I've done about 50 or so J-3 and J-8 lenses over the last few years. I should have kept track of the changes in Shims that were required. Most required an extra 0.1mm to be spot on close-up and wide-open. Some were way off, and a number were spot-on. A couple required the helical to be repositioned in the mount for infinity focus. A couple were misassembled, including the latest 1953 KMZ J-3 that I got recently.
I think the effort to get the FSU lenses working optimally on a Leica is well worth the effort.
With my newest J-3: 1953 KMZ with a 1982 front element!
And my 1958 J-9 at 1.15m at F4.
I think the effort to get the FSU lenses working optimally on a Leica is well worth the effort.
With my newest J-3: 1953 KMZ with a 1982 front element!
And my 1958 J-9 at 1.15m at F4.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
I still don't buy the theory. The main assumption is that the Soviets did not do anything to the lens mounts when they made the LTM versions of Contax lenses. They never had anything to copy these barrels from- the Sonnar 50s were just optical blocks, but knew what it took to make a lens work and fit their Leica copies. They revised their measurements when they started making Jupiters (the older FED had variable standards- lens mount, working distance and even RF camming).
Why should the possibility that the Soviets actually did something to the barrels be so improbable? If they had to mill new barrels with LTM 39 mounts which mount and should focus 28,8mm from the focal plane, how remote would the possibility be that they also milled the helicals so that the focusing action is properly translated to RF camming action?
My point is, if the slight difference in the 'normal' focal length is the issue here, - that Leica must use 51,6mm- then the same argument will also say that a 90mm Elmar or Summicron would not be able to focus right on the Leica. I have been asking ever since, if it's possible to design various helicoids or devices which convert the motion of the lens to the RF cam for focal lengths like 90, 75, 105, etc, how impossible could one be made for a lens with 52,4mm or an 84,2mm like the J-9?
Like Philipp, I have several Jupiters (currently 2 J-3, 4 J-8 and 8 J-9, plus 1 J-12) which focus right on my Leica, Canon, and Leica M cameras. Only the J-9 had to be 'fixed' because of improper assembly. I have seen several J-3, J-8, and J-9 owned by friends here which work on their Leica and Bessa cameras. These too had never been adjusted.
A few weeks ago, I was sent a J-8 which would not focus right. The owner at one point suggested that it might be due to the shimming issues he's been reading in the "Russian Incompatibililty" articles all over the net.
I looked at the lens, and its optics were just loose. After tightening it, this was what it did- full open at f/2, on my Epson R-D1s.
And a Jupiter-3 at f/1,5, also 'untouched', on a Canon IIf
Why should the possibility that the Soviets actually did something to the barrels be so improbable? If they had to mill new barrels with LTM 39 mounts which mount and should focus 28,8mm from the focal plane, how remote would the possibility be that they also milled the helicals so that the focusing action is properly translated to RF camming action?
My point is, if the slight difference in the 'normal' focal length is the issue here, - that Leica must use 51,6mm- then the same argument will also say that a 90mm Elmar or Summicron would not be able to focus right on the Leica. I have been asking ever since, if it's possible to design various helicoids or devices which convert the motion of the lens to the RF cam for focal lengths like 90, 75, 105, etc, how impossible could one be made for a lens with 52,4mm or an 84,2mm like the J-9?
Like Philipp, I have several Jupiters (currently 2 J-3, 4 J-8 and 8 J-9, plus 1 J-12) which focus right on my Leica, Canon, and Leica M cameras. Only the J-9 had to be 'fixed' because of improper assembly. I have seen several J-3, J-8, and J-9 owned by friends here which work on their Leica and Bessa cameras. These too had never been adjusted.
A few weeks ago, I was sent a J-8 which would not focus right. The owner at one point suggested that it might be due to the shimming issues he's been reading in the "Russian Incompatibililty" articles all over the net.
I looked at the lens, and its optics were just loose. After tightening it, this was what it did- full open at f/2, on my Epson R-D1s.
And a Jupiter-3 at f/1,5, also 'untouched', on a Canon IIf
Last edited:
Philipp
Established
Just a quick thought: if FSU LTM systems were calibrated differently and you have to shim the lens before you can use it on a Leica/Bessa, that would also mean you could not use non-FSU LTM lenses (CV, Leica) on a FSU body without modification.
Didn't try it myself, yet, but read good things about this from others.
