Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

FED 50mm/F3.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:27 am    Post subject: FED 50mm/F3.5 Reply with quote

Inspired by Tom's contribution about the Industar-50 I checked the performance of my FED 50mm/F3.5 collapsible from 1953 in M39/LTM on my Sony A7R II. Basically it's more or less the same lens introduced apprx. 1934 for the first FED RF camera.
The later models have been called Industar-10, followed by Industar-22 and finally Industar-50. All share more or less the same optics. The coatings changed over the years. Pre-war lenses have no coatings.

A typical Tessar; i.e. very nice for close-ups but also sharp and useful for infinity landscape. Actually nothing really to complain about.
If my memory serves me right I paid something like EUR 20.- for the lens including camera and camera bag.

For the first two pictures extension rings have been used.

All pictures clickable for best quality viewing.

#1


#2


#3


#4


Cheers,


PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lovely colours tb-a. I hope it's okay to join in.


Post 1955 FED 3.5 50. On Fujifilm X-E1, so cropped to APSC. 'Straight out of camera', although there will be plenty processing happening in-camera.


Note: These shots are not taken for aesthetic value!

Picture taken from where I'm sitting. Apologies for the laziness, but I've not had a chance to take it out yet. The shot does show the scary sharpness I'm finding in the middle though -


Wide open at 2.5 metres.




1:1 (ish)




Torture test. Wide open and minimum focusing distance of 1m. Trying to see if I could force a 'cinematic' look out of it by fiddling with the Fuji settings.




This test image was taken before I cleaned the lens. Still wide open. Atomised lubricant had coated the rear side of the centre element. It was still not too bad. Just 'portrait' soft really and a little washed.




f/4.0 at infinity. Again, just from the lazy seat. I don't think bokeh is going to be its strong suit. Quite nervous on the right in this image.



PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1


PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some very nice imagery here.
Thanks for sharing these
Tom


PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1955 edition of FED 50 3.5 (Industar 10), on my Fujifilm X-E1 via an M39 - FX adaptor.



I've fitted a push-on 36mm Photax UV filter housing to the lens. These small aluminium filters unscrew to release the glass from them. It is providing a modicum of protection for that rather exposed front element while also allowing me to change the aperture relatively easily. So it can stay on permanently and pretend it's an f/2.0 which has this kind of overhang anyway.




Lens extended. This FED version of the Industar did not receive the lengthened barrel that was introduced (I've read it was lengthened to increase contrast), and so retracts fully into the Fujifilm x-e1. It also retained the Elmar style tab for adjusting the aperture which I like.




The locking 'infinity' tab on this iteration did away with the push down spring type mechanism, which is a blessing as it tends to foul on adaptors. I have also not used the standard lens hood for this type of lens, instead using a Photax 36mm aluminium which slips straight on to the Photax filter housing. This again allows my clumsy fingers easy access to the aperture tab without having to take it off. You'd imagine this whole affair to be rather wobbly, but it's turned out nice and solid.





I hope this is of some use to someone.

Pictures courtesy of a Canon S90 on macro.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sciolist wrote:
1955 edition of FED 50 3.5 (Industar 10), on my Fujifilm X-E1 via an M39 - FX adaptor.

Lens extended. This FED version of the Industar did not receive the lengthened barrel that was introduced (I've read it was lengthened to increase contrast), and so retracts fully into the Fujifilm x-e1. It also retained the Elmar style tab for adjusting the aperture which I like.


I had the FED 28mm f/4.5 lens which looked a lot like this, the aperture tab is certainly very much easier to use Smile



Unfortunately the example I had was "optically challenged" so I sold it to a collector.

Interesting to note the FED 50mm version fully retracts ... I wonder if it'd do that on my Samsung?

I've yet to use my Industar-22 and Industar-50 collapsible lenses for anything more than a brief test. I enjoy my M42 Industar-50-2 so I really should make the effort Smile


PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, this is a picture of my FED 50:



Shot with A7R II and Leitz Elmar 135mm/F4.

