L39chap
Member
Well, looks like I'll soon be getting a Reid III with a T&H lens. Are they better or worse than a IIIb? Or is it a just a footnote in British manufacturing?
Reid LTM Reid III
- Thread starter L39chap
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 7K
Reid M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
Depends on their condition!
Potentially as good if not better than the IIIb.
Hope you have a good 'rig' when you get it - bit envious if it's a top rate one.
Yours will probably benefit from at least a CLA and possibly need new curtains.
Keep us onformed and put up some pictures when you have it in your hands.
jesse
Potentially as good if not better than the IIIb.
Hope you have a good 'rig' when you get it - bit envious if it's a top rate one.
Yours will probably benefit from at least a CLA and possibly need new curtains.
Keep us onformed and put up some pictures when you have it in your hands.
jesse
dabick42
Well-known
Some caution is needed when buying a Reid 111.
According to rumour, a quantity of the last ones made were sold partly assembled as a job lot to a British photographic dealer, who then ''cobbled'' them together without too much regard for the parentage of parts used to complete them.
In other words, they were a ''bitsa'' - bits of Reid, bits of something else.
Just a word to the wise....
According to rumour, a quantity of the last ones made were sold partly assembled as a job lot to a British photographic dealer, who then ''cobbled'' them together without too much regard for the parentage of parts used to complete them.
In other words, they were a ''bitsa'' - bits of Reid, bits of something else.
Just a word to the wise....
goamules
Well-known
Any lens made by Taylor and Hobson is good in my experience, so that will be fun to use.
rodt16s
Well-known
I don't think mine is as sweet as my IIIf,
But, the lens is sublime.
But, the lens is sublime.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
As far as I know, the rumour is not without foundation, though as far as I'm aware, the bits were all Reid, just of varying quality, and not necessarily with selective assembly (which Leica did too, remember -- choosing the best fit of A to B, rather that assuming all parts fitted perfectly). The dealer was Marston and Heard in the late 1960s.
But a good Reid is very, very good indeed, and I found the TTH lens on mine (roughly) comparable with a good Summitar or an average Mk. 1 (collapsible) Summicron. A lot of parts, allegedly, were absolutely interchangeable with Leica parts.
Cheers,
R.
furcafe
Veteran
I don't have a Leica IIIb, but compared to the IIIc & IIIg, the Reid III is certainly as well-built if not better. IIRC, in my discussions w/Don Goldberg ("DAG"), who got 1 of mine into working condition, he said that many, if not most, of the Reid & Sigrist parts are not interchangeable w/Leica because they are smaller & made to tighter tolerances.
As far as the Taylor-Hobson 2"/2 Anastigmat, I would mostly agree w/Mr. Hicks that it's comparable to the collapsible Summicron, but more flare-resistant (in my experience, anyway) perhaps because of better coatings. I've never used a Summitar, so have no basis for comparison there.
As far as the Taylor-Hobson 2"/2 Anastigmat, I would mostly agree w/Mr. Hicks that it's comparable to the collapsible Summicron, but more flare-resistant (in my experience, anyway) perhaps because of better coatings. I've never used a Summitar, so have no basis for comparison there.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Your information is more up to date than mine, and from a source that is probably more reliable, but it is puzzling. I'd heard of the parts being to tighter tolerances, but why would they make them smaller? Shrinking to the nearest Imperial equivalent? Even then, many Leica bits were a mix of metric and Imperial (39mm x 26 tpi, for example) so it's odd. I'm not saying you're wrong for a moment -- as I say, I'd be more inclined to believe DAG than my (long-forgotten) sources -- but I'd be interested in others' input. Especially if they're repairers.
My tests, such as they were, with the TTH were mostly of resolution targets, so flare wasn't a problem: with a good hood (which I've always believed in) flare can be quite hard to provoke. And they were 20+ years ago.
Cheers,
R.
furcafe
Veteran
Not sure if this is a real explanation, but my understanding is that Reid & Sigrist didn't simply copy the IIIb, but rather tried to improve upon the design. Similarly, but in the opposite direction, Premier Instrument's Kardon was a simplified, militarized, version of the IIIa.
[Edit] Re: the Anastigmat. agree totally that a good hood is a great idea (as it is for almost all lenses, vintage or modern). The Leitz FISON fits perfectly (I use the modern 12549 on my collapsible 'cron).
[Edit] Re: the Anastigmat. agree totally that a good hood is a great idea (as it is for almost all lenses, vintage or modern). The Leitz FISON fits perfectly (I use the modern 12549 on my collapsible 'cron).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
But how would shrinking the parts improve them? And does this make sense in the context of trying to get a copy out in wartime? All right, it came out, as far as I recall, after the war, but it started out as an urgent project.
From what little I've read, the Kardon was just a rather worse-made copy, rather than being smplified, and as far as 'militarized' is concerned, there's not a lot more 'military' than a Luftwaffe Leica.
Please don't take this as an attack. As I said before, you probably know more than I. But the 'explanations' do not entirely ring true, as you imply yourself ("Not sure if this is a real explanation...") so I'm sure we'd both be grateful for further input.
Cheers,
R.
