Collecting stories of bad experiences with Russian lenses

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Whenever Russian lenses are discussed, a theory is mentioned about how their quality degraded in time due to the aging of manufacturing equipment and the lapse of quality control. This contrasts with my experience where the lenses have been very reliable generally, unless they were misused. There are definitely some issues with their mechanical operation due to helicoid lubrication, but from an optical pov, I found this category of lenses to be more dependable than any other set of legacy lenses.

So I'd like to use this thread to discuss negative experiences with Russian lenses and see if they can be tracked down to misuse, certain lens models, certain manufacturing plants, or whatever.

My experience covers rangefinder and SLR lenses in LTM and M42 mounts (no M39 - my designation of the early Zenit SLR mount). In terms of production years, based on the first two digits of their serial numbers (for those that follow this convention), these are ranging from late 50's to early 90's. Most of my lenses have normal or longer focal lengths - the only wider angle is the Mir 1V. I only used them on APS-C and MFT cameras, so I don't know how well they would behave on FF.

So now in terms of bad experiences, mine have all been related to some kind of abuse:

1) Helios 44 - 1 copy full of fungus, 1 copy somewhat stiff focusing ring, but excellent optically
2) Jupiter 11A - shaken and dropped during shipping, material inside bakelite case pulverized and covered lens, lens hood got stuck on lens in reverse - had to bang it on cement to dislodge it - still works, but dust got inside the lens and makes focusing very hard
3) Mir 1V - earlier copy SN86x had aperture ring not matching stops - opened it to fix it, discovered signs that it had been opened before - one screw was broken inside - managed to reassemble it correctly. IQ is decent but not amazing - same thing with more recent SN92x version

There is, of course, also the case of the black Jupiter 9 M42 lenses, which tend to be soft wide open - not clear if this is a design defect or an intentional feature, but there seems to be little variation in their behavior, so I tend to think this was intentional.

That is my experience so far. Looking forward to see the experiences of others.

Thanks.

[Attila]

Sad to hear your bad luck I am over 100+ Russian lenses and cameras, I have a very few bad experience, not worst than from any other makers.

[Aanything]

I have a silver J-11 in m42 mount whose focus action is really stiff, even if still usable, and a mir1b that came with the focusing helicoid completely stuck.
Besides that, some minor issues as infinity calibration slightly off on a couple of lenses (mir 24, mir 20, tair 11, zenitar 16)

Anyway, most of the non working ones I saw were in such state because of lack of care in storing them, which came from lack of respect from owners.
I mean, the east german lenses I have from the 70's on are averagely worse built than the russian ones of the same vintage, and more prone to mechanical failure, in my experience.

[Attila]

[ForenSeil]

I had several Helios 44 lenses. In direct comparision always my oldest Helios 44-2 won.
I also had several sovjet LTM RF lenses, also some double in mint/unused condition. In IQ there were always slight differences visible on NEX. RF coupling was also often incorrect, sometimes 10cm or more, making potraits at wide apertures impossible etc.

They had definitely had a loose quality control imo, especially from the 70ies onwards.

Don't get me wrong, I'm positive to USSR lenses. I really found some real gems I really loved like an Jupiter-3 50/1.5 with perfect RF alignment (at least as good as the Zeiss counterparts, there's always a tiny focus shift while stopping down etc.) and some lenses which suprised me in terms of build quality, IQ or character (Helios 44-2, Zenitar M2s 50/2) but especially with RF glas from ~1970 and younger it's a bit gambling in my experience.

PS:
Please don't forget that USSR had many lens factories, the same lenses might have been produced by different factories with different quality control and so on, similar to Meyer-Pentacon-CZJ in in sovjet-Germany.

Also other non-Sovjet manufacturers have quality spreading, especially cheap mass produced lenses.
Even modern expensive lenses like Cosina Voigtländer have some slight and sometimes noticeable quality spreading especially in their mechanics, but imho negligible.
The only way to get a lens with zero quality spreading is to buy it from Leitz - they had and still have the highest standards towards quality spreading - from what I've seen on an TV documentation about Leitz they spend let's say 100-200€ for quality control on every single lens

[iangreenhalgh1]

The Russian didn't have any quality issues until the late 60s. The central planners decreed that production quotas had to be increased and that had a negative impact on quality. As a whole, I think any issues have been vastly exaggerated, sure some lemons were made but as a whole, Russian equipment was robust and well built.