Didn't try it myself, yet, but read good things about this from others.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
The FED and Zorki manuals say that if the main lens (usually the Industar 3,5 50mms supplied with the camera) is replaced with a faster Jupiter 50/2 or 50/1,5, it has to be readjusted.
The adjustments done are the following: The flange to focal distance is set to 28,8mm (since the J-3/J-8/J-9 all have 28,8mm working distances). Then the camera RF cam is adjusted for infinity and 1 metre. The measuring accuracy is altered when the mount flange position is changed.
Once adjusted, the camera (speaking from experience) work quite well with Leica or Canon lenses. The only ones which cannot be used are those with tongue-shaped cams which catch on the pointy RF cams used by FED and Zorki.
BTW, I can also use Jupiters on Shanghai 58 (Chinese Leicas). These cameras followed the Leica measurements. Even their lens mounts are more accurately milled - lenses thread and park at the "proper" positions, unlike in many FED or Zorki where the lens focus tab sometimes stop over the viewfinders or at some awkward position.
> Why should the possibility that the Soviets actually did something to the barrels be so improbable?
There would have to be a mechanism to translate the motion of the 52.4mm Optics and reduce it to the motion of the Cam calibrated for 51.6mm. They could have used an indexed Cam that rotated as you focus, like on the Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5 LTM lens. They could have used an internal mechanism like on the Canon 3.5cm F1.8. They did not use any such mechanism on the J-3 and J-8 lenses as built. The optics simply screw into the portion of the mount with the Cam and it moves back and forth. On the newer J-8's, the Cam rotates with the optics, but it is flat and is not indexed. That means the RF of the camera is calibrated for 52.4mm, or it would not focus properly.
I've disassembled enough of the Wartime 5cm Sonnars, ZK Sonnars, transition lenses, early J-3's and late J-3's to know that the Russians did not do anything to correct the difference in focus between their 52.4mm lenses and the Leica standard 51.6mm lenses. There is a 1:1 movement between the RF cam of the J-3 and J-8 and the optics.
In terms of the laws of physics, that is the end of the discussion.
There would have to be a mechanism to translate the motion of the 52.4mm Optics and reduce it to the motion of the Cam calibrated for 51.6mm. They could have used an indexed Cam that rotated as you focus, like on the Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5 LTM lens. They could have used an internal mechanism like on the Canon 3.5cm F1.8. They did not use any such mechanism on the J-3 and J-8 lenses as built. The optics simply screw into the portion of the mount with the Cam and it moves back and forth. On the newer J-8's, the Cam rotates with the optics, but it is flat and is not indexed. That means the RF of the camera is calibrated for 52.4mm, or it would not focus properly.
I've disassembled enough of the Wartime 5cm Sonnars, ZK Sonnars, transition lenses, early J-3's and late J-3's to know that the Russians did not do anything to correct the difference in focus between their 52.4mm lenses and the Leica standard 51.6mm lenses. There is a 1:1 movement between the RF cam of the J-3 and J-8 and the optics.
In terms of the laws of physics, that is the end of the discussion.
Last edited:
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
With that being the case, maybe I should examine my Jupiter lenses, including the black one responsible for the shot below, because they both ignore the laws of physics and focus right at the same time:
Spyderman
Well-known
This issue has been discussed so many times, and it still comes up once in a while...
Soviet manufacturing: You need to understand that soviet manufacturing was oriented on the number of produced units and on cheap and simple manufacture. Thus 1:1 movement and production of only 1 standard focal length optics to be used in different focussing mounts on Kiev as well as Zorki and FED. Moreover the lenses weren't meant to be used on Leica or any other western cameras. They were made to be used by fellow comrades on their soviet made cameras. Nobody would dare consider aloud what would happen if you mount such lens on Leica, so why bother with complicated focussing mounts or with production of 2 different standard focal length lenses 51.6 and 52.4 ?
And exactly there stems the problem with the J-9 and J-11 as well. By adopting the Contax standard focal length, the other lenses (J-9 and J-11) had to conform to the same standard, so that the lenses would still be interchangable on Zorkis and FEDs.
If anyone is still in doubt, read the forum archives or keep believing in your own truth. It's been explained so many times that by now everyone could understand it.
BTW: Jay, I wouldn't recommend doing that to the J-9 to loosen the old grease. The lighter fluid and the oil can find way into the lens, on diaphragm blades and on the glass, and you'll need to disassemble it completely. Removing the aperture ring is fairly easy. And with the instructions from Brian or Kim Coxon (not sure who is the author) at "pentax manuals" web even the cleaning of the focussing mount is a question of an hour for someone with a little experience in lens mechanics.