Mark Wood
Well-known
This article, buried on CRR's website (when you get past the irritating "pop-ups"), is interesting with respect to the development of the Reid:
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page26.html
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page26.html
furcafe
Veteran
No worries, though I may have given you the wrong idea. I think DAG was talking mostly about things like screws, springs, etc., not major components like the shutter or whatever.
As far as the Kardon, I believe the idea was to deliberately simplify the production (also maintenance, etc.), more like the Soviet, AK-47, approach since Premier Instruments didn't have the capacity to make a full-on clone (might also account for why they chose to copy the IIIa instead of the IIIb). Perhaps Reid & Sigrist went in the other direction because it had more expertise (also perhaps patriotic pride had an influence?). But, yes, it's all speculation on my part & I gladly await any input from real experts in this area.
As far as the Kardon, I believe the idea was to deliberately simplify the production (also maintenance, etc.), more like the Soviet, AK-47, approach since Premier Instruments didn't have the capacity to make a full-on clone (might also account for why they chose to copy the IIIa instead of the IIIb). Perhaps Reid & Sigrist went in the other direction because it had more expertise (also perhaps patriotic pride had an influence?). But, yes, it's all speculation on my part & I gladly await any input from real experts in this area.
Bar8barian
Established
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
citizen99
Well-known
I had one for a couple of years. I liked the clarity of the view/range-finder optics, the lens and the build quality. However, with my interest moving more towards medium format, I was less motivated to spend time trimming the film leader as was needed when loading. A beautiful camera.
rodt16s
Well-known
I have had some occasional vignette with the FISON, but I also have a A36 filter attached which adds a bit of additional thickness.
Now I use the FOOKH which is handy as a 40.5mm clip on lens cap fits in it.
I do find the TTH sharper than my Summitar's, that said I do prefer the Summitar for B&W.
For colour then I will grab the TTH over all my 5cm's everyday.
rjbuzzclick
Well-known
Stop it guys, my ears are burning! 😉
(I have always wanted one of these, they're just out of my budget...)
(I have always wanted one of these, they're just out of my budget...)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
furcafe
Veteran
L39chap
Member
Got it!
Got it!
Ok chaps, a summary after 24hrs.
Condition: perfect. Just a little blemishing on slow speed dial.
Weight: about 20gms more than a IIIb.
Rangefinder: was out vertically and horizontally but have adjusted it to perfection.
Viewfinder: a little cloudy but ok.
Top plate: clean!
Shutter speed dial: feels way smoother than the IIIb
Covering: blimey, feels gorgeous and well made, better than the IIIb.
Bottom cover: wow. It's a very accurate fit. Tight to some, accurate to me! The IIIb base plate by comparison goes on without fuss.
Inside: clean but the film spool is well tight. Might swap spools around if a problem.
Loading film: what a pain. I've got III series loading down to a fine art but this is horrendous, you can't see the sprockets. Took x3 goes.
Shutter: hmmmm. Yep, curtains are old and have a slight dimple. Seem to run ok in high speed though. Low speed, uh oh! Keep your finger on and the shutter stays open. Finger of and timing ok. CLA required!
Shutter sound: way smoother than the IIIb. Almost a whisper; incredible.
Lens: aperture; round circle. Internally clean. Gorgeous. Lens cap fine.
Case: ok, smells of old leather. Got the fixing stud fixed for £1 in my local town. Got the manual too just in case I forget how to take a photo.
Verdict. Yeah, yeah it's a treat. But it's made in England which gets my vote.
Have got a film in it and been shooting between f2 and 5.6. Put the f5.6 28mm Summaron too to see how it likes it. All a bit nostalgic really.
Someone mentioned something about a IIIf; too modern for me.
Got it!
Ok chaps, a summary after 24hrs.
Condition: perfect. Just a little blemishing on slow speed dial.
Weight: about 20gms more than a IIIb.
Rangefinder: was out vertically and horizontally but have adjusted it to perfection.
Viewfinder: a little cloudy but ok.
Top plate: clean!
Shutter speed dial: feels way smoother than the IIIb
Covering: blimey, feels gorgeous and well made, better than the IIIb.
Bottom cover: wow. It's a very accurate fit. Tight to some, accurate to me! The IIIb base plate by comparison goes on without fuss.
Inside: clean but the film spool is well tight. Might swap spools around if a problem.
Loading film: what a pain. I've got III series loading down to a fine art but this is horrendous, you can't see the sprockets. Took x3 goes.
Shutter: hmmmm. Yep, curtains are old and have a slight dimple. Seem to run ok in high speed though. Low speed, uh oh! Keep your finger on and the shutter stays open. Finger of and timing ok. CLA required!
Shutter sound: way smoother than the IIIb. Almost a whisper; incredible.
Lens: aperture; round circle. Internally clean. Gorgeous. Lens cap fine.
Case: ok, smells of old leather. Got the fixing stud fixed for £1 in my local town. Got the manual too just in case I forget how to take a photo.
Verdict. Yeah, yeah it's a treat. But it's made in England which gets my vote.
Have got a film in it and been shooting between f2 and 5.6. Put the f5.6 28mm Summaron too to see how it likes it. All a bit nostalgic really.
Someone mentioned something about a IIIf; too modern for me.
goamules
Well-known
Nice review, It's great to get an old classic back in action.