[Lloydy]

Somehow I've ended up with four Helios 44-2, and the one in best looking condition is a bit stiff - but perfectly usable. A great lens.
Two Helios 44M, no problem with either, again it's a great lens to use.
Industar 50-2 ( M42 ) - superb little lens with no problems at all.
MIR 1B, mine is in good condition ( from member Drack ) and I've said in the past that it frustrates me, I was getting a lot of pictures that I obviously missed the focus. But I've used it some more recently and had good results. I think it's a lens that requires some effort to nail focus. But a good lens all the same.
Tair 300, the non sniper version. Stiff focusing, I have cured it a bit by partially dismantling the lens, cleaning the grease I could get at and relubing. It worked well for a while but the old grease has obviously contaminated the fresh stuff and it's all returned to a gooey mess. What the Russians used as grease on these lenses is a mystery, but whatever it is it was rubbish!
And a stiff Tair 300 is just about unusable, which is a shame as the copy I have is perfect otherwise.

I've also got some M39 Leica screw lenses for the Zorki 4K, two Industar 61, Industar 50-2, Jupiter 12 and Jupiter 11. All of these are good, some more worn than others but reliable and as sharp as expected.

There's some Kiev / Contax lenses as well, but I haven't used them yet.

My experience with Russian lenses is very positive, and the few people I know who have them think the same. And there are still plenty about, I often see perfect looking Helios 44-2 and 44M in charity shops but I've stopped buying them because I don't need any more!

[danfromm]

I’ve had only four lenses from the former Soviet Union. I’m not sure that they are consistent with Ian’s report on build quality.

Lomo RF-5 450/10 s/n 850080 – a process lens of unusual design, 6/4 double Gauss. Optical quality is OK, not up to a good f/9 dialyte type process lens. Transmission seemed to be less than expected, i.e., consistent underexposure given diaphragm setting, shutter speed and a known good light meter’s recommendations. Build quality is questionable, sloppily cut threads.

KOMZ Industar-51 210/4.5 s/n 634904 – a taking lens for formats up to 5x7, also used on aerial cameras. Optical quality poor, central sharpness unacceptable from f/4.5 to f/22. Build quality questionable, sloppy threading. A Tessar clone.

KOMZ Era-7 105/2.8 s/n 790021 – said to be a high resolution but poorly achromatized taking lens. I never managed to shoot it so can say nothing about optical quality. I never managed to take it apart so can say nothing about build quality. It was pretty.

KOMZ Uran-27 105/2.5 s/n 600192 – an aerial camera lens. Optical quality just OK, no better than a first generation 105/5.6 6/4 plasmat type taking lens from f/5.6 down and a lot heavier. Worse than a 4”/2.0 TTH Anastigmat from f/2.5 to f/5.6. I haven’t taken it apart so can say nothing about build quality.

For an assessment of two 70/6.8 mm Russar 29 and two 70/9 Russar 29b mapping lenses, serial numbers 1016 (29), 1061 (29), 1152 (29b) and 1154 (29b) see http://web2.ges.gla.ac.uk/~gpetrie/Petrie_Kalao_Testing_Russar_SWA_Photography_fulltext.pdf These are high-specification lenses made for an exacting application. “However, it is also apparent that there are some limitations to these lenses, such as their large asymmetrical distortions and unbalanced illumination, though these seem to stem from their manufacture
rather than their basic design.”

[flaviomaia]

[Mos6502]

I have had two Helios 44M-4 lenses. One had a wobbly barrel, the other was very stiff and loaded with fungus (obviously a storage issue). I have a feeling that if there were many bad ones most have probably been thrown away by now.

