Which is your favorite FSU "normal lens" and why?

Which is your favorite FSU "normal lens" and why?

  • Industar 22 (50mm f3.5)

    Votes: 38 6.9%

  • Industar 50 (50mm f3.5)

    Votes: 29 5.2%

  • Industar 26 (52mm f2.8)

    Votes: 14 2.5%

  • Industar 61 (52mm f2.8)

    Votes: 91 16.5%

  • Jupiter 8 (50mm f2.0)

    Votes: 249 45.0%

  • Jupiter 3 (50mm f1.5)

    Votes: 146 26.4%

  • other

    Votes: 38 6.9%
  • Total voters
    553
rfaspen said:
Jupiter 8. I do have some I-22 and I-50 (or is it I-10?) as well; they're sharp enough, but too slow. The J-8 is sharp and not bad wide open (adequate).

Oh, but its still hard to beat a sharp 50/3.5 collapsible on a Zorki C. That was one of my main shooters for a long time. It actually was pocketable (a jacket pocket).

I'd like to try a J-3 someday. Or its inspiration, the CZJ Sonnar. I think I'd use that extra speed.

I will get either an I-26 or I-61 eventually. I could ask here: which one is better? I kind of like the looks of the one with the really knurled focus ring (can't remember if that's the 26 or 61).
Click to expand...
Interesting coming back to this thread. I (now) have a CZJ pre-war Sonnar, and I would say that while it's a stellar lens for the time (and holds its own in many ways now) it's a J-8 with a "special effect" setting which gives very soft focus and a very shallow "focal plane" (which is still fairly soft). There is no extra stop of light gathering, unless you are prepared to accept the "special effect" setting. Pushing your film and a J-8 at f2 will yield clearer photos than a CZJ Sonnar at f1.5.
 
When I voted here, I went for the Jupiter-3.

But meanwhile, I learned to love my Jupiter-8 more than the "3". Couldn't even say why. Just a feeling...
 
Kent said:
When I voted here, I went for the Jupiter-3.

But meanwhile, I learned to love my Jupiter-8 more than the "3". Couldn't even say why. Just a feeling...
Click to expand...

Like you I voted for the J-3. I still like my 3 but really haven't given it much thought. Thanks for resurrecting this thread. It's reminded me of a promise to myself to use my other lenses more. Like you, I may find as my shooting style has evolved my choice in how I see my images has changed using different lenses.
 
Dez said:
I tend to consider the I26 and I61 as different versions of the same lens, with probably better coating in the 61. Is this an incorrect assumption on my part? What is the actual difference between these two lenses?

Cheers,
Dez
Click to expand...

I too have both. One thing is the glass is different on the I61, least mine is. Lantham it's called? Then there is the click stops on the I61 which is nice. My I26 has a nice bluish coating & seems the I61 the coating is more an orange looking. Think that is more the type of glass than the coating. My Takumar 50/1.4 which is lantham is the same. My Takumar was really yellow when I first got it. Put it in the sun for many days but is 96% cleared up. My I-61 is still quite new. I wonder if time will show the same fate as the Tak.
 
I suspect that I'd prefer a Jupiter 8 to my Industar 26, but since I've never actually used one . . .
 
I saw some chart online showing that Industar 50 has the highest resolution among all the 50mms listed here. So I bought a black rigid Industar-50 (not as ugly as the chrome ones :)) and am going to give it a try.
 
nukecoke said:
I saw some chart online showing that Industar 50 has the highest resolution among all the 50mms listed here. So I bought a black rigid Industar-50 (not as ugly as the chrome ones :)) and am going to give it a try.
Click to expand...

This myth seems to be less common comparing "all hail the 61 L/D" most popular one.

They are all sharp if aligned properly.
I-50 has increased center resolution comparing to I-22, which has most of the "character" among collapsible Industars, IMO.

My favorite Industar is 26M. It has great number of aperture blades to give smooth bokeh instead of "nuts" and it has focus and aperture rings where it should be normally. Not like on collapsible or rigid Industars.
 
I voted for the Jupiter 8 because I've had the best results with that in terms of sharpness, contrast, colour and bokeh. In other way I like the way the pictures look with a Jupiter! I've also tried various Industar's without much luck - often having flare and low, low contrast and resolution or washed out colour problems with them (even on digital). Perhaps it's just bad luck. The cleaning marks don't look worse than my Jupiter's.

At any rate my L39 and Kiev/Contax Jupiter's have been entirely satisfactory. Plus the extra stop helps me in lower light.

Having said that, I have a 61LD winging it's way to Australia as I type this...

However, I find Industar's very easy to re-lube. So I do like that about them!

And no, my relubing them didn't effect focus or lens performance :angel:
 
Fotohuis said:
Maybe the price of the I-61 is going up after the results of the 50mm lenses test. :cool:
Click to expand...

In retrospect, I should have posted my results from the Industar-26 "Red P" lens in my 50mm test. It performed about the same as the I-61, but the overall quality of the I-26 is much much better.

The I-61 feels cheap and clunky, but the I-26 feels better-made and is very smooth to operate.
 
I for one prefer the J-3. My J-8 used as a backup for a bit now a "Shelf Queen" sees little use' my Ind.61 even less. The 50-1.5 in most any brand do it for me. Red
 
bobby_novatron said:
In retrospect, I should have posted my results from the Industar-26 "Red P" lens in my 50mm test. It performed about the same as the I-61, but the overall quality of the I-26 is much much better.

The I-61 feels cheap and clunky, but the I-26 feels better-made and is very smooth to operate.
Click to expand...

The first I 61, the one with the chrome barrel, is as good as a I-26M but sharper due to the Lanthanium element. It also has 10 blades.
 
Wulfthari -- although I own quite a few different FSU lenses, I don't have the earlier I-61 version you mentioned. I think some people call it the 'zebra' I-61 because of the black / metal barrel. I'm sure the earlier I-61 is an improvement over the late version -- which sounds like a contradiction!
 
Well, I'd have to go dig in the lens drawer to see how early my I-61 is, but I can easily remember how chinsy the lens feels and operates. I'm stunned it focuses an image consistently across the frame with all its slop. But, that's the only reason I don't use it. Images from the lens were certainly quite acceptable in terms of sharpness, etc.

My J-3 continues to disappoint me. I got if from a fell RFF-er who had it shimmed for Leica, but it seems to be simply soft overall and not necessarily a focus issue. A 1957 vintage, which was supposed to be decent (but low likelihood of genuine Zeiss glass).

I've said before, over the years my I-22 has repeatedly given me pleasant surprises in real-life shooting. I should take that lens out more often... but I have too many 50's. Just counted -- twelve 50s! and that's just in Leica mounts.
 
bobby_novatron said:
Wulfthari -- although I own quite a few different FSU lenses, I don't have the earlier I-61 version you mentioned. I think some people call it the 'zebra' I-61 because of the black / metal barrel. I'm sure the earlier I-61 is an improvement over the late version -- which sounds like a contradiction!
Click to expand...

No it's not the zebra one, some people calls it "panda", it's this one:

Fed-2d_earliest-I61_1.jpg


These were the very first I 61 that came with Fed2Ls and Fed3s.
 
Which lens you like best depends on your criteria. My recent purchase of an I61 L/D shows me it is one of the sharpest lenses around. But the J3 still wins with me for being the loveliest lens: sharp, brilliant and contrasty yet with velvet smoothness in its delivery. On A7S at f2.8:
j3_f2.8_b_w_800px.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top