Problems mounting new Kiev lenses on older Kievs?

[mjflory]

I mentioned in another thread that I'd had trouble removing a 1980's (as I recall) Jupiter-12 from my 1953 Kiev 2, and I received a note from fellow RFF'er JonP saying he'd had a similar problem with even worse results -- damage to the camera! I remember at the time wondering if anyone else had found recent lenses incompatible with earlier Kievs and finding very little information on the Web. Since it seems that this could be a potentially damaging incompatibility, I thought I'd ask if anyone else had experienced this problem, or had any more definite information. Could it happen with other lenses as well?

When I searched for information at the time I found references to possible changes when lens production shifted to Lytkarino (thanks for the correction, QUAsit) and an interesting picture on an auction on the 'Bay: a late-model J-12 with a filed-down mount. Then I bought a 1950's J-12 hoping that it would fit my old Kiev better (it did) and I noticed that on my 1950's lens the part of the mount that I'd seen filed down on the late-model J-12 was beveled, not square (as on my late-model lens that had gotten stuck). I've attached a couple of pictures: the original picture of the filed-down lens, which I saved, and one of an earlier J-12 with a beveled mount.

Can anyone else speak with more authority than I about possible changes to the Kiev mount over the years? Any other tales of incompatibility (or worse)?

-- Michael

 

[ErnestoJL]

Suposedly, there shouldn´t be any changes between old and new lenses (referred to the mount).
Kievs were made with the same mount as the original 30´s Contax, and the only model which was different (ref. to the mount) was the Kiev 5.
I don´t think that Arsenal modified the mount for the last units produced (both cameras and lenses) instead I would think of the traditional soviet lack of QC that sometimes leads to unexpected surprises...
I exchanged lenses with other Contax/Kiev users and had no troubles.
Hope this helps.

Cheers

Ernesto

 

[brachal]

I've used an 80's Helios-103 and a late 70's J-12 on my 50's Kiev 2a with no problems at all. That camera also uses a late 50's J9 and early 60's J11 without difficulty, as well as the original J-8.

Could the problem J12 have been modified by someone at some point? I've read about a lot of DIY repair jobs happening to these lenses over the years.

 

[mjflory]

Very interesting -- thanks for the responses. Ernesto, I wonder if I bought a Kiev-5 mount lens by mistake? Bill, it's helpful to hear that you've had later lenses that fit. I don't think my troublesome J-12 had been modified -- it didn't show any obvious signs of it, anyway, and it seems as if the pin on my lens was larger than on the old lens -- more "square," anyway -- and I can't think how someone could have made it larger (unless it was just replaced altogether).

Perhaps one of these days I'll get to some sort of Kiev users' meeting and have a chance to try some more lenses. (I don't know what I'd do if they wouldn't come off my camera, though!)

 

[ErnestoJL]

I´m not sure that yours is for a Kiev 5, as I never had one of those rare beasts in my hand. Instead, your J12 looks exactly as mine does (left picture).

When I bought my J 12. it was very hard to rotate. I investigated a little, and found some debris stuck in the inner part of the lens bayonet which prevented it to rotate easily (the external bayonet, not the internal which links the lens to the RF).
It was a very tiny bit of something and it took a few minutes to get rid of it completely. Now, mounting the lens is smooth as expected.

Hope it helps

Ernesto

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I've had many incompatibility problems, all of which were solved by filing down the offending part.

In the case of a Black J-12, I removed the chrome collar around the mount and filed it down. It was protruding slightly too much.

In the case of a 1984 and 1985 Helios-103, the bayonet flanges were slightly too deep. One had a "light baffle" that prodruded slightly too far. Much more filing was required to make them fit an S-Mount camera. The construction of the back's of these two lenses differed from the 1981 Helios-103 that fit on the Nikon's, Contax, and Kiev perfectly.

 

[Xmas]

Michael
The fit of j12 to any Contax/Kiev or Nikon is marginal, I think the FSU relaxed the tolerances deliberately.
Rather then filing a scallop as the earlier J12s seem to have had the initial thing to do is to remove the embillisher from the lens mount and loosen off the exposed grub screws a little and after this with the lens in situ on the camera focus until the lens and camera are more compatible.
Note the grub screws are made out of hot butter and should not be used to pull the parts together, instead you may need to drill (needle file) out the grub seats to allow the mount and lens to self centre on the cameras, this needs care, and minimal removal of metal.
If you have several cameras and several lenses there will probably still be some combinations that remain stiff to focus, but with care some will be focusable with the wheel, after the heliciod wax is replaced.
Noel

 

[mjflory]

This is more complex than I'd imagined! (I've probably confused things with my explanation as well.) The picture of the lens on the left is just one that I saved from an eBay auction that had already finished, as I remember it, so I've never seen that actual lens. I was interested because it appears to have the same mount as my later J-12, except that my lens is unmodified, and has a rather squarish "pin" where the lens in the picture was filed. So, you may ask, why doesn't this character (me, that is) take a picture of his lens and post it? Well, er, I would if I could find it... It's somewhere around here, I swear!