[Mir]

I've had a Jupiter 11A, 2 Jupiter 11 (M39) one silver and one zebra and i kept a Silver Jupiter 11 (M42).
A black Mir 1B and a silver Mir 1, a Helios 44-2, a 44M and i kept a silver Helios 44 (13 blades).
I still own a silver Jupiter 9 and an Industar 52-2....

Most needed servicing, some i did myself and some went for professional CLA,
but none were problematic and/or had deffects....

I've had KMZ, KOMZ and VOMZ lenses...... and others i forget....

I do seem to favor KMZ lenses... but 'till now..... no problems..... lucky me.....


I forgot... i owned a Tair 3-Phs for a while.... a fantastic lens that i regret having sold.... problem free...

[FotoPete]

Tair 3PHs (been around), Peleng 17 (new) have been ok. but...

Mir-1 Grand Prix - stiff focusing
Mir-24N - I swear they used recycled glass, glass had a green tint.
Mir-47K - uneven coating, black paint element edges deteriorating
Helios 44K-4 - Metal flakes inside the lens. Luckily unscrewing the rear group revealed the particles to my blower bulb.
Helios 44m - uneven lube
Helios 40 - fine circular coating scratches, glass has a yellow tint.
Jupiter-9 - very oily blades
Tair-3A - slighty stiff (not sure if because of the weight of the front group)
Zenitar Fisheye - uneven coating, plastic bulb (cosmetic) fell off and was lost
ZM-5CA - Rear retaining ring for the main mirror deforms it so you get slight doubling of images

As you can see I don't learn. There's something about russian lenses though, some sort of rough around the edges utilitarian charm you can't deny.

[Orio]

My personal experience is that Soviet lenses (remember: they are mostly Ukrainian!) are amongst the most sturdy and solid, not to mention optically good.
The same praise can't be made for precision and ease of use (they are often bulkier, heavier, and rougher to use than equivalents from other countries).
In my experience too, they are more reliable than Eastern Zeiss lenses, whose quality of build worsened considerably since the 70s (although remaining optically excellent).
Soviet lenses are in my opinion a bit like AK-47 guns: they maybe couldn't shoot with the same precision of German Mausers, but
in the freezing cold of the Stalingrad battle, when some Mausers did stop working, all AK-47s kept shooting.

[Drack]

From my experience, the problem with Russian lenses is that most of them that are available at the moment do need servicing and this gives and illusion that Russian lenses are bad. I`ve read a very good comment somewhere: "When a person gets a Leica that does not work - he repairs it. When the same person gets a zorki/fed which does not works - he tosses it away" The same thing is with Russian glass. Most people do not get that old things need servicing ! Therefore I do not consider sticky aperture blades, oily aperture blades, stiff focus etc. a flaw - this is natural. However, what I do consider a flaw is that Russian engineers did not take into consideration is that the aperture mechanism ( manual ) in many lenses was very weak. it was held only by one screw and it can break just like that. I found this problem in many lenses: Jupiter-8,37a,11, Industar-61L/D, Helios-44-2.
Another flaw was that Russians did use a LOT of grease in their lenses. As I said before, i do not consider greasy aperture blades or stiff focus a flaw, however oily glass due to excess use of grease is a huge flaw.

In terms of optical performance I`ve notices that very often some kit lenses ( like the Helios-44-2 ) differ in sharpness. This was often because of simple alignment or centering issue. I have had helios 44-2 which was crazy soft, so I`ve took the optical block apart, tightened everything and sharpness went up at least 40%.

The only real bad experience that I had with a Russian lens, was the Jupiter-8 in M39 mount , black version. It was super soft with no explanation why. Tested the lens with 3 rolls of film(before and after CLA) ( the RF in the camera was good), but the results were still bad.

Another lens which I personally do not like is the Mir-1B. To me the lens is very hard to focus. It makes the brightest viewfinder dark, DOF is very wide and getting the correct distance is very hard. However I have seen very good results with this lens and can`t say that it is a bad performer, just takes some practice and getting used to.
All other flaw either included misuse of the lens or servicing, either of which should not be taken into consideration.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[RSalles]

[raay04]

IMHO you people are just speculating about quality when most if not all lenses we get today are old and already used, its not like we are getting brand new lenses so we can really assess quality among copies!!! the Soviet philosophy was different than others ,they understood strength in numbers in their military strategy ,this same thing trickled down to cameras and lenses!!! they wanted to develop cheap and supply everyone with a camera so it was understandable to see very little quality control.more over better copies were sent to Party leaders and bureaucrats ,gifted to friendly countries etc.

