pippy
Established
Hello everyone.
Perhaps this is a strange question and perhaps the answer really IS as simple as I hope it will turn out to be but here's the thing...
I'm awaiting delivery (in two days time hopefully) of a FED 1(B) complete with the ubiquitous 50mm f3.5 collapsible bought from the 'bay. Looking at the 'sales' pictures the infinity-lock button is not it the usual - roughly 8-o'clock - position but in more like the 5-o'clock position. My guess - and, not yet having seen it in the metal, it IS just a guess - is that the annular lens-mount on the camera's body has been removed at some point and, when replaced, was put on 90 degrees anti-clockwise from the correct orientation. After all; this would explain the matter completely.
Is this scenario likely or did some early ('35/'36) bodies have mount-flanges set at odd positions?
If this IS the answer then has anyone had any experience in removing the flange? Is it likely to be as straightforward as I suspect or will unseen bits and bobs drop-off internally as the last screw is undone?!?!
Strange question - perhaps. I've never seen a lens mounted in such a fashion before but my first Leica (a I to IIIa conversion) had an 11-o'clock Elmar so I know the infinity locks are not always down at 7-o'clock and perhaps these early FEDs were non-standardised? I have read that the mount/film plane distance on these early cameras is similarly non-standard...which might prove to be fun in the pixel-peeping stakes!
Thanks in advance for any suggestions regardless of how sane/loopy!
Pictures of the thing will be posted after I get my mitts on it.
Pip.
Perhaps this is a strange question and perhaps the answer really IS as simple as I hope it will turn out to be but here's the thing...
I'm awaiting delivery (in two days time hopefully) of a FED 1(B) complete with the ubiquitous 50mm f3.5 collapsible bought from the 'bay. Looking at the 'sales' pictures the infinity-lock button is not it the usual - roughly 8-o'clock - position but in more like the 5-o'clock position. My guess - and, not yet having seen it in the metal, it IS just a guess - is that the annular lens-mount on the camera's body has been removed at some point and, when replaced, was put on 90 degrees anti-clockwise from the correct orientation. After all; this would explain the matter completely.
Is this scenario likely or did some early ('35/'36) bodies have mount-flanges set at odd positions?
If this IS the answer then has anyone had any experience in removing the flange? Is it likely to be as straightforward as I suspect or will unseen bits and bobs drop-off internally as the last screw is undone?!?!
Strange question - perhaps. I've never seen a lens mounted in such a fashion before but my first Leica (a I to IIIa conversion) had an 11-o'clock Elmar so I know the infinity locks are not always down at 7-o'clock and perhaps these early FEDs were non-standardised? I have read that the mount/film plane distance on these early cameras is similarly non-standard...which might prove to be fun in the pixel-peeping stakes!
Thanks in advance for any suggestions regardless of how sane/loopy!
Pictures of the thing will be posted after I get my mitts on it.
Pip.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Leica lens are pretty different to Industar lens. About the only thing in common is outside appearance. Don't really have my lens at hand so I can remember, but if the lens was indeed disassembled and put back on the wrong way, its pretty easy to fix. Just unscrew the front part and start screwing with the focus index mark between the 1.7 and 2 marks.
It happened to me and it didn't focused right.
Best lucks.
Marcelo
It happened to me and it didn't focused right.
Best lucks.
Marcelo
pippy
Established
Thanks for the thought and suggestion, Marcelo, but I think we're describing two different things. I don't suggest the lens has been dismantled and reassembled incorrectly. The lens looks 100% right. It's the position the lens is in when screwed on to the body which is 'wrong' in comparison to the usual fare. Imagine unscrewing the lens from your body but stopping after 1/4 of a turn. The infinity lock is in the lower-right area...
Picture time?
Here is the camera with the infinity-lock at the 5-o'clock position. Let us assume that the lens is screwed tight to the body. Imagine the camera without a lens. There are four screws holding the mounting-flange to the body at top-left; top-right; bottom-right; bottom-left. Imagine unscrewing the flange, turning it 90 degrees clockwise and reattaching it to the body. The lens will now start to screw into the flange 90 degrees further round and the infinity lock, when the lens is fully screwed-home, will line-up in the 8-o'clock position...
Pip.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Oh thanks for clarifying. My mistake.
Marcelo
Marcelo
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I guess wait until it shows up.
It might not be screwed on completely. There might be grime in the threads keeping it from scewing on completely.