But I've grown increasingly fond of my old Kiev... I've been using it recently with the (earlier) J-12 that fits and with an old J-8 with wonderful results. So I've thought about getting some longer lenses (I've got a 135mm on the way) but I've worried about mount incompatibility. The advice here on mount modification will help, so thank you all.

I think I must expect some tight fits once in a while, and I'll look at the bayonet mounts for stuff that might have gotten stuck in there. That had never occurred to me! It also hadn't occured to me that the outer bayonet might be part of the problem.

I'll try some of this out (and dig out the later J-12), and if I can make any systematic sense of the problems I'll try to write it up. But I'm afraid that a lot of the problems may indeed be due to relaxed tolerances and poor materials used in manufacture. (Yes, I've had those "butter" screws melt under my screwdriver!)

-- Michael

 

[Xmas]

Michael

I did not mean to confuse you, I've only seen a problem with the j12s, the 85 and 135mm lenses I ve tried were all ok. The j12 mount is more difficult to register, it (the follower) is deeper and needs more tolerance. The Zeiss origional may have been better but I've not seem any of these - they are expensive...
The Soviets were good at tolerances, and the early manuals said you need to have interchangable lenses set up for each body!
The grubs are soft steel and will break if mistreated I did not want you to blame me - this is normal.
The best other example is the T34 WWII medium tank the pre war ones were nicely finished and the Ge army wanted them cloned they were better than the Ge ones by some margin. When the Ge were at the gates of Leningrad and Stalingrad and fought their way in to the Stalingrad tractor factory aspects of the finish were neglected.
The Su prop photo shows the production workers driving a new T34 between the tank trap walls just to try it out at the end of the street - in the seige. Alas they adopted the same production techniques on the Kievs as well. the early Kievs were real nice cameras, for fondlers and shelves.
Lastly I normally use 2x Kievs each with j12s, I Gbag 50, 85 & 135mm lenses as well but 'never' use.
The j12 heliciod will need cleaning, but you dont need to strip unless you are fussy. Late lenses may need the rear bevel painting black, this is necessary if you dont want flare spots. After you paint the J12 is pretty good with sun in picture, or rather mine are. The only problem I have is the aperature will change unless you are real careful, if you use a filter you need a hood and the any contact with the hood will alter the aperature.

Noel

 

[mjflory]

Noel, I don't think you confused me! You've just made clear some aspects I'd missed. (I think I've probably confused myself a little here, though...)

I'm reassured to hear that the longer lenses are less likely to have problems, as I've at last got myself set with the J-12 and at the moment it's the J-9 that I've been thinking about. (Of course there are always those wider lenses... but I should content myself with my CV 21/4!)

Incidentally, I did a couple of test rolls recently with my third J-12, an LTM mount one, on a Zorki 3M, a Leica IIIf, and a Bessa T with an adapter. (No problems mounting it on the Bessa despite the double shutter curtain.) It performed beautifully on all of them. The shots were sharp, contrasty, and had very little flare. (That lens, like the earlier Kiev mount one, has the rear element without the ring around it.)

The Kiev really has become my FSU favorite, though. It's just a better-made camera with a much better feel to it. I suppose I have a special attachment to it, too, because I repaired the shutter myself!

 

[Xmas]

Michael
If you look carefully at the rear of the J12 it has a coated optic surface and a black painted periphery.

Most of the Kiev mount J12 have a ring of ground glass between the black painted periphery and the coated optic, this needs painting as it can create hot spots in contra jour light.
Noel

 

[mjflory]

Never noticed it before! I guess I'm in luck, someone's painted mine already.

Thanks, Noel.

-- Michael

Michael
If you look carefully at the rear of the J12 it has a coated optic surface and a black painted periphery.

Most of the Kiev mount J12 have a ring of ground glass between the black painted periphery and the coated optic, this needs painting as it can create hot spots in contra jour light.
Noel