[Miles Teg]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Not really, it was all about firepower and ability to function in the harsh Russian conditions. The Germans found themselves outgunned, a Kar98k gives you far less firepower than an SVT-40 or PPSh, especially at the combat ranges they were experiencing (less than 300m) so a lot of them picked up Russian weapons. It wasn't a shortage of weapons, it was a shortage of semi-auto and full-auto weapons. The MG34 and MG42 did a lot to balance out the discrepancy in firepower, but on an individual basis, the Germans were simply outgunned. Also, if you've ever handled an MP38 or MP40, they are beautifully engineered and machined things made to tight tolerances, and they required frequent careful cleaning, even a little dirt could cause a stoppage, so if you could, you got your hands on a PPSh or PPD which you could drag through a muddy puddle or three and would still function. The winter of 1941 was a salutory experience for the Germans, the firing pin of an MG34 or 42 simply snapped off in the bitter cold and the bolt of a Kar98K simply wouldn't move because of frozen lubricants (this was before the advent of multigrade oils) whereas the Russians, being familiar with such weather were using sunflower oil or oil mixed with diesel to lubricate their weapons and the looser tolerances their weapons were built to made them much more reliable in the dirt and cold. The SVT-40 was so effective as a battle rifle that the Germans tried to emulate it, but neither the Walther or Mauser versions of the Gewehr 41 were very effective, so they ended up being used as sniper rifles. The StG 44 was, as you say, slipped through under the Austrian housepainter's nose, it was only when he saw a communique from the front demanding more of the new weapon that he found out it was being built and issued, then he became a fervent supporter of it.

[Lloydy]

[iangreenhalgh1]

LOL.

Be sure to report back on how it went! Stick it in the freezer for a while and then see how well it functions.

[hoanpham]

Not sure about bad stories from russian lenses - not only russian, but also japanese and german carl zeiss as well.

My russian lens survived in a plastic bag (with no padding) to my post box, and still deliver good sharp images.

[fermy]

Well my take on Russian lenses is about the same as Orio's and Ian's. It's hard to call them beautifully crafted, but they do work well and they are quite robust. The folklore has it that you can safely drive nails with Tair-3.

Overall, IMHO the pitiful conditions that some of them are found in is due to the fact that they were cheap and owner's didn't take good care of them as they would with more expensive optics. I have here a couple of Helioses with cleaning marks on the front, one of them has what looks like a welded helicoid. The cleaning marks on Helios 44 are super easy to avoid as the front element is deeply recessed. So the only explanation is that it was routinely carried in a bag with no front cap

The real disadvantage in my mind is that the designs are quite dated and harken back to pre-war Zeiss. IMHO, objectively speaking best Japanese lenses significantly improve on those designs at least since late 60-s, perhaps earlier. The flipside of that is that you can get a good knock off of prewar Zeiss optics very inexpensively, whereas the originals cost an arm and a leg and in all likelihood aren't any better.

[ForenSeil]

Maybe we could also use analogy of Sovjet cars instead of sovjet guns?
A Trabant for example is almost as simple made as an mountain bike. Cheap, reliable, easy to repair and durable.
But a Mercedes is still a better car imho.

PS
I think cars matching better to lenses than guns, as development warstuff was always highly subsidized in the USSR.
Gun analogy would fit better if we were talking about surveilance device lenses like Tevidon lenses - the best mass produced lenses CZJ ever made, highly subsidized the government

[fermy]

Trabant though is uniquely German There was nothing like Trabant in Soviet Union, all Soviet cars were made of metal. Btw, just like Soviet optics, they were mostly copies of successful but dated Western designs. For example, the most popular Soviet car VAZ 2101 (aka Lada) was a copy of Fiat 124, with later models being derivatives of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAZ-2101