I've been a BAD Boy!

[Honu-Hugger]

Thank you, William. Yes, they will be reunited -- purchased from the same seller five minutes apart. I have an earlier version of that same lens, but I guess my OCD kicked in -- I wanted to keep it all "era" original.
You're not really interested in those old Contax "bricks," are you William? They have grown on me; when I first took an interest in Contax it was IIa only, then I warmed up to the II but never thought that I'd buy a I. Now I like them all. By the way, I just got good news from Henry Scherer today: my 50/3.5 rigid Tessar is coming home tomorrow!!! It should be all spiffed up and ready to roll.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell my wife! I just nabbed a Canon G3 ql17.

Sending money order tomorrow. SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[wlewisiii]

You're not really interested in those old Contax "bricks," are you William? They have grown on me

Oh, they have been growing on me. I started with being curious about these odd FSU cameras and it's been a fast spiral down ever since...

More I learn about any of them (contrax or kiev) the more I want them. I really have this desire for a Tessar on the Kiev II I am still waiting on. Scares me if I let myself think about it. I really can't put a finger on why, but there is a certian something for me in the Zeiss based stuff that is as ineffable as the various things you hear from Leica fans. All I do know is that I believe I can tell the differences between your various shots - I'm probably fooling myself, but hey, isn't that what this game is really about???

William

 

[RubenBlaedel]

Two items that I really didn't need, but sure am glad to have -- although I might be sleeping in the guest room for the next few nights (good thing we don't have a dog or it could be worse😀)

I like the ALPA design it is very different from other cameras - if you take away the word ALPA and the gold thing most ALPA cameras looks like scale models / prototypes from a design studio - this meant in a possitive way - it is totally uncluttered simpel design - no unnessesary gadgets or flashy chrome parts - its is like before the marketing people comes along and ask the designer/engeneers to put some extra lightbulps - chrometrims and preferably something that goes bib all the time. Simplicity in design - very beautifull - B&O and Braun Stereo stuff had some of the same styling in the 70ties but ALAPs simpel look goes back way further - Anyway the M2 is simple to were it seems like the Leica designers with the M6 lost it with red logos etc.- mine has a leitz - but I understand it is Leica now - and the battery thing in the front - a bit messy. I do not see many ALPA cameras around my part of the world, but I sure would not mind one like the one you show

 

[taffer]

Rover, side by side, would you say the 50/1.5 is built using the same barrel as the 1.8 ? I've seen on my 1.8 that the aperture blades could easily go one stop more to 1.5 or so, there's still enough free space in the lens barrel for that.

 

[rover]

My 1.8 is off at Essex for CLA so I can't compare directly for another few days. I also have a "black" 1.8, with the wider focusing ring, so comparing mine, the barrels are slightly different. The older 1.8s sure look the same though. Size and optical design of mine should be the same as the chrome ones so I will compare and make some assumptions. I bet you are correct, the old 1.8 and 1.5 do share a barrel.

 

[FrankS]

Joe, it would make more sense to get a 1.5 because it is a different lens formula - a Sonnar, and it will give different-looking results than the 1.4 and 1.8 both give, since they are the same type of lens. Sonnars are known to give wonderful results wide-open.

 

[back alley]

frank, now you want me make sense? lol!

you're probably right about that though.

but no matter now as i need to conserve in case i have a 'big' repair bill for the p.

joe

 

[John Shriver]

The 50/1.5 is mechanically VERY different from the 50/1.8. Not the same focusing mount at all. There are no threads showing on the focusing cam of the 50/1.5. I think that the lens optics are fatter towards the rear of the lens than the 50/1.8, requiring a different mount. However, they look almost identical on the outside, that's for sure. But I suspect that the only component that they share is the infinity lock button.

Of course, they are totally different lens formulas, the 50/1.8 is double Gauss, the 50/1.5 is Sonnar.

As for the Series VI adapter scratching the lens, the alternative is to find the later model of the 42mm adapter which has a screw-clamp. I have the 42mm slip-on adpater, but never use it since I have no desire to bung up my lenses!

 

[FrankS]

About scratching the lens barrels: I'm pretty sure that the push-on Series hoods are made of aluminum, much softer than the chrome on the lens barrels, so no worries.

 

[Paul Connet]

The 50/1.5 is mechanically VERY different from the 50/1.8. Not the same focusing mount at all. There are no threads showing on the focusing cam of the 50/1.5. I think that the lens optics are fatter towards the rear of the lens than the 50/1.8, requiring a different mount. However, they look almost identical on the outside, that's for sure. But I suspect that the only component that they share is the infinity lock button.<<snip>>

Here are a couple of pics of the f1.5 & f1.8 side-by-side. They do look and feel similar. My f1.5 is now focusing very smoothly thanks to John's instructions, and the older Serenar f1.8 is now clean as a whistle since this morning when I followed John Sweeney's words on taking it apart. This is the only Canon lens I have ever owned, (out of 4 50's) that had a cloudy lens element in the rear group. 😀

Regards, Happy Paul

 

[taffer]

Thanks for the info gents ! Fun that they look so similar on the outside yet are that different mechanically / optically. Useful engineering to reuse existing parts 🙂