laptoprob
back to basics
Talking about FEDs, I have a FED1 coming my way soon. It has the usual collapsible FED lens on it, a copy of the Elmar. I am planning a comparison of my '34 uncoated Elmar, the coated FED, a probably uncoated 35 Elmar which is in the pipeline as well and my 35/2,8 Serenar. And the Canon 1,2/50 and the Summicron 50. I will probably do the test on the CLE or the Bessa T.
All that is coming up.
Here is the question:
The different helocoids of russian lenses affect the focusing cam. But doe that also occur with 50mm lenses? The cam moves the same distance as the lens. With Elmar and FED copy alike.
So this effect becomes most noticable at longer focal lengths, like 85 or 90mm, right?
please help me out of my confusion.
thanks, Rob.
All that is coming up.
Here is the question:
The different helocoids of russian lenses affect the focusing cam. But doe that also occur with 50mm lenses? The cam moves the same distance as the lens. With Elmar and FED copy alike.
So this effect becomes most noticable at longer focal lengths, like 85 or 90mm, right?
please help me out of my confusion.
thanks, Rob.
je2a3
je
The only lens I have that won't focus properly with the Fed 1 is a Nikkor 35/2.5 which is built like a Summaron A36. There was a thread this late past week wherein someone confirmed as to why focusing hangs up approaching infinity. I couldn't find or remember the thread. Surprisingly the Elmar 90/4 that does not focus to infinity on an early Fed 2b [same wedge type cam sensor] works on the Fed 1. The Elmar 50/3.5 works too.
Hope this helps!
Joseph
Hope this helps!
Joseph
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Hi Rob,
With a 50, the tongue or ring at the back moves the same amount as the lens group. The Leica standard is based on an exact focal length of 51.6mm. With the slower lens such as the Industars, any small discrepancy from this will be covered by the depth of field. With the fater lenses, it becomes more critical which is why Brian has been having such fun with the J3's. Once you go away from this the tongue moves separately from the lens group normally by using a double helix. One moves the lens group the right distance for the focal length of the lens and the other moves the RF tab as though it were a 50. This is one of the all too common problems people have with the J9. They have been taken apart to be re-lubed but then assembled with one of the helix's in the wrong start point so the focus is all over the shop. Errors will also occur if the shims are wrong.
Kim
With a 50, the tongue or ring at the back moves the same amount as the lens group. The Leica standard is based on an exact focal length of 51.6mm. With the slower lens such as the Industars, any small discrepancy from this will be covered by the depth of field. With the fater lenses, it becomes more critical which is why Brian has been having such fun with the J3's. Once you go away from this the tongue moves separately from the lens group normally by using a double helix. One moves the lens group the right distance for the focal length of the lens and the other moves the RF tab as though it were a 50. This is one of the all too common problems people have with the J9. They have been taken apart to be re-lubed but then assembled with one of the helix's in the wrong start point so the focus is all over the shop. Errors will also occur if the shims are wrong.
Kim
laptoprob said:
laptoprob
back to basics
Thanks Kim, I know about the J9. I once relubed one of those and spent a few evenings trying to figure out how to do it. Just before I lost my wits I managed...
I just re-read Dante Stella's article with the quote about the Zeiss/Contax vs. Leica difference of 51,6 and 52,3mm as standard focal length. Using the Zeiss material the russians created a species of their own.
I was wondering how this works out among standard lenses. Using the 50/1,2 will probably be problematic.
How are experiences among our forum in using russian 50mms at large apertures?
I just re-read Dante Stella's article with the quote about the Zeiss/Contax vs. Leica difference of 51,6 and 52,3mm as standard focal length. Using the Zeiss material the russians created a species of their own.
I was wondering how this works out among standard lenses. Using the 50/1,2 will probably be problematic.
How are experiences among our forum in using russian 50mms at large apertures?
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Hi Again,
This may sound like heresy but I am not convinced that the Leica/Contax standard is the full answer. I am very much in the learning phase but my experience so far makes me think of a different reason. We have become used to German and Japanese lenses which are made to very fine tolerances. Helix's of solid brass etc. As a result we expect every to comply with the standard it was built to. Now when you start taking apart FSU lenses, it is a very different story. Most are quite rough machined alloy. They were also built for a very different culture. Quite often, the lenses were "matched" to the camera body and if need be adjusted by the local technician. Once it entered circulation, nothing much was thrown away and most things were traded around. If it broke, you fixed it yourself or got a friend to do it. Now when I service one of these I am very careful to keep all the parts together for each lens if I am doing a couple or I do them one at a time. I had two "indentical" I26's and thought I would make a really good one and tried to swap the rear camera mounting ring. I put the lens together and it wouldn't focus because one ring was bigger than the other! I have also read that different factories also had differences in quality control. That covers the quality control side.
