New J9 for my Bessa R

[Fedzilla_Bob]

The Sun can be a real bear here in San Diego- in winter and in summer. So, "flare happens" (even with a lens hood).

 

[Roberto]

Don't know about the depth, but they are your regular run-off-the mill 49mm screw-in hoods, like those used on plenty of othe lenses (e.g. most Pentax SLR-lenses). I use 49mm tele-hoods that I got from americaneagle_camera on Ebay.

Roman

Guys,
I have the original Russian Hood for the J9.. so if you want I can misure it and let you know about the dimensions..

Regards,
Rob.

 

[ent2b]

can you focus this at f4 and then open it again on a R2? Or because of the short EBL of the R2, are you stuck using it "more" stopped down?

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

With my R It is at it's best at 5.6 smaller. I suspect it would be the same with an R2. But, I have not tried to reshim it. Yet.

 

[ent2b]

bob, by reshimming, you mean changing the flange distance?

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

not in the case of the J9, you can actually take the whole lens assembly out from the focus assembly. Once you have done that you are likely to fing one or two "shims" made of thin steel. They are like a 2.5" wide washer and are kind of thin yet rigid.

 

[ent2b]

bob, pardon my ignorance (and there's much of it, esp with respect to RFs), but what will changing the shimming do? or rather, how will it affect the max aperture usable on a bessa?

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Part of the problem is that the Bessa's are set to Leica standards for the focusing distance (depth?). Apparently the FSU lenses are a little "out." The difference in measurement is about a millimeter, + or -.

Using a smaller aperture creates a sharper focus across a greater depth, compensating for that small difference in focusing depth.

A typical complaint I have seen here is that at wider apertures when photographing a subject's face, it will be out of focus, while the ears will be sharp.

I have been told here that you can add or remove shims to help correct for this difference in lens to film plane distance.

Someone will probably have a better, more in depth answer to problems, solutions and experiences with this camera lens combo.

I have attached a photo to show the problem. I was actually focusing on the front most rose.

The lens exhibits a nice bokeh though. This was at f4. You can see that the thorns behind the intended blossom have the focus.

 

[ent2b]

gotcha! thanks for the detailed explanation. basically it's an example of backfocusing.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

yeah, thanks, I didn't know the term.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Then again... The J9 can perform like this-- at f8 and f6 and at a greater distance (25 and 12 feet respectively).

 

[Doug]

My understanding of this is that the lens's focusing cam, that engages the camera's RF arm/roller, is cut to maintain focusing accuracy for all focusing distances, mounted at the Russian film-to-flange dimension. On cameras with different film-to-flange dimensions, such as Bessas and Leicas, you can shim the lens to focus accurately for near objects, or far objects, or some intermediate distance, but because of the way the cam is cut, it cannot be accurate over the full focusing range. This is not from personal experience, but from comments made by those experiencing the problem first-hand, including RFF member Roger in Japan.

 

[jamiewakeham]

Slightly off on a tangent (and slightly heretical in this forum, I know...) but could I expect results of this quality of I get the M42 version of this wonderful-looking lens and use an adaptor to mount it on my EOS?

Further off on this tangent; is there an LTM-to-EOS adaptor* that would let me use the same lens on my Zorki 1 and my EOS? Or an LTM-M42 or vice versa?

Thanks,
Jamie

* I know there's an M42-to-EOS, as I've found it! LTM-to-EOS I can't find...

 

[Richard Black]

I can't speak to the adapters you mentioned, but I do have a J-9 in 42mm mount that I use on a Minolta X-370 with an adapter and it is the best portrait lens I have in 35mm. The oof is wonderful and is quite sharp closed down. It is a black version, late model.

 

[wilt]

On cameras with different film-to-flange dimensions, such as Bessas and Leicas, you can shim the lens to focus accurately for near objects, or far objects, or some intermediate distance, but because of the way the cam is cut, it cannot be accurate over the full focusing range. This is not from personal experience, but from comments made by those experiencing the problem first-hand, including RFF member Roger in Japan.

Is there any description of how to shim a Jupiter 8 and/or a Jupiter 9 somewhere on the internet? Have been looking for such a description, but without results. There was a discussion at photo.net that did not lead to any clear answer.

Is this at all possible for a mechanical dilettante (to be polite) such as me? Has anyone here adjusted/shimmed a J8 or J9 for close-focusing on a Leica?

Perhaps this would be something to take up for some mechanic specialising in Russian cameras (Oleg at OK Photocameras, for example).

 

[kiev4a]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this but I'm not sure the statement about the FSU lens-to-film distance being out of whack with Leica and Bessa is correct.

The standard LTF distance on post-war FSU cameras is 28.8mm. I believe that was also the Leica standard at the time (pre-war FEDs had a different LTF distance). A couple of years ago a magazine article I read indicated the Bessa LTF distance was the one that was slightly different from Leica (I don't remember the exact distance). Doesn't really matter of you are using WA lenses stopped down because they can handle the difference. It's when you get into focal lengths above normal that the differences can jump up and bite you. The only way to avoid the problem entirely is to use only Bessa lenses on Bessas, Leica on Leica, etc. The people really into FSU cameras claim the only way to get optimum performance is to tune lenses to a specific camera body and rangefinder and then only use them on the body. Hardly anyone does that, however.

Another problem is Leica and some other RFs have a roller on the end of the rangefinder cam while the FSU cams are more primitive. You can use the Russian lenses on other cameras but many Japanese and German lenses are at risk when used on Russian equipment because of the cruder focusing cams on the rangefinders

 

[pshinkaw]

I am not certain about the veracity of my sources, but my understanding of the issue is that the Soviet LTM cameras, the Bessa and LTM Leicas all have the 28.8 flange to film distance specification. However, Soviet lenses have a minutely different pitch to their focusing helicals. Soviet lenses focus normally within their back focus tolerances from infinity, but progressively go out of focus with respect to their rangefinders ( and the rangefinders of Leicas and Canons) as focusing distance decreases. This is not supposed to be noticeable until the camera-object distance gets very close at wide apertures, say less than 2 meters and full aperture. Thus it is difficult to use Soviet lenses at minimum focusing distances and wide apertures.

It is possible to re-calibrate the rangefinder to match the lenses focus at close camera-object distances, but not without adversely affecting the infinity focus.

I have experienced something like this with a Jupiter-9 mounted on a Fed-3a, however, this assertion is diifcult to prove using a Soviet camera because they are not as precisely made as Leicas and Canons. One has to deal with loose tolerances in both the lens and the body, adding extra variables.

This is what I've heard. Is my understanding of the state of affairs markedly different from anyone else's theories?

-Paul