I think the lens in the picture is of the early Fed type (I have one with identical appearance). Some early Fed-1 bodies and Fed lenses were not standardized (similar to the early Leicas). I suspect that my early Fed lens is one of those. These lenses will have the infinity lock at an unusual location when put on a standardized body. The reverse is true as well. If you have a matched early Fed combination, the infinity lock would be at the 11 o'clock position. And then just imagine if you had a mismatched set of early unstandardized Fed. All bets off at that point.
To your original question. I don't think its possible to remove the mount flange and re-attach it with a 90-degree rotation. I think there is a relieved flat under the flange at the top that keeps you from reattaching with a different orientation. However, I could be wrong. I'm going from memory of the last time I actually did remove the flange from an early Fed (a few years ago) Its not my first suspicion here.
Always fun with the old stuff with unknown histories. BTW, someone more knowledgeable than I may chime in with clarifications on the early unstandardized Fed stuff. I'm going from memory, and what I read a couple years ago.
It might not be screwed on completely. There might be grime in the threads keeping it from scewing on completely.
I think the lens in the picture is of the early Fed type (I have one with identical appearance). Some early Fed-1 bodies and Fed lenses were not standardized (similar to the early Leicas). I suspect that my early Fed lens is one of those. These lenses will have the infinity lock at an unusual location when put on a standardized body. The reverse is true as well. If you have a matched early Fed combination, the infinity lock would be at the 11 o'clock position. And then just imagine if you had a mismatched set of early unstandardized Fed. All bets off at that point.
To your original question. I don't think its possible to remove the mount flange and re-attach it with a 90-degree rotation. I think there is a relieved flat under the flange at the top that keeps you from reattaching with a different orientation. However, I could be wrong. I'm going from memory of the last time I actually did remove the flange from an early Fed (a few years ago) Its not my first suspicion here.
Always fun with the old stuff with unknown histories. BTW, someone more knowledgeable than I may chime in with clarifications on the early unstandardized Fed stuff. I'm going from memory, and what I read a couple years ago.
wolves3012
Veteran
There's doesn't loook anything wrong with the picture, I have several FED and Zorki 1s and the lenses mount with the lock somewhere around the bottom half. I'd take a guess that anything from 4 O'clock to 8 O'clock isn't cause for alarm. As said above by rfaspen, you cannot fit the lens mount at 90 degrees without some major modifications.
EDIT Since you asked, yes there are pieces that will drop off if you undo the screws, so don't. There are 2 keeper plates inside the body, the lens mount screws pass into them and *through* the body, rather than into the body. The 2 plates are (usually) above and below the mount, the upper screws retain one and the lower screws the other. There are also (usually) paper shims under the lens mount and they need to be exactly as fitted to ensure correct lens-register distance.
EDIT Since you asked, yes there are pieces that will drop off if you undo the screws, so don't. There are 2 keeper plates inside the body, the lens mount screws pass into them and *through* the body, rather than into the body. The 2 plates are (usually) above and below the mount, the upper screws retain one and the lower screws the other. There are also (usually) paper shims under the lens mount and they need to be exactly as fitted to ensure correct lens-register distance.
geoffox23
Member
In your photo, you can see the cutout behind the top of the flange to fit the frame, so the flange is mounted correctly. Viewed from the front, you should also see a black line in the outside rim of the flange, at 9 o'clock.
I would guess that this is not the original lens. Usually with 1B, the lens serial number was close to the camera serial.
Geoff
I would guess that this is not the original lens. Usually with 1B, the lens serial number was close to the camera serial.
Geoff
pippy
Established
Hi, rfaspen, and thank you very much for your input. Very interesting.
My original guess when I saw the snaps in the ad. was that (as you, yourself, say) the early stuff was "à la Leica" and non-standardised and this still might well prove to be the case here.
Until such time as it arrives I'll be fascinated to read about the experiences of others. Never having unscrewed the flange from a body I'm quite intrigued by the idea and might have a look behind the ring of one of my other bodies in the interim. But then again; if the bodies and lenses from this period were NOT standardised then there remains the possibility that, not being standardised, there was no need to have any one particular orientation of the flange therefore there might not have been a need for the 'relieved flat' which you mention?!?....
Who knows? All speculation until such time as it arrives. Oh, what Fun and Games...
Pip.
My original guess when I saw the snaps in the ad. was that (as you, yourself, say) the early stuff was "à la Leica" and non-standardised and this still might well prove to be the case here.
Until such time as it arrives I'll be fascinated to read about the experiences of others. Never having unscrewed the flange from a body I'm quite intrigued by the idea and might have a look behind the ring of one of my other bodies in the interim. But then again; if the bodies and lenses from this period were NOT standardised then there remains the possibility that, not being standardised, there was no need to have any one particular orientation of the flange therefore there might not have been a need for the 'relieved flat' which you mention?!?....
