Chetzemoka Ferry: Fed-2, Canon 50mm f/1.8 LTM, TMax 400

<p>The Ferry from Tacoma, WA to Vashon Island was empty one sunny fall day after the cider pressing. So I got to exercise my new (to me) Canon 50mm f/1.8 LTM on the front of a Fed-2. This is the first roll for that lens. Not as classic a subject matter as yesterday's cars, but hopefully a good exposition for the new lens.</p>

<p>x<br>

<img src="https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/12186854_10203816698172873_7444251455173268697_o.jpg" alt="" /><br>

x<br>

<img src="https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/12188046_10203816696612834_1988975371485497499_o.jpg" alt="" /><br>

x<br>

<img src="https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/t31.0-8/12184028_10203816697452855_8515521757163577073_o.jpg" alt="" /><br>

x<br>

<img src="https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/12191287_10203816697212849_7808677322957981934_o.jpg" alt="" /><br>

x<br>

<img src="https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/t31.0-8/12182574_10203816696412829_4304367074971451815_o.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Thanks in advance for any feedback you may have.</p>

<p>OBTW - I did have one shot that included the whole sun plus reflections off the water. I only elicited one minor ghost. Pretty good for a late-1950s lens! Much better than the 2.8 Schneider on the front of the Retina IIIc.</p>

<p>- B.C.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Love the shots, Brad. Is that lens the Serenar version? I have the Serenar and like it a lot, especially with a hood on it....much less expensive than the Leica equivalents of the era and IMHO better rendition. In any case, don't sell that lens...it is definitely a keeper.</p>

<p>Stephen: Not the Serenar, but the subsequent version, more like this one:</p>

<p>http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTA2MVgxNjAw/z/UmcAAOSwHnFVyAte/$_35.JPG</p>

<p>Or the later version post-Serenar, as described here:</p>

<p>http://web.archive.org/web/20040815165143/www.davidde.com/articles/canon50.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here are a couple of indoors people shots wide open (around 1.8) to show you what the lens does with very shallow DOF. <br>

<img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t31.0-8/12185291_10203816682172473_2155464626418505027_o.jpg" alt="" width="2048" height="1358" /><br>

x</p>

<p><img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/t31.0-8/12194821_10203816666212074_563649219324539130_o.jpg" alt="" width="2048" height="1638" /></p>

<p>Aw heck, I'm going to post all sorts of stuff I got from this lens. Here are a few more. <br>

<img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/s960x960/11227966_10203816665412054_6148872359362160563_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>x</p>

<p><img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t31.0-8/12185212_10203816666052070_7023549187380269167_o.jpg" alt="" width="2048" height="1358" /></p>

<p>x</p>

<p><img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/s960x960/12194905_10203816665612059_2026088367073973118_o.jpg" alt="" width="768" height="960" /></p>

<p>x</p>

<p><img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/t31.0-8/12184179_10203816686212574_4956142142576760210_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Okay! I'm done! Sorry about the volume. I'm very excited.</p>

<p>You should be excited! They look great--<br>

thanks for posting...<br>

Paul</p>

On a fed 2? Wow I have to get one of those.

<p><strong>Brad</strong> - your enthusiasm is infectious ... I can feel the joy in your photos. It makes me realise I need to get some film in one of my many cameras. Thanks for posting</p>

<p>Yes, great to see some infectious enthusiasm! Fine images from a fine lens, and nice tones from the T-MAX 400. Your eye for the industrial/architectural composition shines through, <strong>Brad</strong>. Thanks for the post!</p>

<p>Donald - A few notes about the Fed-2 before you rush out and buy one.</p>

<p>Shutter<br>

The Fed-2's shutter needs to be functioning. Mine was traded across the Bering Sea to an Alaskan guy who held onto it for over 25 years in the bush. When I got it (for $25), the shutter clearly didn't work. I ran a roll through it, and the shutter always hung up on the first exposure, not closing correctly. Second and third shots worked, so I decided to try a home-brew CLA.</p>

<p>First, I went after the shutter with denatured alcohol. No improvement. Then I went after it with Lighter Fluid, which dissolved whatever nasty goo was holding up the shutter closing curtain. IIRC, I flushed it out a few times and used Q-Tips to mop up the goo. But then, the shutter was unlubricated, making all sorts of noise, and still not firing with correct timing. The shutter was closing, but not in time at all. </p>