The FED 50 is more or less a copy of the Leitz Elmar 50mm/F3.5 with small modifications (e.g. the diaphragm is between element 2 and 3 and not between 1 and 2 like the Elmar).
The original Leitz Elmar can be seen here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/f/f9/5elmar35-2.jpg


PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kypfer wrote:
...Interesting to note the FED 50mm version fully retracts ... I wonder if it'd do that on my Samsung?
...


On my iteration the barrel projects around 19.8mm past the camera side of the flange.



And around 7.8mm past the camera side of the M39 to FX adaptor flange.



So the barrel is projecting around 7.8mm into my camera measured from the lens side of the mount on the body.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sciolist wrote:
kypfer wrote:
...Interesting to note the FED 50mm version fully retracts ... I wonder if it'd do that on my Samsung?
...


On my iteration the barrel projects around 19.8mm past the camera side of the flange.

And around 7.8mm past the camera side of the M39 to FX adaptor flange.

So the barrel is projecting around 7.8mm into my camera measured from the lens side of the mount on the body.


Thank you for the measurements Smile

Unfortunately my Samsung would not seem to have as much clearance in the body as your Fujica. Both my Industar-22 and my Industar-50 project about 22mm behind the lens flange when focussed to infinity and about 18mm when at minimum focus. When fitted to my Samsung the lens still projects by about 11mm when retracted as far as it will go.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, these are fairly lenses, but have exceptional character. For the price, I wouldn't complain.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:

The FED 50 is more or less a copy of the Leitz Elmar 50mm/F3.5 with small modifications (e.g. the diaphragm is between element 2 and 3 and not between 1 and 2 like the Elmar).
The original Leitz Elmar can be seen here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/f/f9/5elmar35-2.jpg



Have you ever came across this statement tb_a? -


"Some time probably between 1947 and 1949 when the first KMZ Fed-Zorki cameras were being assembled at the KMZ factory in Moscow with the collaboration of Fed engineers the copy of the Leitz Elmar 50 mm f/3.5 was replaced by a copy of the Tessar 50 mm f/3.5 in the same collapsible mount. This probably happened due to technical information taken as spoils of war from the Zeiss factory, which was in the Soviet-controlled zone of East Germany. The KMZ version of this Tessar lens was the Industar-22."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FED_(camera)

It's intrigued me enough to look into it further.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, Sciolist, which would you say is the better lens? The original -10 (Elmar design) or the -22 (Tessar)?

I've always been a big fan of the collapsible Elmar, ever since I saw what it was capable of doing many years ago. Used to own one and wish I wouldn't have sold it. But I wouldn't mind picking up a good Soviet equivalent as long as it was optically equivalent.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
So, Sciolist, which would you say is the better lens? The original -10 (Elmar design) or the -22 (Tessar)?

I've always been a big fan of the collapsible Elmar, ever since I saw what it was capable of doing many years ago. Used to own one and wish I wouldn't have sold it. But I wouldn't mind picking up a good Soviet equivalent as long as it was optically equivalent.


I have not compared them cooltouch. I only have the 1955 Fed. However....

"Maizenberg states that the Industar-10’s resolution is 35 lines/mm at center and 19 lines/mm at the edges, that the Industar-22’s resolution is 32 lines/mm at center and 20 lines/mm at the edges and that the Industar-50’s resolution is 38 lines/mm at center and 22 lines/mm at the edges. I couldn’t tell you if the small differences in these resolution numbers are meaningful - I certainly don’t see any difference between the images I get from these lenses (each of which is in excellent condition), even at 100%."

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/industar-collapsible-50mm-comparison.21291/


Obviously, there's other things to contemplate, such as the introduction of coatings from around '47'-'49, part of the effect of Zeiss input from around that time.


