Fed 50/3.5 collapsible

[Brambling]

good day!
I have the opportunity to help with the purchase of a tube or other lens.
For filming, I highly recommend I61ld or Industar 50 hard.
A folding tube lens must include a hood for the rear lens unit.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

A folding tube lens must include a hood for the rear lens unit.

That rear Light Baffle, as it is also called, makes a big difference. I transplanted some spare Baffles from parts I-61l/d to my early I-26. This eliminated some reflections that occasionally crept in.

 

[farlymac]

I like the I-22 for my Zorki-1's, but for the Z-2 and FED-2 and on up my preference is for the solid mount lenses. That said, one other thing that can improve the usefulness of the I-22 is a hood, of which one can get a really nice reproduction one meant for the Elmar 5cm/3.5.


Zorki-1d with Reproduction Lens Hood by P F McFarland, on Flickr

Sort of dresses up the I-22 also.

PF

 

[Brambling]

I like the I-22 for my Zorki-1's, but for the Z-2 and FED-2 and on up my preference is for the solid mount lenses. That said, one other thing that can improve the usefulness of the I-22 is a hood, of which one can get a really nice reproduction one meant for the Elmar 5cm/3.5.


Zorki-1d with Reproduction Lens Hood by P F McFarland, on Flickr

Sort of dresses up the I-22 also.

PF

Great!
Tell us a little more about the design of your hood, it’s interesting.

 

[farlymac]

Great!
Tell us a little more about the design of your hood, it’s interesting.

It is an exact copy of the Leica FISON hood for the Elmar 5cm 1:3.5. Makes it hard to adjust the aperture, but really knocks down stray side light.

PF

 

[Brambling]

I like the I-22 for my Zorki-1's, but for the Z-2 and FED-2 and on up my preference is for the solid mount lenses.


PF

I completely agree with you!
Even when I want to shoot with Industar 22 (to touch Elmar’s picture), I usually take Industar 22 in a rigid case, a monoblock.

 

[Dogman]

Well how 'bout that! I realized I had several old FSU lenses scattered around the house so I looked around. Opened up a drawer and there was a beat up old Industar-22 laying there snoozing. I put it on a Fotasy L39-Fuji X mount adapter and took some shots around the house with a Fuji X-Pro2. I immediately realized the lens would not focus to infinity but that was because the adapter was too thick and the infinity lock would rub against it before finding the infinity lock--easily taken care of with a Dremel. I think I used it a few times when I was using my M6s. A long time ago.

Here's a couple of shots, processed in LR CC and Silver Efex. My foot was my Tri-X recipe and Christie The Wonder Dog was using the Rollei Tonal recipe. The results are surprisingly good.








I do note that if I keep using this on the Fuji I will need to put a rubber band around it to prevent it from collapsing into the sensor. The tube does extend pretty far to the rear.


...................................

 

[Brambling]

Yes, a piece of high-pressure hose, cut lengthwise and placed on the pipe, will not only prevent the lens from falling inside but will also be a constant signal.
The right decision!

 

[webouser2]

Thanks, i asked oleg and he doesnt have any, and he also said that the industar 22 will likely not fit a Fed 2 since they use a button whereas the fed 2 collapsible use a special spring Latch, thats why i was looking for a fed one, i will look up industar 22 anyway just to be sure but oleg seems to be THE guy for fsu gear so im probably gonna wait till he has one for me,
Other thing is, do you guys find it cumbersome to open, set focus, and shoot with a collapsible compared to the usual i26m ?
And lastly are the collapsible ones more prone to break since they move all the time? Im a bit worried about light leaks appearing, they are much cooler lenses than normal ones but i prefer a more boring but solid lens than a cool fragile One.
Anyway thanks for all the advice im gonna look everything up!

My FED 50mm f/3.5 normally lives on a Leica IIc and the two work well together.

I just mounted my I22 on a FED2(C) PE0425 today and it mounted OK. A little fussy as compared to the Industar 126 that is normally on the FED2. The FED2 does not like my Canon LTM telephoto, the Canon lens uses a 'tongue' of metal to communciate focusing data to the rangefinder and that catches on the focus feeler on the FED2. Works OK on the Leica with its roller for focussing.

What one needs to remember with a collapsible lens is to extend it before use. You need to practice and get used to it.

Don't know about light leaks. I have not seen any light leaks in the two that I use.

