Fed 50mm 3.5 collapsible

[truls]

Sometimes ugly reflections appear in images, like here:



It do not follow any pattern, but shows in random images. What could it be?

[Deleted]

Look a lot like light leaks. If it's one of the early FED lenses it may be uncoated which could cause some reflections. But looks more like leaks. Have you tried another lens on the camera?

[Stephen]

Not meaning to get at Wayne's analysis but it does seem confined to the highlights, and if uncoated, then that's the problem. The early Russian lens are reknown for flare, and get worse with age.

These lens barrel parts were blackened by chemicals, and they picked a bad process, probably selenium, not copper carbonate.

The colour they got was very deep brown, and had a bright reflective finish from the underlying metal.

The finish goes lighter with age, leaving a copper coloured metal. This reflects light inside the lens, reducing contrast.

Also the collapsible design is very poorly baffled, the back baffle is external, a small tube, and may be missing.

Add in flare from the glass, and light reflected from the film on to the back rings of the lens, and it all adds up to what you have.

No instant cure, apart from coating the glass, but the baffling and parts blackening can be improved a bit. The black must be paint, as the oxide on the metal prevents further chemical blackening.

I would live with it, the lens would suit some shots, like portraits.
To cure, buy a later collapsible Industar that is coated, and the blackening was also improved.

The general flare can be reduced with a deep hood, and the highlight flair can be lowered with an orange or red filter, at the cost of light lost.

Stephen.

[truls]

Wayne: It is not light leaks, as this is the only lens produsing such pics. Your other solutions is probably correct, as it is an uncoated early FED lens.

Stephen: In time I will try to dismantle the lens, paint it and get a filter and hood. The filter makes it hard to adjust aperture, as it will cover the aperture setting tab.

[Stephen]

First consider that the ghostly flare can be used in soft light, like dreamy landscapes, or for portraits with soft focus. The edge flare problem is minor compared to the general lack of coating, and if you look very closely under a strong magnifying glass, the lens surface may be a patchwork of scratches on the lens surfaces from earlier cleaning.

So It may be best to reserve the lens as display and occasional specialist use. After all you pay a fortune for a Leica or Zeiss soft focus lens! Out of focus is not soft focus, the soft look overlays the sharp image, and the old Industar looks reasonable on sharpness, but ghosts easily.

Soft focus that looks good is difficult to achieve the highlights must bleed into the dark, not the other way round , which soft focus filters tend to do, giving the wrong effect. There must be a predictable relationship between the focused image and the flare that will be softer, and over laying the image.

Leica achieved the treasured soft look, with a pepperpot holed disk inside the lens groups, but away from the iris. Zeiss used engraved prismatic lines on an internal element, both methods distinctly better than grease on a filter, or gauze!

I am not saying the Russian Oldy lens rivals those specialist lenses. but the flaw may be possible to use to advantage.

Stephen