Now I know Brian has had all sorts of difficulty with his J3's. I have been very lucky. The first one I had was so awful with not only scratches but big chips out of the front element. It went back without even trying it. Because of this, the next time I saw some listed, "brand new" black ones, I aquired 2. They really did appear brand new. The grease was sticky but otherwise they were spotless. I gave then a relube and reset the infinity. Both focus correctly all the way! Another RFF member now has one of them but with all the recent discussion I went out a couple of days ago with the Bessa and the Cannon and ran a series of parallel tests with various lenses set at infinity and als their closest range at various apertures. I am expecting the results back in a day or so just to confirm that the earlier test I did on the J3 was not a mistake.
And so to my theory. The Feds and Zorki's are supposed to be copies of the Leica. In theory they should be built to the same "standard" albeit of inferior quality. Indeed many people have said that the later production cameras were built to a lower standard. Late Zorki 3 being better than the 4's and early engraved 4's being better than the later ones as well. Leica used the Sonar design as did Canon with their 1.5's so there is no problem in making a 50/1.5 Sonnar design to Leica standard. Contax did the same but theirs was a slightly different focal length. Now I don't know whether there really is an "FSU" standard or not. However my Nokton which I have used as a test lens to check out FSU bodies works with them and the 2 J3's I have had work with the Bessa R and I will soon know if they work with the Canon. (If someone wants to donate a Leica, I will try that
) These were both new lenses. Older used ones such as Brians have caused problems. So I suspect that much of the problem is relatively poor quality control to start with which is then compounded by a rather uncertain history with a fair degree of kitchen top repairs rather than an FSU standard. If they were all out by the same amount, fair enough but there is just too much variation for that to be the case in my mind.
Enough rambling and soapbox.
Kim
This may sound like heresy but I am not convinced that the Leica/Contax standard is the full answer. I am very much in the learning phase but my experience so far makes me think of a different reason. We have become used to German and Japanese lenses which are made to very fine tolerances. Helix's of solid brass etc. As a result we expect every to comply with the standard it was built to. Now when you start taking apart FSU lenses, it is a very different story. Most are quite rough machined alloy. They were also built for a very different culture. Quite often, the lenses were "matched" to the camera body and if need be adjusted by the local technician. Once it entered circulation, nothing much was thrown away and most things were traded around. If it broke, you fixed it yourself or got a friend to do it. Now when I service one of these I am very careful to keep all the parts together for each lens if I am doing a couple or I do them one at a time. I had two "indentical" I26's and thought I would make a really good one and tried to swap the rear camera mounting ring. I put the lens together and it wouldn't focus because one ring was bigger than the other! I have also read that different factories also had differences in quality control. That covers the quality control side.
Now I know Brian has had all sorts of difficulty with his J3's. I have been very lucky. The first one I had was so awful with not only scratches but big chips out of the front element. It went back without even trying it. Because of this, the next time I saw some listed, "brand new" black ones, I aquired 2. They really did appear brand new. The grease was sticky but otherwise they were spotless. I gave then a relube and reset the infinity. Both focus correctly all the way! Another RFF member now has one of them but with all the recent discussion I went out a couple of days ago with the Bessa and the Cannon and ran a series of parallel tests with various lenses set at infinity and als their closest range at various apertures. I am expecting the results back in a day or so just to confirm that the earlier test I did on the J3 was not a mistake.
And so to my theory. The Feds and Zorki's are supposed to be copies of the Leica. In theory they should be built to the same "standard" albeit of inferior quality. Indeed many people have said that the later production cameras were built to a lower standard. Late Zorki 3 being better than the 4's and early engraved 4's being better than the later ones as well. Leica used the Sonar design as did Canon with their 1.5's so there is no problem in making a 50/1.5 Sonnar design to Leica standard. Contax did the same but theirs was a slightly different focal length. Now I don't know whether there really is an "FSU" standard or not. However my Nokton which I have used as a test lens to check out FSU bodies works with them and the 2 J3's I have had work with the Bessa R and I will soon know if they work with the Canon. (If someone wants to donate a Leica, I will try that
) These were both new lenses. Older used ones such as Brians have caused problems. So I suspect that much of the problem is relatively poor quality control to start with which is then compounded by a rather uncertain history with a fair degree of kitchen top repairs rather than an FSU standard. If they were all out by the same amount, fair enough but there is just too much variation for that to be the case in my mind.Enough rambling and soapbox.
