Topic: Adjusting Jupiter etc lenses for Leica

[John]

Hi,
Having tried some old Russian/Soviet lenses on a Voigtlander Bessa R, I've found the Jupiter 8 and the Industar 61 do not focus correctly, even at f4 it's a problem.

Does anyone know of anyone in the UK that can shim/adjust Russian/Soviet lenses for Leica? I'm not confident of doing it myself.

The only lens that is fine is the collapsable Industar 22, a copy of an Elmar 50mm, but I would like them all to work.

[02Pilot]

If both lenses aren't focusing properly even at f/4, I'd suspect something with the camera rather than the lenses. Of course, Soviet quality control being what it was, it's entirely possible you got two lenses that are off even on FSU bodies. In any case, significant adjustment is going to be required. Are they close-focusing or far-focusing? How far off are they? Do you have another body to check them on? Have you checked the Bessa body with a non-FSU lens?

[Francois]

I'm actually not surprised since they were tested on the Voigtlander which was made to Leica specs...

I know there's a guy in the US that does that type of work... but not in the UK...

[02Pilot]

But the specs aren't that different; if the Soviet lenses were perfectly to spec, they're only slightly off from the Leica spec. FWIW, I used a Jupiter 8 50/2 on my Canon P (also a Leica-spec body) for a long time with no problems, even up close and wide open. There's no way it should be noticeably out at f/4 at any distance unless either the lens or body is badly out of spec.

[John]

But the specs aren't that different; if the Soviet lenses were perfectly to spec, they're only slightly off from the Leica spec. FWIW, I used a Jupiter 8 50/2 on my Canon P (also a Leica-spec body) for a long time with no problems, even up close and wide open. There's no way it should be noticeably out at f/4 at any distance unless either the lens or body is badly out of spec.

Thanks for your reply O2Pilot. I doubt it's the camera as the Russian lenses focus fine on my FED2. I did tests at 1 metre, all lenses wide open and stopped down in stages to f8. The Industar 22 and the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm were bang on, whereas the Jupiter 8 and Industar 61 were out. That's pretty much what I'd have expected too. What I meant by being out at f4 was, the I22 was obviously focusing correctly wide open at f3.5 but in comparison the others at f4 were not. It's not a huge difference and would probably be negligible further away from the subject, but I would like to get them right.

[Sandeha Lynch]

I've read that the difference in specification between Leica and Soviet is not in the glass, but in the thread pitch.  This means that there will be one area of the focusing range that works fine, (and therefore shows the value of Soviet glass) but nowhere else along the focusing scale.  I forget exactly, but it's likely that around infinity the focus will be OK, but as you come closer the focus goes off.  Last time I looked into it there were no suggestions of a fix, you're simply a bit lucky if a lens works well enough. 

Otherwise you could try Canon LTM lenses as I have done.

[02Pilot]

This is the best explanation I've read: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

There are also a lot of threads out there, particularly on RFF, from Brian Sweeney discussing the shimming procedure. Unfortunately many of the images are now missing. Long story short, shimming the optical blocks can compensate for the slightly different thread pitch of the helicoid and adjust the lens to Leica standard.

I still don't know if the lenses are front-focusing or back-focusing. If they are back-focusing, you may be able to get away with a small shim between the body and the lens. My FED 50/3.5 requires this type of shim (mine is brass sheet) to work properly on my FED-2.

For my Canon P, I too have gone to Canon LTM lenses (plus Leitz and Nikkor) in normal use. That said, I never saw any focusing problems with the J-8 or J-12, which also work fine on my FED-2.

[Francois]

I doubt it's the camera as the Russian lenses focus fine on my FED2.

That's where the mistake is. The FED2 and the Voigtlander are built to different specs. The lenses will screw on but the registration distance will be wrong as the russian lens is not up to the Voigtlander specs, just close enough.

The Leica M39 mount has a registration distance of 28.8mm while the Russian cameras can vary from model to model since the cameras were adjusted to match the lens they were shipped with.

Check this
http://jay.fedka.com/index_files/Page433.htm

[John]

Thanks for your replies.

Francois, I did wonder why the paper shims were put in Soviet rangefinders, I had found them before on a previous FED camera. Now I know the answer, thanks. That does explain about variation and focusing issues on Soviet lenses.

O2Pilot and Sandeha, I knew that a Canon lens could be an option for me. I've read that the 50mm f1.8 is very good. Which lenses do you both have?

[02Pilot]

It's not only the FSU cameras that were tweaked with shims under the lens mounting - my Canon P has a brass shim there as well. The matching of individual lenses to bodies is only applicable to the early FED and Zorki models; by the time the FED-2 came along, everything was nominally of uniform spec. Those FSU lenses should work on your Voigtländer; the fact that they don't tells me something is out of spec, either on the lenses or your FED-2 or both.

The Canon lenses are generally excellent. I have a 35/2.8 and a 50/1.5, along with a Leitz 90/4 and a Nikkor 135/3.5. The Canon 35 is very nice and quite compact (mine are the early chromed brass models); the 50 is really something special, but then I'm a sucker for Sonnars. The 50/1.8 has a very good reputation as well - being a double Gauss lens, it is quite sharp across the frame, and produces a fairly modern look.

[Sandeha Lynch]

John, I have a mid 1960's Canon LTM 50/1.8 with an adapter ring on my M2 and it is good.  However, apparently it's a common fault to find that the inner element gets quite hazed with age.  As is mine.  I'm hoping to trade it in for an older Summicron quite soon.

[gsgary]

Ive got 2 Jupiter 8's and a 12 (35mm) that i sometimes use and they are quite good on my M4's i'm not sure i would want to pay to have them adjusted maybe if i had the Jupiter 3 i would. Here's a few from a Jupiter 8 given to me



Into the sun on out of date film and i think it was at F2



About F8



F2 and 13 years out of date Ektar 100

[Aksel]

John, I have a mid 1960's Canon LTM 50/1.8 with an adapter ring on my M2 and it is good.  However, apparently it's a common fault to find that the inner element gets quite hazed with age.  As is mine.  I'm hoping to trade it in for an older Summicron quite soon.

If I remember correctly the Canon 50/1.8 is easy to open and clean yourself, I did so on mine and cut away the infinity lock at the same time. Well worth the effort both in terms of performance and resell value  It is a really nice little lens, though I ended up selling mine as it was to similar other 50mm I had at the time.

[Francois]

Rangefinder lenses tend to be much simpler than ones for SLR's. They don't need automatic diaphragm control and aperture information transmission mechanical parts. They also have no electrical contacts and usually just one set of movable lenses and no internal focusing. The only ones I wouldn't touch are the ones with a built-in leaf shutter.

If I look at my Elmar, this thing is so simply built that you could fix it with just one screwdriver.