Who knows? All speculation until such time as it arrives. Oh, what Fun and Games...
Pip.
wolves3012
Veteran
It may seem a simple matter to remove the lens mount but I'd advise you not to unless there's a compelling reason. When re-fitting the mount, apart from what I noted above you'll find that screwing the screws up in the wrong order or too tightly can distort the mount, thus making mounting and unmounting lenses difficult. I speak from having spent time doing this!
pippy
Established
Thanks for your replies, Wolves and Geoffox.
I was typing and have crossed messages with you both.
I now see what you all mean about the relieved flat. Yup. That's all fitted OK.
I also had a feeling that bits would fall if I tried to disassemble so thanks, Wolves, for confirming that!
I have noticed the '9-o'clock' black index mark on my other Barnack clones and am now pretty sure the one coming will confirm everything is in its proper place.
As you suggest, Geoffox, I greatly doubt the lens will be the original as supplied. Nor was it advertised as such so no great surprise nor disappointment.
Thanks, everybody, once again for your input and thoughts. Much appreciated!
Pip.
I was typing and have crossed messages with you both.
I now see what you all mean about the relieved flat. Yup. That's all fitted OK.
I also had a feeling that bits would fall if I tried to disassemble so thanks, Wolves, for confirming that!
I have noticed the '9-o'clock' black index mark on my other Barnack clones and am now pretty sure the one coming will confirm everything is in its proper place.
As you suggest, Geoffox, I greatly doubt the lens will be the original as supplied. Nor was it advertised as such so no great surprise nor disappointment.
Thanks, everybody, once again for your input and thoughts. Much appreciated!
Pip.
David Hughes
David Hughes
OTOH, looking at the clocks in this house I can see that 5 o'clock and 8 o'clock are 90° apart and there are 4 screws holding the lens flange and they are 90° apart.
Also, you should be able to see the focus scale and DoF guide from above.
FTTB I'm reserving judgement...
Regards, David
PS I'd be very interested in learning the lenses serial number...
Also, you should be able to see the focus scale and DoF guide from above.
FTTB I'm reserving judgement...
Regards, David
PS I'd be very interested in learning the lenses serial number...
pippy
Established
Thank you, David, but unfortunately the 90 degree mount switch idea was thoroughly debunked by rfaspen in post #5.
The camera arrived earlier today and things are now becoming clear as mud! I'll have to take a few snaps to show what I mean but I received a bit of surprise when tried fitting a similar FED 50 f3.5 I already own in place of the one fitted to the camera.
In the spirit of enquiry I then tried out an Industar 22; a Jupiter 8; a collapsible Elmar, an early 50mm f1.8 Canon and even an early '30s Elmar 9cm to see if there was much variation.
Lastly I then tried out the 'new' lens on some Zorki, Nicca, Leotax and Leica bodies; again to see if there was much variation.
Many results were similar but never identical...
As I say; Clear as Mud!
As far as the serial number goes;
I'd love to provide a serial number but I don't know where to look for one! Sounds idiotic, I know but where is it located? The only (non functional) number anywhere on the lens is a '52' stamped onto the rear face of the lens-mount flange. The other FED 50 I tried is similarly stamped but with a four-digit number 8218.
Incidentally (and in case it might be of any help) the face-engravings of these lenses are slightly different with one omitting the / between the letters 'm' as in '50m/m' and '50mm'.
I'll try to get some quick snaps up soon to illustrate a couple of the earlier points...
Pip.
wolves3012
Veteran
If the new FED is a pre-war one, there's no guarantee it has a standard lens-register distance, so the fitment of other lenses may well be academic - they may not focus correctly. As regards the alignment of the lock when fitted, I suspect they cut the threads "in the ballpark" rather than accurately at a known start-point. The serial numbers on the FED 50/3.5 is usually on the rear flange - again it wouldn't surprise me it it were absent. Even if it's not, I'm not sure it tells you much. After this length of time, who knows what parts *might* have been cobbled together - or might not!
wolves3012
Veteran
Out of curiosity, I've just checked the alignment of the four collapsibles I have. I have a FED that lands at 8 O'clock, 1 each FED/Zorki at 9 O'clock and a FED at 10 O'clock. These are on their associated bodies, not tried interchanging to see what results. Both my FED 50s are early, uncoated ones and both have 4-digit serials, 9429 and 9478.
rgraphex
Established
I have a nice fed nkvd not sure of model serial 126014 . With original 50mm is at the 9:00 position. I notice the flange can only be put on one way. Mine measured 28.78 I think that is within leica specs. Also I measured with film loaded will that alter the measurement? lens has 2 number strings 125344 and 3140 uncoated f3.5 to f18
wolves3012
Veteran
28.78 is within spec, either it's been "standardised" or it's luck. Pre-war FEDs came with a lens (or lenses) matched to the body and not necessarily 28.80mm Leica spec. Measuring with film is, technically, the correct way to do it anyway, so you did it properly.