Kim
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
No heresy. And you are correct: nothing is ever the full answer to photography. No need for a dissertationKim Coxon said:
Solinar
Analog Preferred
A nice thing about a FED, even though it is a fifth of the price of a beater Leica, it performs 2/3rds as well.
On the FED 2, I stick with the collapsible Industar and J-12 mainly. Both lenses have shallow profiles. I save the J-8's and a killer J-9 for the Zorki 3's.
On the FED 2, I stick with the collapsible Industar and J-12 mainly. Both lenses have shallow profiles. I save the J-8's and a killer J-9 for the Zorki 3's.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
With regards to your question, before purchasing a coated Elmar for my IIIf's, I used both a collapsibel Industar 50 and found it to be a stunning performer on the Leica. Bear in mind that the collapsible Industar is a rather robust design with brass construction.
The Jupiters on the other hand have aluminum barrels and cams. I'm a firm believer in addition to the "kitchen table relube" effect, that not all Jupiter cams were ground to the same exacting tolerances as their German and Japanese counter parts.
The Jupiters on the other hand have aluminum barrels and cams. I'm a firm believer in addition to the "kitchen table relube" effect, that not all Jupiter cams were ground to the same exacting tolerances as their German and Japanese counter parts.
DaveP
Well-known
Some times ya gotta turn that cam a little bit on the arm..........
Nickfed
Well-known
Kim Coxon said:
I bet you're right. The Leica/Contax "standard" can only be no more than about 3% of the problem and may indeed be not a problem at all, but merely a nice, but utterly spurious, reason for the unknowledgeable to jump to the wrong conclusion.
The gear being discussed is all quite old, could have had a checkerd career and may even have suffered mis-assembly, rather than bad manufacture, right at the factory. The rigid I-50 is only a cheap single thread device. When you pull it apart, there is nothing of beauty to write home to your mother about, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it either. Threads are threads. Once the tools are set up, you can make millions of them, and making one wrong is not easy to do. After that, all they can do is wear, and that becomes pretty obvious.
As Coxon so rightly points out, the variations encountered are beyond all reason and thus point to the kitchen table. One example quoted recently was J-9 that was 15 feet out when focussed to 12 feet, or the other way round, (who cares) and I believe required a "shim" 4mm thick (!!!) to fix it. This is surely absurd and the guy clearly didn't know what he was doing, but the trouble is that that sort of thing gets written into the culture.
I note also DaveP's succinct pearl of wisdom and have long felt that the RF follower is a likely culprit that is too often ignored. My own FED-1 was clearly not kosher and it is far easier to have a problem, or some abuse, here than a problem with a machined thread.
laptoprob
back to basics
So I got my FED1 yesterday. Sooo small! Just a little wider than the CLE and lower than the Bessa T.
I tried the Elmar copy lens on the CLE (currently without film) with a SLR focusing glass to compare the focus with the rangefinder. And to the old Elmar and the Canon 1,2. Not much difference at close focus.
So maybe these collapsible lenses are really made as a spitting image of their original?!
Test shots will follow.
Rob
I tried the Elmar copy lens on the CLE (currently without film) with a SLR focusing glass to compare the focus with the rangefinder. And to the old Elmar and the Canon 1,2. Not much difference at close focus.
So maybe these collapsible lenses are really made as a spitting image of their original?!
Test shots will follow.
Rob
Mike Kovacs
Contax Connaisseur
laptoprob said:
It is a copy of the Tessar, as is the Elmar.
I doubt you will notice an effect of the focusing difference on an f/3.5 50mm lens, where you will be covered by depth of field right up to minimum focus.wyk_penguin
Well-known
Therefore I think the Contax guy had some brains when the made the early contax RFs, whilst Leica was just cutting costs by using a cam.
Hope this doesn't start a fight.
Hope this doesn't start a fight.