Soviet manufacturing: You need to understand that soviet manufacturing was oriented on the number of produced units and on cheap and simple manufacture. Thus 1:1 movement and production of only 1 standard focal length optics to be used in different focussing mounts on Kiev as well as Zorki and FED. Moreover the lenses weren't meant to be used on Leica or any other western cameras. They were made to be used by fellow comrades on their soviet made cameras. Nobody would dare consider aloud what would happen if you mount such lens on Leica, so why bother with complicated focussing mounts or with production of 2 different standard focal length lenses 51.6 and 52.4 ?
And exactly there stems the problem with the J-9 and J-11 as well. By adopting the Contax standard focal length, the other lenses (J-9 and J-11) had to conform to the same standard, so that the lenses would still be interchangable on Zorkis and FEDs.
If anyone is still in doubt, read the forum archives or keep believing in your own truth. It's been explained so many times that by now everyone could understand it.
BTW: Jay, I wouldn't recommend doing that to the J-9 to loosen the old grease. The lighter fluid and the oil can find way into the lens, on diaphragm blades and on the glass, and you'll need to disassemble it completely. Removing the aperture ring is fairly easy. And with the instructions from Brian or Kim Coxon (not sure who is the author) at "pentax manuals" web even the cleaning of the focussing mount is a question of an hour for someone with a little experience in lens mechanics.
ozarque
Member
Here is my Jupiter 9 shot on a Bessa R focused to infinity...could be sharper...
spiderfrank
just a dreamer
Perhaps, Leica could have correct their lenses to meet the russian standard !
Out of jokes, I think it was much more practical for russian engineer to have the same distance lens-film with kiev-mount and LTM-mount than to follow two different systems. I don't think a lot of russian could afford to put Leica lenses on their Zorki, or to put their Jupiter-8 on a Leica body, so the most logical solution was to mantain the 52.4 mm standard on all thier lenses. The Leica world was in the other side of the wall
Out of jokes, I think it was much more practical for russian engineer to have the same distance lens-film with kiev-mount and LTM-mount than to follow two different systems. I don't think a lot of russian could afford to put Leica lenses on their Zorki, or to put their Jupiter-8 on a Leica body, so the most logical solution was to mantain the 52.4 mm standard on all thier lenses. The Leica world was in the other side of the wall
katcons
Established
Hi, everyone. I got a Leica IIIf recently and tested a friend's J9 on it, and I was wondering if that FSU LTMs should not work out of the shipping packet (so to speak), why don't all of these photographers immediately send their FSU LTMs for shimming? Going one step beyond, why even buy an FSU LTM for a Leica if focusing problems like these has resurfaced before? Surely, if it applies to all, then the FSU LTM would a definite no-entry zone for Leica users?
Here's a sample shot of the J9 on my IIIf:
I was focusing on the man holding the red umbrella. The lens was unmodified, unshimmed, used out of the box.
Also, has anyone used the lens prior and after shimming? I'd like to see some shots comparing these two conditions.
Hoping someone could enlighten me on this. I am currently exploring my options, as I have the Industars 26m and 61 to test on my Leica as well. Would be really grateful for your help and feedback.
I got a Leica IIIf recently and tested a friend's J9 on it, and I was wondering if that FSU LTMs should not work out of the shipping packet (so to speak), why don't all of these photographers immediately send their FSU LTMs for shimming? Going one step beyond, why even buy an FSU LTM for a Leica if focusing problems like these has resurfaced before? Surely, if it applies to all, then the FSU LTM would a definite no-entry zone for Leica users?Here's a sample shot of the J9 on my IIIf:
I was focusing on the man holding the red umbrella. The lens was unmodified, unshimmed, used out of the box.
Also, has anyone used the lens prior and after shimming? I'd like to see some shots comparing these two conditions.
Hoping someone could enlighten me on this. I am currently exploring my options, as I have the Industars 26m and 61 to test on my Leica as well. Would be really grateful for your help and feedback.
At infinity, and distances that you show, the focus will be good enough.
Try your lens at minimum focus of 1.15m and wide open at F2, and post some shots back. If there is going to be a problem, that is where it will show itself. It was a problem on mine. The J-9 is difficult to get right if the focus is off..
Try your lens at minimum focus of 1.15m and wide open at F2, and post some shots back. If there is going to be a problem, that is where it will show itself. It was a problem on mine. The J-9 is difficult to get right if the focus is off..