<p>Finally, I opened the shutter on "Bulb", put one drop of very high quality gun oil on the bottom rails, and fired it a few dozen times. Then turned it upside down and put another drop on the top rails and fired away. Finally! A home-spun Clean and Lube! Happily, that amount of attention got the shutter to fire consistently, and luckily whatever springs do the timing, they were still set well enough that I'm getting good exposures. No "Adjust"!</p>

<p>Rangefinder<br>

The rangefinder is tricky. This one was completely out of adjustment. I had to go look up on the innerwebs how to set the infinity and minimum ranges. That was some trick. I worked it out, with some screw and flange things to adjust back and forth until both are in alignment with known objectives (1 meter / infinity). Happily, the rangefinder elements were nice and clear, so I didn't have to disassemble, clean and reassemble.</p>

<p>The rangefinder is not big, beautiful and bright. In fact, it's kind of small, indistinct and dim. So if I were looking for an LTM body and was willing to spend >$100, I'd keep looking. But for the pure joy of using an ancient Soviet artifact, I'm totally cool with it. </p>

<p>With larger apertures, if you nail the focus, you can get great results. But that involves more time focusing than animate subjects can stand. So they get annoyed while you set up. The shot of the young lady shows a bit of that annoyance in her expression. It took maybe 15 seconds to nail the focus so her eyeballs were perfectly in focus, and Grandpa could be pleasantly out of focus as the DOF required. Same for the boy with the truck. I could take 30 seconds to set up that shot, because he was paying no attention at all. Suffice it to say that the Fed-2 is not an obvious snap shooter, though I have gotten lucky on occasion.</p>

<p>Summary<br>

The Fed-2 is a cheap, usable, fun, and technically tricky light tight box for your LTM lenses. I got the Canon to upgrade from the original Soviet Industar 26, and the difference is slight, but noticeable. Mainly, I got another F-Stop which I have used, better coatings which definitely reduce flare, and an unscarred front element. I think that's a great investment in the Canon lens for $90 from a local guy on Craigslist. All together, $115 and some great fun on the work bench.</p>

<p>Good luck if you decide to go for the Fed-2. It's quite fun.</p>

 

<p>Great pictures on the ferry. I am nostalgic for the many years I spent in Seattle at UW. The Fed- 2 is one of the more durable cameras from the Soviets. I have several of those Fed-1 s and -2 s. Easy to repair too. Good work <strong>Brad; </strong>kepp them coming. Thanks. sp</p>

<p>Thank you for the tips. Actually I have about 15 fed and zorkis from zorki to zorki 6 and same with feds and have seen everything you speak of first hand. I just replaced the curtains on a zorki. I was very excited by the photos you posted and the results you got. I actually got excited in film cameras again when I was in Moscow with my wife in 2006. My digital self destructed and I picked up a Fed4 at an open market for $5. At that time Russians were talking to Americans and a few stopped me on the street to comment on the camera. From there it has been a journey finding out how much I did not know. It helps to have a spouse who is a native speaker and acquaintances who grew up with these cameras. I<br /> I am a little frustrated that even the most expensive lenses on Ebay have fungus, mold, scratched elements, haze or separated elements to some extent.<br /> I am really impressed with you photos and can see what a leica lens can do. <br /> Please do not misunderstand me and i appreciate the time you took to advise me. These cameras have a personality of their own and it is a love hate relationship.</p>

<p>I meant the Canon lens for the Leica mount.</p><div></div>

<p>Donald: Sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you were going to get your first Fed, so I'd give you some warnings. </p>

<p>A really interesting comparison was done among the Canon and Leica 50mm LTM lenses here:</p>

<p>http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110600</p>

<p>Scroll down and look at the comparisons by the poster "Raid". Very informative. Clearly (to me), the f/1.4 is the gem of the Canons. Among the Leica glass, my eyes like the Summicron 2.0, but I could understand someone else liking the look of that Summilux 1.4.</p>

<p>I'm brand new to LTM, so I'm just getting my feet wet.</p>

<p>No misunderstanding, I would have done the same. I stumbled on PN about 6 months ago and posted a question about some mediocre lens and the first answer came from a member who was the mavin on Russian cameras. That motivated me to join PN and made me realize how little I knew about them. Unfortunately he has decided to separate himself from PN.</p>

<p>Nice shots Brad. I really like all of the shots from the ferry. I've been tempted by Russian cameras in the past, but never pulled the trigger. I imagine one model or another will find it's way into my collection at some point in the future.</p>

 

<p>I love the way that you have captured some nice abstracts on the ferry, pin sharp too...great work. I guess that the main thing is that the lens is compatible with the RF on your Fed, sometimes the register is a bit off...not on yours though.<br>

