"New" 100/3.5 - Questions.

[planetjoe]

Okay, I over-extended myself for a "new" 100/3.5 in LTM, and I think it looks fantastic. I've never seen such a small mid-tele before; I can't wait to use it.

HowEVer, my first impressions leave me with a few amateur-ish questions, best addressed to those that own (or have used) on of these beauties:

1. is this lens supposed have a click-stopped aperture ring?
2. how "stiff" is the focus on your version?

I realize that, by asking these questions, I may be exposing myself to ridicule by those sage individuals that might comment that I've received a bum lens. In all honesty, it WAS a 'bay purchase. But the optics are SO clean, and the cosmetics SO good, that I'm willing to progress to the test-shooting stage before I leap to conclusions.

So...now that my ramble is complete, I thank you in advance.


Cheers,
--joe.

 

[back alley]

no click stops, i prefer clickstops myself.

it a long throw for focus but mine is very smooth.

we learn by asking.

joe

 

[Dan Chang]

Stiff is common for this old age lens dur to dry lubricate, need CLA. is this all black lens? it is sharp.

 

[planetjoe]

Dan: no, actually, it's the earlier (I believe) black/chrome. And boy, did they ever make this lens pretty...it's got some nice lines, in my opinion.

Joe: thanks for the feedback. I like clickstops too, but I'd never had otherwise until my recent J-8 and J-12 adventures began. I'm not totally against the idea of not having them, yet.

I agree about the long throw, too. I just acquired an M42 lens for my Asahi S1a (it's a Helios-44-2) that had what I thought to be the longest throw I'd ever seen...until this particular lens arrived, that is.

I do think a CLA would be in order, actually, and quite worth it. Besides the need for the helicoid lube, the aperture ring's a teensy bit gritty/snaggy. Am I on the right track by assuming it's a job for the likes of Mark Hama?

Thanks, as always.


Cheers,
--joe.

 

[pvdhaar]

I agree about the long throw, too. I just acquired an M42 lens for my Asahi S1a (it's a Helios-44-2) that had what I thought to be the longest throw I'd ever seen...

Yeah, that's one of the things that I remember most of this lens.. and the benefit was that the DOF markings for the various apertures were not so closely sandwiched together as on most other lenses of the same focal length.. The other thing I recall was the barrel distortion, so it wasn't really good for architecture, but my oh my, what a wonderfull people lens..

 

[rover]

And which one of these lenses is it that you out bid me on? I won another which arrived yesterday so no big deal.

Focal Point, DAG, Popflash.....there are lots of good places that will give your lens a good CLA. I have had very good luck at very reasonable prices with DAG recently.

 

[planetjoe]

And which one of these lenses is it that you out bid me on? I won another which arrived yesterday so no big deal.

Ha - I forget sometimes that most of us are shopping in the same stores. No, as for the 100/3.5, I was the only bidder. Strange. And I think I purchased the Helios outright ("Buy It Now!").

Not to go too OT, but the Helios was part of a strange little drama that bears telling. It was sent along with an Industar-50/3.5 (the Tessar clone) in a bubble-mailer, which is how I receive most of my lenses from FSU sellers. The package arrived fine, although somwehat wrinkled and a little abraded. As it turned out, however, the interior was SOAKING wet, and so were the lenses. There were in pretty bad shape, fogged and showing droplets on interior elements.

Weird. Here in SoCal there was some rain that week, but not on the day of delivery - so the way I figure it, the postal worker was carrying a wet package around for who-knows-how-many days. I'm sure I had some recourse, but for a total cost of $20 (including shipping), I figured, eh.

I actually left the lenses in a sealed container with some granulated silica gel for about five days, and the helios cleared right up. Not so much the Industar; maybe lubricant migrated out; I don't know.

Anyway, thanks for listening. And, thanks to Rover for the comments on CLA vendors.

Pvdhaar: were you referring to the Canon or the Helios? I've been using the Helios on a Canon 10D with an adapter, and I really like the portraiture results.


Cheers,
--joe.

 

[djon]

...hmm..I hadn't realized that 100 3.5 lacked click stops...I almost bid on one recently. One of my biggest pleasures (click) is click stops (click), so a win (click) would have been a dis (click) appointment. CLICK!

My ancient 90 f4 Elmar didn't have click stops either. It really wasn't a problem, but it made me (click) nervous (click).

 

[planetjoe]

Nervous tic, djon? Now I'm nervous.


--joe.

 

[John Shriver]

Yes, it is curious that it lacks click stops. I hypothesized that they didn't have click stops on any of the telephotos, since they are rotating front lenses, and they might have wanted to reduce the chance of focus shift when changing the aperture.

But my hypothesis was crushed by the fact that the chrome 135/3.5 does have click stops. Although the 85/2.0 joins the 100/3.5 in not having click stops. (Of course, the 85/2.0 also copies the backward Zeiss direction of f-stops, since it's such a faithful copy of the Zeiss Sonnar len. The 85/1.9 has them in the right order.)

Wonderful sharp, crisp, contrasty lens. Blows away my Elmar 90/4, but my specimen of that has rather worn glass, really knocks the color saturation down on color film.

My 100/3.5 could use a clean/lube of the helical, it's rather scratchy. I did this on the Elmar, it has nice focusing feel.

 

[djon]

Perhaps the Canon glass could be mounted in the Leica body. Heh heh heh heh (click)

 

[John Shriver]

I think I'd rather clean and lube the helical of the Canon lens...

While both the Elmar 90/4 and Canon 100/3.5 have removable heads, I do think that there might be some "compromises" in focus accuracy in such a lash-up...

 

[djon]

Focus? We don't got to do no steenking focus!

 

[pvdhaar]

Pvdhaar: were you referring to the Canon or the Helios? I've been using the Helios on a Canon 10D with an adapter, and I really like the portraiture results.

Hi Joe,

I was referring to the Helios. Didn't have a 10D to put it on though at the time, I had it mounted on a Zenit-E..

Still took great pictures with it though..

 

[planetjoe]

Hey, Peter.

Thanks for the reply. I've noticed similarly good performance with the Helios (wide open, by the way) on the 10D. The only triucky thing with this particular arrangement is the 10D's lack of manual focus indication beyond a groundglass. And no interchangeable screens, either.

I just processed a roll shot with this lens on the old Pentax S1a (as a means of testing both the lens and the body), and it came back a lot better than I'd hoped. Not bad for a seven-dollar lens. Now I think I'm becoming m42-obsessed.

Apologies for the off-topic post. If it interests anyone, I'm also playing around with m42-m39 converters as well, specifically for use on my dSLR and others. Possibilities, possibilities. And who needs infinity focus?


--joe.