Russian Rangefinder Cameras - Has a number of former Soviet Union rangefinder cameras for sale. I have never dealt with them.

I bought my FED2 from Fedka Store – Fedka Store and have been very happy with it.

Steve W

 

[SilverShutter]

I'm curious to see what people think of my FED 50. I got it with a FED 2a, but from what I can tell it is not an original lens for this body, because it is an earlier uncoated one (in fact if you look closely you can tell what appears to be surface oxidation of the glass, very pretty in my opinion). So, I assume it is from a late 40s from a FED 1 possibly? I know people say these lenses were calibrated to each body, but I found this one to work perfectly with my FED 2, so maybe it was modified at a later time if that's even possible. Also, as you can see the focus scale doesn't sit in the same way as other lenses I have seen, where the infinity and close focus post are at a different position. In any case, this one is an excellent optic. After a careful cleaning of the elements I was very surprised by how nice it rendered. I have also 3D printed a lens hood, not pretty but functional for cutting off some side reflections and protecting the front element a bit more in sunny days.


And finally a sample image to show it in action (ignore the weird light leak in the building, it was the FED's fault)
Deberia respetar un orden by Diego Leon, en Flickr

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I had one like this 20 years ago- it is not as good as the Industar-22 that replaced it, and the Industar-50 is even better. The latter- compares with a post-war Coated Elmar.

Industar-50 collapsible, on the Leica M9.

 

[SilverShutter]

I had one like this 20 years ago- it is not as good as the Industar-22 that replaced it, and the Industar-50 is even better. The latter- compares with a post-war Coated Elmar.

Industar-50 collapsible, on the Leica M9.

I actually went backwards. I first shot the I-50, which I still have on M42 version, then I-22, which I have since sold now that I got the Fed 50. I agree that the newer ones seem better, but having an Industar 61 already which is a wonderful coated tessar, I actually prefer keeping an uncoated, more unique lens like the Fed 50 around. But probably if one is looking for just one collapsible, I-50 is the way to go.

 

[Brambling]

I'm curious to see what people think of my FED 50. I got it with a FED 2a, but from what I can tell it is not an original lens for this body, because it is an earlier uncoated one (in fact if you look closely you can tell what appears to be surface oxidation of the glass, very pretty in my opinion). So, I assume it is from a late 40s from a FED 1 possibly? I know people say these lenses were calibrated to each body, but I found this one to work perfectly with my FED 2, so maybe it was modified at a later time if that's even possible. Also, as you can see the focus scale doesn't sit in the same way as other lenses I have seen, where the infinity and close focus post are at a different position. In any case, this one is an excellent optic. After a careful cleaning of the elements I was very surprised by how nice it rendered. I have also 3D printed a lens hood, not pretty but functional for cutting off some side reflections and protecting the front element a bit more in sunny days.
View attachment 4835511View attachment 4835512

And finally a sample image to show it in action (ignore the weird light leak in the building, it was the FED's fault)
Deberia respetar un orden by Diego Leon, en Flickr

There is probably still some enlightenment there, weak, single-layer? chemically applied?
It’s a pity, but by its appearance it’s impossible to accurately determine the year of production, the only thing we can say is that this specimen is post-war production (after the Second World War), about a year after 1947, pre-war lenses like these have different aperture values, but they definitely have no coating .
Calibration and adjustment of these lenses to a Working Distance of 28.8 mm is possible, although a little complicated.
The hoods were original, factory-made, plastic, slip-on, and often lost, but their cost was absolutely negligible.
The connection between the hood and the lens is very weak, which, in my opinion, is very good - if you accidentally touch the hood, the lens will not break and even the focus will not be disrupted.)

 

[pvdhaar]

I'm curious to see what people think of my FED 50. I got it with a FED 2a, but from what I can tell it is not an original lens for this body, because it is an earlier uncoated one (in fact if you look closely you can tell what appears to be surface oxidation of the glass, very pretty in my opinion). So, I assume it is from a late 40s from a FED 1 possibly? I know people say these lenses were calibrated to each body, but I found this one to work perfectly with my FED 2, so maybe it was modified at a later time if that's even possible.

I had a FED 50 some while back, it's still in my avatar picture. I didn't encounter focusing problems on a FED-1 and Bessa-T, even though the flange distance reputedly is different. Probably because of its modest aperture and modest closest focus distance, depth of field covered any discrepancies.