wamjam
Well-known
ZorkiKat said:
hi jay,
with the J-9 and J-11 on the Fed, i obviously need a viewfinder that i attach to the hotshoe, right? what's a good and affordable one?
Xmas
Veteran
Jay
Yes there may be a cam issue. For received wisdom try
http://dantestella.com/technical/compat.html
If Nikon use a differenct lens standard for the rangefinder do you wonder about the FSU, given their T34 tank in WWII?
Note that it is not necessarily anything wrong with the FSU quality control, and many of the FSU cameras will have been bodged over the years I've a collection of Kiev J12's that need a rebuild on a lens bench. The ok few are really nice performers - after I've reworked them, I have one LTM one on a leica in preference to a lux, - it is better contra jour. If the rangefinder cams were different it wont show at f2.8 at 10 feet.
If you use a f1.0 Notilux leitz reccommends you have the/each M body registration checked, that indicates the F2 90mm and F2.8 135mm are in same boat so...
Noel
Yes there may be a cam issue. For received wisdom try
http://dantestella.com/technical/compat.html
If Nikon use a differenct lens standard for the rangefinder do you wonder about the FSU, given their T34 tank in WWII?
Note that it is not necessarily anything wrong with the FSU quality control, and many of the FSU cameras will have been bodged over the years I've a collection of Kiev J12's that need a rebuild on a lens bench. The ok few are really nice performers - after I've reworked them, I have one LTM one on a leica in preference to a lux, - it is better contra jour. If the rangefinder cams were different it wont show at f2.8 at 10 feet.
If you use a f1.0 Notilux leitz reccommends you have the/each M body registration checked, that indicates the F2 90mm and F2.8 135mm are in same boat so...
Noel
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
That article scared the bejabbers out of me when I first read it! Yet scientific truth depends on the repeatability of results, so for the record, these are tests I carried out on a variety of lenses, using different cameras. The first figure shows the distance marked on the lens, the second shows the actual distance. All three cameras were as precisely calibrated as I could possibly manage. I suggest that differences can largely be explained by the notorious difficulty of focusing at very close distances and by variations in manufacturing. I took the greatest care in noting the results. Although perfect precision was not to be hoped for, the results are consistent in themselves.
For what it’s worth, this is what I found- I had to use a jpeg, so apologise for any inconvenience!
Cheers. Ian
For what it’s worth, this is what I found- I had to use a jpeg, so apologise for any inconvenience!
Cheers. Ian
Attachments
Last edited:
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I know you asked Jay this question but I hope you don't mind my answering.wamjam said:
Yes you will want an auxilliary viewfinder.
I mainly use the Universal Turret finder. It is bigger than the specific focal length finders but I like that I only need to carry one finder for the three lenses I have to use it with--it does have five focal lengths(28,35,50,85, and 135) but I really only use 35, 85, and 135. I don't own a 28mm lens and for the 50's I'm happy with the VF of the camera.
I got mine fairly cheaply($50US or so). In my opinion, that was money well spent.
Rob
brachal
Refrigerated User
wamjam said:
I'm a big fan of the FSU turret finder. It's cheap, and it does a nice job. As has been pointed out, it's also only one piece of gear instead of 5.
Regarding FSU focusing issues ... I use a J-3, I-61LD, J-9, and J-11 with my bessa R, and have never had a problem. Even the J-3 is razor-sharp at 1.5 and 2 meters or so.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
wamjam said:
Wam
As Rob and Brachal have suggested, the Russian turret finder would be good to have and use for your FED-2. You could also use it on your M3. However, it's not the best to use for III series Leicas or any of the Barnack-types including FED-1 and Zorki-1. The turret finder extends too much at the back and can hamper viewing and focusing actions.
Jay
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Xmas said:
Noel
I have seen that article before. I've some reservations about it. For instance, it seems to have a simplistic take on the way the FSU LTM lenses were made.
There is an assumption that the Soviets never bothered to do anything else with the lenses other than change mounts.
