lenses that I use, so I'll probably not be recalibrating my R-D1 anytime soon haha!
Apologies for the daft question - I say I'm still tryna understand all the intricacies with these..! - but you say about increasing shim on these old lenses to make them work on M-Mount, that is increasing the thickness/distance from sensor right? Rather than shaving thickness off?
How did you go about doing that on the I-61 L/D ? Would love to get that thing workin' well on the R-D1 !
The shim needs to be increased to correct for back-focus. On the I-61L/D I used Copper Tape to thicken the existing shim. You can also cut paper or aluminum foil. The Barrel needs to be removed from the focus mount to get to the shim. This is not hard. I might have some pictures, will look for them this weekend.
boojum
Mentor
Or just use the shims between the LTM and the LTM > M adapter?
David Hughes
David Hughes
In my version of the answer the problem is that one is nearly 30 years old and one is nearly 40 years old and we don't know anything else about them. Luckily mechanical things can be repaired and, in your shoes, I'd go for the better looking one. Then do a very careful test with a camera; only that will give you the answer.
If you think about it Brian might have checked and sorted one of them but the year won't tell you that. At the other extreme someone might have taken one to bits and put it back with a lens back to front and so on. So the acid test is lots of photo's.
To be safe buy from a dealer and get a guarantee or else expect you will need a bit of luck or more money. I'll wish you luck.
BTW, I think those lenses are very nice and worth a bit of trouble when buying.
Regards, David
If you think about it Brian might have checked and sorted one of them but the year won't tell you that. At the other extreme someone might have taken one to bits and put it back with a lens back to front and so on. So the acid test is lots of photo's.
To be safe buy from a dealer and get a guarantee or else expect you will need a bit of luck or more money. I'll wish you luck.
BTW, I think those lenses are very nice and worth a bit of trouble when buying.
Regards, David
That will not work- it also moved the RF Cam out. You need to change the relative spacing between the optics and the RF cam.
I have a handy shot of the Industar-26m apart, construction is the same as the I-61L/D.
Remove rear light baffle on the I-61L/D, I use cotter-pin pliers.
Remove rear retaining ring.
Remove long set screw that holds barrel in place and keeps it from rotating. On the I-61L/D the shim has a cutout for the screw to go through. The I-26m, has a hole for the screw.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The best one I found was marked as a 53mm focal length and not the later 55mm focal length Industar 61 l/d and had an earlier non l/d one marked as 52mm focal length that was better than all of them.
But like most FSU products, your mileage may vary.
But like most FSU products, your mileage may vary.
boojum
Mentor
And on the J8?
I got from Pixii the little booklet on adjusting their RF. Simple. Loosen a set screw and manipulate the eccentric cam screw until right when set to 200m or more. Tighten set screw. Done. Later today if the fog lifts enough to see 200m.
bluestar01
Member
Thank you for that shot! Gonna give disassembly a go and see what I can do (so if you have any other images to hand I would be incredibly grateful!).
Also maybe another silly question, but I’m aware of the Lanthanum in the glass of the L/D, and I am a little concerned of the ‘radiation’ and how it might adversely affect my digital R-D1 sensor. Some places I’ve read online seem to say Lanthanum glass isn’t much to worry about, it’s Thorium glass that is more of a concern. However other ones seems to suggest that the L/D and it’s Lanthanum glass is still not good to put in front of digital bodies.
So what do you guys think? Any of you use the L/D regularly with a digital body? Has it had any negative effects to the sensor? Is the Lanthanum glass worth worrying about?
I do not worry about Lanthanum, and Thorium emits Alpha particles. The hot-glass Summicron has a Thorium front element- I keep a filter over it. Do not ingest it- as some fool did hitting a Pentax 50/1.4 with a sledge hammer for a youtube video.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
You should have a read of this: http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/fed5/radiation/
The TL: DR version: there's less radiation coming off the Industar 61 L/D than the already-present background radiation. I don't understand the way Alfred's describing the measurements, but it looks like the I61 L/D is about 1/3 of the background radiation levels. Average background radiation exposure per hour is roughly 0.23μSv according to https://www.convertworld.com/en/equi...radiation.html, so if this all tallies, using the I61 L/D for an hour is about 0.076μSv, which is less than eating one banana.
As far as the sensor goes: based on these levels, I'd be more worried about taking the camera on a plane - you get about 400 banana equivalent doses on a flight from NY to LA, so you'd have to have the Industar 61 L/D mounted to the camera for 526 hours just to match the radiation exposure from one flight across the US.