Originally posted by stevebrot And then folk start quoting from zenitcamera.com as if were other than a fan site assembled from documentation of unknown origin. For sure, much was salvaged from KMZ files, but much is also inconsistent with known specs (rolls eyes).
There's a combination of problems with the provenance of Soviet lenses...
Different factories began and continued production of certain models between different dates, and many superseded models continued production alongside their newer counterparts at different factories (the Helios-44-2 and other 44-series lenses are probably the best, but by no means the only, examples). Undoubtedly, the factories used up components to produce lenses beyond documented dates. Plus, there are lenses that didn't meet quality control for a variety of reasons that have since made it to the secondary market. Worst of all, much factory documentation for early-production lenses has been lost or destroyed (though I believe even if it still existed, it couldn't be depended upon 100%).
Then again, so many of these vintage lenses - like classic cars - have been repaired, restored and altered by people with a variety of motives, historical / functional / commercial priorities and technical abilities. Franken-lenses are in abundance, with optical elements, bezels, body parts, mounts, diaphragm blades, other discrete components (even documentation and supposed retail packaging) substituted / modified / added as necessary, and bodies / paint-work refreshed / refinished / modified (to varying degrees of professionalism, believability and historical accuracy).
Owners and both casual and serious collectors can also be a problem. Many read information of questionable accuracy and reputation, or make assumptions from limited samples, and propagate this "knowledge" throughout online forums, usually with perfectly good intentions but often with negative results - especially when they state things as "facts" (when that might not be the case). There's a lot of very inaccurate information out there, and anything we read from one person or website is to be treated and validated with the same cynicism as the wildest of conspiracy theories. My own limited knowledge is largely based on a combination of what I've "learned" online, plus some experience from collecting. I don't pretend all of what I
think I know is correct, though I strive to be honest about anything I don't know for certain
All of this means it's often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to conclusively prove whether a lens is genuine or not, and - even if it is - whether all the constituent parts are original and correct.
In some ways, the resourcefulness of people to keep lenses alive (for whatever reason) by substituting parts from non-repairable examples is to be applauded. It's a very Soviet trait, to make do and mend (I think of the 1950s American cars in Cuba
), and quite attractive to me so far as the intent is concerned. But it makes the collector's job extremely difficult...
All good fun, eh?