retinax
Well-known
Hmm I've been thinking about the J-9. But then again the SLR version would be less trouble.
The ground glass thickness does not matter, the image is formed on the matte surface only, which needs to be against the film rails of course. Anyway maybe precision of other methods is enough for 35mm, but I found making a piece of ground glass no trouble at all. And then for MF, flatness with paper etc. would definitely become difficult.
The ground glass thickness does not matter, the image is formed on the matte surface only, which needs to be against the film rails of course. Anyway maybe precision of other methods is enough for 35mm, but I found making a piece of ground glass no trouble at all. And then for MF, flatness with paper etc. would definitely become difficult.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I have a J-9 lens in M42 for SLRS, easier to use either way for portrait work, l also got the Canon 85mm f1.9 and the Nikkor 85 f2 both in LTM and no issues on the Leica Standard cameras but the J-9 in M42 is still easier to use despite its manual aperture stop-down.
I have a piece of ground glass...still a thinner piece of taut parchment paper is good if ground glass is not available and you do not want to make a piece of ground glass.
Since the image at the film plane is on the inside of the camera and you are viewing it with a lupe on the outside rear.. then glass thickness or parchment paper thickness or opaque plastic thickness does matter as a bit of parallax can affect the view with lupe and it will give you a false in focus reading . Just my 2 cents from real working experience doing this on several different occasions of adjusting and shimming mostly FSU LTM lenses.
I have a piece of ground glass...still a thinner piece of taut parchment paper is good if ground glass is not available and you do not want to make a piece of ground glass.
Since the image at the film plane is on the inside of the camera and you are viewing it with a lupe on the outside rear.. then glass thickness or parchment paper thickness or opaque plastic thickness does matter as a bit of parallax can affect the view with lupe and it will give you a false in focus reading . Just my 2 cents from real working experience doing this on several different occasions of adjusting and shimming mostly FSU LTM lenses.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I've tried cloudy cellophane tape AKA Scotch tape taped
taught across the film gate. Worked, but I can't remember how well.
taught across the film gate. Worked, but I can't remember how well.
farlymac
PF McFarland
I make a test ground glass out of plastic salvaged from something like a CD case, cut it to fit on the inner film rails (not the outer ones which are out of the focal plane), then use Scotch tape on the lens side of the plastic to create the ground effect. That way the tape is pretty darn close to the actual focal plane, but a little thinner than the film is. I haven't tried using enough tape layers to replicate the film thickness though as it might be too much for light transmission.
Remember to set the aperture wide open, and do the focus check on a sunny day for plenty of light and contrast.
PF
Remember to set the aperture wide open, and do the focus check on a sunny day for plenty of light and contrast.
PF
CarrotRoom
Member
So I am pretty sure the lens is at fault here, when putting it onto my Olympus MFT and then getting good focus on something a known distance away, the scale is way off on the lens. I suspect it is slightly exaggerated by the adapter too so it's worse than previous tests.
I think I need a good Canon lens to move forward with this camera.
Thanks all for the advice.
I think I need a good Canon lens to move forward with this camera.
Thanks all for the advice.
maartenmoerman
Established
canon 50mm 1.4 ltm, affordable (relatively), and very nice
indridi
Member
I have the same combo - J3 on a canon 7.
I remember the first ca 5 times I attached the J3, the last quarter rotation or so was very stiff, so I first thought the lens stopped at ca 30 degrees from the top. It was as if the threads on the J3 were protruding deeper, thus meeting threads on the camera mount that had never gotten contact. A slight grinding feeling. After attaching/removing a few times, forcing the last 30° slightly, this went away, and now the lens sits correctly on the camera with the focus mark on top.
Regarding focus, it was off by a significant amount. Indoor shots at f1.5 were more than "soft". I didn't want to rip the lens apart as I would probably mess it up. So I corrected this by aligning lens focus to the rangefinder view by adding 2 layers of aluminum tape to the rangefinder cam on the lens. Camera mounted on a tripod, I focused to a target at a fixed distance (8m ca) using the rf, verifying focus using a ground glass and a loupe. If unsharp, add layer of tape, repeat until image on ground glass is sharp.
It was surprisingly easy, once you have the ground glass and the loupe, and no risk of irreparable damage. The lens now makes sharp photos on the Canon 7, but at the cost that the distance scale on the lens is probably off. I think it is difficult to get correct focus and correct distance scale.
Regarding ground glass, a framebuilder in the neighbourhood cut a piece of glass for me for a few dollars, then I taped a matte tape on one side.
Greetings,
Indriði
I remember the first ca 5 times I attached the J3, the last quarter rotation or so was very stiff, so I first thought the lens stopped at ca 30 degrees from the top. It was as if the threads on the J3 were protruding deeper, thus meeting threads on the camera mount that had never gotten contact. A slight grinding feeling. After attaching/removing a few times, forcing the last 30° slightly, this went away, and now the lens sits correctly on the camera with the focus mark on top.
Regarding focus, it was off by a significant amount. Indoor shots at f1.5 were more than "soft". I didn't want to rip the lens apart as I would probably mess it up. So I corrected this by aligning lens focus to the rangefinder view by adding 2 layers of aluminum tape to the rangefinder cam on the lens. Camera mounted on a tripod, I focused to a target at a fixed distance (8m ca) using the rf, verifying focus using a ground glass and a loupe. If unsharp, add layer of tape, repeat until image on ground glass is sharp.
It was surprisingly easy, once you have the ground glass and the loupe, and no risk of irreparable damage. The lens now makes sharp photos on the Canon 7, but at the cost that the distance scale on the lens is probably off. I think it is difficult to get correct focus and correct distance scale.
Regarding ground glass, a framebuilder in the neighbourhood cut a piece of glass for me for a few dollars, then I taped a matte tape on one side.
Greetings,
Indriði
farlymac
PF McFarland
Go for the chrome bodied lenses, the Serenars, and the ones before the black bodies came out. You'll have less chance of them having a haze issue.
The problems you describe with your Jupiter lens are indicative of it having been "repaired", then reassembled incorrectly.
PF
davhill
Canon P
True, but the man is flying in from Jupiter.
Canon 50mm/1.8 LTM, more affordable than the 50/1.4, and still a very very nice lens.
Last edited:
CarrotRoom
Member
CarrotRoom
Member
davhill
Canon P
Thanks, That is a good appreciation of my budget
You’re not the only one on a tight budget
There are several other ‘more economical’ Canon 50’s. The serenar 50/1.9 is the predecessor to the 1.8, is not as well corrected, and other 50s are better in my opinion. The 50/2.8 and 50/3.5 are economy lenses, Tessar designs, much surpassed by others. The 50/2.2 was another ‘economy’ design but proved to be rather fine despite itself (and the current market reflects that—it’s price has risen considerably). For me, for my price/performance equation, the 50/1.8 seems to fit the bill. And I’m consistently delighted by it.