Two reasons have made me not "bite" into that piece: first, as previously mentioned, the lenses worked and focused. I have two J-3, four J-8 and perhaps eight J-9, as well as several dozen Industars of various models. All, except those made [expressly] for the earliest of FED cameras work quite well with my Leica and Canon LTM cameras. Jocko has similar observations too. Quite contrary to what the piece said.
Second , it is so unlikely that the Soviets neglected the camming issue. They were into making Barnack type cameras (FED, which were almost Leica, were made in the mid-1930s) before they made the Contax-derived Kiev cameras. Surely they understood what made a Leica work long before they started rebadging Contaces, and applied this on the LTMs they made.
Jay
in the mid 1930s)
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
At that point they didn't produce high-speed lenses, though. They only started doing that after World War II.
On the other hand, one point of the article, that it makes little sense technically to produce high-speed 50mm lenses for two different but close normal focal lengths, is really quite convincing. If you've got a camera system where close focus can be adjusted separately from infinity focus anyway, you could just go on producing one type.
After all, it makes a difference only for very shallow DOF, which rules out the Industars and most of the Jupiters anyway. If you've got a J-3 that is cammed so that it works on a Leica, you can just adjust close focusing on your Zorkis or FEDS so that it fits the lens, and then you've got a system where your lens works on both your bodies.
Philipp
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
Hello Philipp!
I too was impressed by that article when I read it, but simple experience suggests it isn't so. In addition, there are a couple of other points...
In general that's true - but there was an F2 50mm lens for top-line feds produced from c.1938 to c.1941. That was certainly a very fast lens at the time.
But. more importantly,
It doesn't make much sense, but the Soviet economy often did not. I would suggest there is an exact parallel with Soviet electronics. During WWII a number of damaged American B29 bombers found haven in the Soviet Far East. The B29 was probably the most advanced aircraft of it's time - certainly in terms of electronics, control systems and so on. The whole aircraft was reverse engineered by the Soviets, becoming the Tu-4.
The problem was that the Soviet electronics industry was geared to metric sizes and European electrical standards, whilst the B29 was built on the Imperial system. Instead of converting to the former, the Soviets established a completely seperate "Imperial" electronics industry, which for decades afterwards produced high-technology electronic goods in parallel with other factories working on the metric standard. They used different voltages, different wires, fuses... The pointless waste and the duplication of effort and resources was simply not an issue. Indeed the absurdities were carried to such lengths that on the TU-4 tiny American trademarks were copied exactly - even the rubber mats had “Boeing Corp. Seattle Wa. USA” embossed on them.
In the circumstances of a surreal command economy Two different lenses would not have seemed a big deal
Cheers, Ian
I too was impressed by that article when I read it, but simple experience suggests it isn't so. In addition, there are a couple of other points...
rxmd said:
In general that's true - but there was an F2 50mm lens for top-line feds produced from c.1938 to c.1941. That was certainly a very fast lens at the time.
But. more importantly,
rxmd said:
It doesn't make much sense, but the Soviet economy often did not. I would suggest there is an exact parallel with Soviet electronics. During WWII a number of damaged American B29 bombers found haven in the Soviet Far East. The B29 was probably the most advanced aircraft of it's time - certainly in terms of electronics, control systems and so on. The whole aircraft was reverse engineered by the Soviets, becoming the Tu-4.
The problem was that the Soviet electronics industry was geared to metric sizes and European electrical standards, whilst the B29 was built on the Imperial system. Instead of converting to the former, the Soviets established a completely seperate "Imperial" electronics industry, which for decades afterwards produced high-technology electronic goods in parallel with other factories working on the metric standard. They used different voltages, different wires, fuses... The pointless waste and the duplication of effort and resources was simply not an issue. Indeed the absurdities were carried to such lengths that on the TU-4 tiny American trademarks were copied exactly - even the rubber mats had “Boeing Corp. Seattle Wa. USA” embossed on them.
In the circumstances of a surreal command economy Two different lenses would not have seemed a big deal
Cheers, Ian
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Ian,
I agree that Soviet economy didn't always make sense the way we would suppose it should. Still, one should be hesitant to forget that there were some rather clever people behind the Iron curtain, capable of logical thought and of recognising absurdity when they saw it
I guess we'll never know about the lenses.