That Canon lens is a top performer, I have the Serenar version and it is not as good as that....you have a nice one!<br>

As you say, the Feds can be a bit hit and miss, but they can be very good if you find a sound one, then of course it is down to the lens attached to it.</p>

<p>Fortunately the adjustments for focusing are real simple on these cameras. The initial focus adjustment can be off depending on what time of day they were made not what day they were made. I have to adjust the focus on a Signet 40 and it appears to be a lot more complicated </p>

<p>Really nice pictures. I always like ferry pictures, too. (I am in Seattle.)</p>

<p>I have a Zorki 5 which seems to work fine, but the rangefinder is nowhere close.</p>

<p>I thought that Canon lenses had a different rangefinder calibration from the Russian lenses. Did you notice that?</p>

<p>I haven't tried a Canon lens on the Zorki yet, but I might do that soon. </p>

<p>By the way, LTM lens and body caps are available on ebay from China for low prices. They may or may not work right, though.</p>

<p>Glen:</p>

<p>I tested the Canon 50mm 1.8 on the Fed-2 rangefinder after I bought it, and it luckily focused exactly right at 1 meter and infinity just like the Industar 26 it replaced. But that's through the rangefinder, which doesn't mean you'll get the same on the film plane from what I hear.</p>

<p>That is probably luck. I have heard many stories of people unable to get the focus down right. I was prepared to have to finagle the focus, and just got lucky.</p>

<p>And having nailed the eyeballs of my subjects at f/1.8, I'm now pretty confident that I have good, accidental, calibration on the film plane too. :-)</p>

<p>Brad, nice work here as well. I have that same 50/1.8 (Canon, not Serenar; black, not chrome). I find it excellent, underrated, compact, great value for money, and easy to find. For most applications, f/1.8 is fast enough. Canon's f/1.4 model gets somewhat silly in price; the f/1.2 very silly; and the f/0.95 ridiculous (and not LTM anyway, if one is seeking that), so I chuckle a bit at people lusting after those. I shoot the 50/1.8 on a Canon P, and have just begun to play with it on a Sony a7 via adapter. It's in the latter use that its main shortcoming becomes evident: the minimum focusing distance of something like 1 meter. Especially when I've just swapped out a 50mm SLR lens of some kind, it feels like one must step back quite far by comparison for the RF lens. Small price to pay...<br>

<em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Dave: Thanks! That's exactly the lens. </p>

<p>I would like to have it on the front of a Canon P, which I understand is a great body. Having used the P, do you have alternate recommendations or is that the go-to body for LTMs at <$200?</p>

<p>Finally, I will note that my Canon 1.8 lens was in perfect optical condition (no scratches, fungus, haze, separation, etc.) But it did have one big honking piece of "dust" inside. I learned how to disassemble it from a video on the 'net, blow out that hunk of dust, and now I have a perfectly clean copy. The body is a bit dinged up, but I'm all about optics, not aesthetics.</p>

<p>PPS - I just pixel peeped on that last photo of the train with the guy walking towards me. I can totally see the shine and outline of his wedding ring at 800%. This is with the NCPS Enhanced Scan.</p>

<p>Brad, the P is a really nice body. I wanted to get into an LTM camera, but wasn't relishing the small peep-hole rangefinder of a Leica Barnack (as I am bespectacled) or its fiddly, Arse-wise loading. The P solves both, except I still have slight trouble seeing the entire 35mm frame lines with eyeglasses on; this may or may not be relevant to you. You can Google/research to death the tradeoffs among the P and other models out there (Canon, Leica, and otherwise) as concerns rangefinder and viewfinder windows: flare vs. frame-line visibility vs. size vs. magnification ... all vs. cost, etc. etc. The P came out my winner at my price point. I believe I paid about USD 300 on eBay for the P with the 50/1.8, perhaps 6 or 7 years ago, in very nice user condition (not museum quality) and luckily working right out of the box with no CLA needed.<br /><br />All this is not to denigrate Canon's various V and VI models (which I have not tried) that are seemingly pretty similar to the P and maybe more interesting if you like a trigger winder. But the P appears to be more widely available.<br>

<em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>The Canon VI has built-in 50mm and 35mm viewfinders, which I believe the P doesn't have.<br>

Other than that, I don't know that there is much difference.</p>

<p>I really do like the 35mm lens. When I bought my first SLR, I bought it with the 35mm lens, the only one I had for it for some years.</p>