EDIT: Corrected the figures from 27.xx to 28.xx
pippy
Established
Thanks for the info, Wolves, and the non-standardisation is something I was expecting to be present. I have a digital vernier gauge and I might try to do some measuring but if the lens' optics are non-standard, too, then it might well be - as you say - an academic exercise.
Talking of which - and FWIW - here are a few quick snaps showing how the position of the infinity lock changes (heading anti-clockwise in this group) with four lenses.
Top row : 'Correct' FED; 'Spare' FED.
2nd row : Industar 22; Elmar.
And a snap of the top-plate just for fun. The body is part of the PE0190 group as described in the Sovietcams site. The cameras which made up this group were slightly unusual in that the vulcanite varied in colour from black to brown to - as here - mid gray-green. Approximate date of manufacture of this model variation (numbering circa 3,200 cameras) is between December 1935 to Jan 1936.
Pip.
Talking of which - and FWIW - here are a few quick snaps showing how the position of the infinity lock changes (heading anti-clockwise in this group) with four lenses.
Top row : 'Correct' FED; 'Spare' FED.
2nd row : Industar 22; Elmar.
And a snap of the top-plate just for fun. The body is part of the PE0190 group as described in the Sovietcams site. The cameras which made up this group were slightly unusual in that the vulcanite varied in colour from black to brown to - as here - mid gray-green. Approximate date of manufacture of this model variation (numbering circa 3,200 cameras) is between December 1935 to Jan 1936.
Pip.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Me again: is there a hole in the film pressure plate and so on?
Regards, David
Me again: is there a hole in the film pressure plate and so on?
Regards, David
pippy
Established
Hi David.
Yes; the hole in the pressure plate is there. Slightly below centre and off to the left as seen through the lens throat. It also has the correct dished 'depression' under the shutter-speed knob; the correct early 15mm (as opposed to 13mm) speed-knob; no indent on the r/f housing next to the Advance/Rewind lever; 'tongue' at the front-edge of the accessory shoe; very finely engraved gripping surfaces on the wind-on and rewind knobs etc.
As far as your P.S. about the serial numbers goes I've taken a couple of snaps; one of each FED lens seen in the picture shown above. Not going to win any awards for technical merit but they capture the general gist!
'52' and '8218';
Pip.
Yes; the hole in the pressure plate is there. Slightly below centre and off to the left as seen through the lens throat. It also has the correct dished 'depression' under the shutter-speed knob; the correct early 15mm (as opposed to 13mm) speed-knob; no indent on the r/f housing next to the Advance/Rewind lever; 'tongue' at the front-edge of the accessory shoe; very finely engraved gripping surfaces on the wind-on and rewind knobs etc.
As far as your P.S. about the serial numbers goes I've taken a couple of snaps; one of each FED lens seen in the picture shown above. Not going to win any awards for technical merit but they capture the general gist!
'52' and '8218';
Pip.
wolves3012
Veteran
Ok I can see the issue now, only the 'correct' FED lens appears to be anywhere near to not obstructing the VF or RF windows over a useful range! I'd guess the only solution, if you really need to change things, is to swap the lens mount for another and hope it's different. Then you'll have the problem that the 'correct' lens is now parked in the wrong orientation. Swings & roundabouts I'd say. And yes, it may be academic if the register isn't close enough to allow other lenses to be used anyway. Probably better to keep it exactly as-is and accept it's one-lens camera!
P.S. You're also lucky that the other lenses will screw on. The pre-war mount threads are also non-standard. I think David can shed more light on it but something like 1mm thread-pitch versus 26 threads-per-inch. Depending on wear, some lenses work and others don't. My own NKVD will accept some later lenses and not others. I wonder if this is a factor? Are the other lenses actually bottoming out fully in the threads, or might there be a tiny gap?
P.S. You're also lucky that the other lenses will screw on. The pre-war mount threads are also non-standard. I think David can shed more light on it but something like 1mm thread-pitch versus 26 threads-per-inch. Depending on wear, some lenses work and others don't. My own NKVD will accept some later lenses and not others. I wonder if this is a factor? Are the other lenses actually bottoming out fully in the threads, or might there be a tiny gap?