Do you have a reference for the "imperial electronics" story? It really sounds suspiciously like an urban legend, especially since I can't imagine what "imperial" electronics should be like; after all, a volt's a volt, and an ohm's an ohm. The Tu-4 story is certainly the stuff of a lot of legends, and I'm not sure how much of them is true.
Philipp
I agree that Soviet economy didn't always make sense the way we would suppose it should. Still, one should be hesitant to forget that there were some rather clever people behind the Iron curtain, capable of logical thought and of recognising absurdity when they saw it
I guess we'll never know about the lenses.
Do you have a reference for the "imperial electronics" story? It really sounds suspiciously like an urban legend, especially since I can't imagine what "imperial" electronics should be like; after all, a volt's a volt, and an ohm's an ohm. The Tu-4 story is certainly the stuff of a lot of legends, and I'm not sure how much of them is true.
Philipp
Seele
Anachronistic modernist
Jocko said:
Ian,
Slight correction:
The Leica mount did not use the Whitworth thread, but uses a German standard thread profile which eventually became the international standard. What is odd about it is that it is 26TPI which looked as if it is 1mm pitch (25.4TPI).
Canon assumed that it was indeed 1mm pitch so the earliest Canon cameras and lenses were made to be so; in retrospect it is called the J-mount. Later it discovered that it was in fact 26TPI so the mount was made as short as possible to reduce the number of thread turns, and the clearance made as great as possible as well, so that it can take both J-mount and Leica lenses; this is known the "slop" mount. Afterwards Canon made the switch over to the Leica mount.
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
rxmd said:
Hallo Philipp!
You're absolutely right about the TU-4 and its legends! I've come across this in several sources, but the one I have immediately to hand is Duffy and Kandalov' s "Tupolev, The Man and His Aircraft", the English-language "official history" - Kandalov was Tupolev's "first deputy" until retirement in 1992. If you care to PM me your e-mail, I'll happily scan the chapter on the TU-4 - Its very interesting!
Thankyou Seele! That's fascinating! Its curious, thinking of Nikon and Contax too, how these mount problems originated.
Cheers, Ian
Last edited:
wamjam
Well-known
ZorkiKat said:
thanks everyone.
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
Ash said:
Wow, I never knew that. I feel even better about the rebuild of the lens!
Xmas
Veteran
Guys
If you want to focus a F2 85mm or similar long lens I'd suggest you are in the same boat as the F1 Noctilux users.
That is you need to register the body and the rangefinder accurately, and need to register the lens and its cams. If you cannot do this then the use of the 85 will be more limited, it will still be a nice lens, if you are lucky.
Russ Pinchbeck site details all this for Contax and clones... I have done this for my shooter Kiev and it is real hard work.
I said received wisdom was that the Ru had done for LTMs the same as Nikon did for Contax, it would not surprise me either way, nor does it get you our of the para 1 above problem.
I do use a J12 on a IIIC/M2 but shoot at 20 feet scale focue at F16, it is a nice lens, better than my 70's Summilux contra jour.
Be happy
Noel
If you want to focus a F2 85mm or similar long lens I'd suggest you are in the same boat as the F1 Noctilux users.
That is you need to register the body and the rangefinder accurately, and need to register the lens and its cams. If you cannot do this then the use of the 85 will be more limited, it will still be a nice lens, if you are lucky.
Russ Pinchbeck site details all this for Contax and clones... I have done this for my shooter Kiev and it is real hard work.
I said received wisdom was that the Ru had done for LTMs the same as Nikon did for Contax, it would not surprise me either way, nor does it get you our of the para 1 above problem.
I do use a J12 on a IIIC/M2 but shoot at 20 feet scale focue at F16, it is a nice lens, better than my 70's Summilux contra jour.
Be happy
Noel
P
Per
Guest
My I-22 does not work on the M3. Fits alright with the adapter but the focusing tab hits the bayonet lock a little too much. I have taken off the "foot" from the tab, still scrubs the bay lock. So this one is a no-no on my M.