"FED (& GOMZ) started using coated lenses as late as 1949 to 1950 (Maizenberg Book), KMZ (1947 onwards - Zorki Zenit camera line) produced blue coated lenses making full use of the complete Carl Zeiss wartime technology. Only the latter years saw the Industar degraded to a mass item with production shortcuts affecting coating, as incidentally also with the last f/2.8/50 Tessars from the GDR."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FED_(camera)


And as hinted at above, the increase in output demanded from the state which almost led to revolt in the factory, and which had a commensurate effect on the consistancy of quality. In podcast #17 of Classic Lenses podcast, the renowned collector of russian photography equipment comments that this reduction in consistancy of product was a slow affair commencing around the mid '50s, but most obvious when you hit the end of the 1960s and into the 1970s.

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/simon-forster/the-classic-lenses-podcast


This seems to have been a very long way of saying I don't know which is best. But I hope some of this is informative.


Last edited by Sciolist on Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:38 pm; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sciolist wrote:
tb_a wrote:

The FED 50 is more or less a copy of the Leitz Elmar 50mm/F3.5 with small modifications (e.g. the diaphragm is between element 2 and 3 and not between 1 and 2 like the Elmar).
The original Leitz Elmar can be seen here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/f/f9/5elmar35-2.jpg



Have you ever came across this statement tb_a? -


"Some time probably between 1947 and 1949 when the first KMZ Fed-Zorki cameras were being assembled at the KMZ factory in Moscow with the collaboration of Fed engineers the copy of the Leitz Elmar 50 mm f/3.5 was replaced by a copy of the Tessar 50 mm f/3.5 in the same collapsible mount. This probably happened due to technical information taken as spoils of war from the Zeiss factory, which was in the Soviet-controlled zone of East Germany. The KMZ version of this Tessar lens was the Industar-22."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FED_(camera)

It's intrigued me enough to look into it further.


No, never seen that before. Unfortunately there is no source of information, therefore it might be a fairy tale as well.
However, I don't know whether this is good or bad if it's true. Wink

BTW, I've got both M39/LTM versions (rigid and collapsible) of the Industar-22 as well.

I've done a introduction of this lens on APS-C already here: http://forum.mflenses.com/kmz-industar-22-50mm-f3-5-rigit-white-m39-ltm-t72542.html

As I've got the original Zeiss Tessar 50mm/F3.5 as well: http://forum.mflenses.com/carl-zeiss-jena-tessar-t-50mm-f3-5-t72626.html , I might be able to do a comparison between FED 50, Industar-22 and Zeiss Tessar. Unfortunately I don't have the Leitz Elmar in 50 mm (only the Summicron).


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:


BTW, I've got both M39/LTM versions (rigid and collapsible) of the Industar-22 as well.

I've done a introduction of this lens on APS-C already here: http://forum.mflenses.com/kmz-industar-22-50mm-f3-5-rigit-white-m39-ltm-t72542.html

As I've got the original Zeiss Tessar 50mm/F3.5 as well: http://forum.mflenses.com/carl-zeiss-jena-tessar-t-50mm-f3-5-t72626.html , I might be able to do a comparison between FED 50, Industar-22 and Zeiss Tessar. Unfortunately I don't have the Leitz Elmar in 50 mm (only the Summicron).



Thanks tb_a. I'll have a look at those threads. Much appreciated.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
which would you say is the better lens? The original -10 (Elmar design) or the -22 (Tessar)?


I've done a direct comparison of both lenses some time ago for infinity landscape usage on APS-C. In extreme pixel peeping mode fully open the FED 50 AKA I-10 wins slightly over the I-22; particularly in the corners. Once stopped down as from F5.6 you'll barely be able to spot any difference.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sciolist wrote:
1955 edition of FED 50 3.5 (Industar 10), on my Fujifilm X-E1 via an M39 - FX adaptor.


That really looks rather smart Cool

I think I'd be inclined to fit an appropriate viewfinder in the hot-shoe, just to complete the "look" Wink


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kypfer wrote:
Sciolist wrote:
kypfer wrote:
...Interesting to note the FED 50mm version fully retracts ... I wonder if it'd do that on my Samsung?
...


On my iteration the barrel projects around 19.8mm past the camera side of the flange.

And around 7.8mm past the camera side of the M39 to FX adaptor flange.

So the barrel is projecting around 7.8mm into my camera measured from the lens side of the mount on the body.


Thank you for the measurements Smile

Unfortunately my Samsung would not seem to have as much clearance in the body as your Fujica. Both my Industar-22 and my Industar-50 project about 22mm behind the lens flange when focussed to infinity and about 18mm when at minimum focus. When fitted to my Samsung the lens still projects by about 11mm when retracted as far as it will go.


These retractable lenses foul up on the plastic shroud that surrounds the sensor (on crop cameras) and will mark it.
You can use O-rings stacked on the lens barrel to limit how far into the body the lens will go.
I use a "black elastic hair tie" on my Industar 22 which does the same thing.


Some say these will hit the sensor on FF cameras, maybe so, this is a cheap and easy way for some peace of mind.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kypfer wrote:
Sciolist wrote:
1955 edition of FED 50 3.5 (Industar 10), on my Fujifilm X-E1 via an M39 - FX adaptor.


That really looks rather smart Cool

I think I'd be inclined to fit an appropriate viewfinder in the hot-shoe, just to complete the "look" Wink



Smile I think I have one. Part of a lens accessory kit for my Petri.


It does look a bit 1950s I'd agree. Unfortunately I've needed to fit a nominal 50mm, and so have had to move to the sixties Smile.




The FED 28/4.5 that you owned kypfer. You mentioned it had optical problems, but would you be able to give your opinion on this lens otherwise? I quite like the idea of it, but I am unlikely to be able to try before I buy.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sciolist wrote:
The FED 28/4.5 that you owned kypfer. You mentioned it had optical problems, but would you be able to give your opinion on this lens otherwise? I quite like the idea of it, but I am unlikely to be able to try before I buy.


The example I had appeared to be misaligned. The image was sharp on one side but blurred on the other side, even with the aperture closed down. Note : the f/16 reference was a typo, it should read f/18 Wink This picture was taken with an APS-C cropped-sensor Samsung NX-5, the overall effect on a full-frame camera would have probably been much worse!



Other than that it was very compact and a stop faster than my Orion-15, so I was disappointed not to be able to use it. It has a 6-blade aperture and does NOT retract, it's just styled similarly to the 50mm lens. I have read that this model lens was produced before FED "standardised" their back focus distance, hence it is usually necessary to shim the lens mount to calibrate the lens to the rangefinder. Also the infinity lock device would foul on the M39-NX adaptor that I use ... I removed mine temporarily, refitting it before I sold the lens, it just screws apart.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kypfer wrote:

The example I had appeared to be misaligned. The image was sharp on one side but blurred on the other side, even with the aperture closed down. Note : the f/16 reference was a typo, it should read f/18 Wink This picture was taken with an APS-C cropped-sensor Samsung NX-5, the overall effect on a full-frame camera would have probably been much worse!

Other than that it was very compact and a stop faster than my Orion-15, so I was disappointed not to be able to use it. It has a 6-blade aperture and does NOT retract, it's just styled similarly to the 50mm lens. I have read that this model lens was produced before FED "standardised" their back focus distance, hence it is usually necessary to shim the lens mount to calibrate the lens to the rangefinder. Also the infinity lock device would foul on the M39-NX adaptor that I use ... I removed mine temporarily, refitting it before I sold the lens, it just screws apart.



Thanks kypfer. Much appreciated.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kypfer wrote:
Other than that it was very compact and a stop faster than my Orion-15, so I was disappointed not to be able to use it.


The Orion-15 is the better lens anyway. The FED 28mm is not as sharp and contrasty, not even stopped down.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
The Orion-15 is the better lens anyway. The FED 28mm is not as sharp and contrasty, not even stopped down.

Thanks for that insight ... I don't feel so bad now Smile