From Russia with Love - toys not pics

My new toys, proudly displayed on my 1960 Kiev 4A. The Jupiter 12 is

35/2.8 from Nicolas in France. I've shot with a little, but I didn't

have a viewfinder. That is, until today! A little cardboard tube

from St Petersburg Russia appeared in my mailbox.

 

Funny that it leans to the left, rather than to centre it over the

lens and away from the rewind. Was it meant for another Russian

camera? It does work well though being so close to the rangefinder

patch in that position.

 

Now, other than the constant fear of nutering by the wife, I have no

excuse not to get the 85/2, 135/4 in Zeiss or Jupiter. The Russian

finders have the 28mm wide angle rather than the 25 or 21mm of postwar

Zeiss so I'll need another finder if I want to go wider than 28mm.

The toys.<div></div>

There are 2 kinds of universal turret viewfinder: right and left. I have both. I just got a 21mm SC with viewfinder today from Steven to take advantage of free shipping. It had an incredible DOF when I collimated it on my kiev 4 (60). Very nice build quality. My kiev collection is almost complete.

 

 

Richard

Mike, there's another variant of the finder that leans the other way. One was for the Leica copies, the other was for Kievs. I think yours is the Leica one (it leans toward the rewind knob so it wouldn't block access to the shutter speed knob).

Mike, I swear I didn't post the previous answer under the pseudonym of James Lai (James don't worry, Mike will understand).

 

The properly oriented Russian turret finders are becoming very rare and their prices almost reach the original prewar CZJ turret finders ones nowadays.

 

Yes the only problem when mounting a "Fed/Zorki" turret finder on a Kiev might be that it restricts the access to the rewind knob, otherwise the image is the same as it's in the axle of the accessory shoe as well.

 

Very nice outfit, I'm impatient to see pictures produced by the J-12 once CLA'd.<div></div>

Better like this<div></div>

Yes, CLA of the J-12 is on the list of things to do. As far as I can tell, the lens isn't hazy and the oil is just on the diaphragm blades.

 

I have a Schneider Symmar 150/5.6 to do tonight (large format toy), maybe the J-12 tomorrow!

Oil on the blades isn't as big a deal on rfs as it is on slrs

Exactly why I've been putting it off. (viewfinder aside)

I have a real nifty Jupiter 11 and just looking at that rear element scares the daylights out of me. I am experimenting with some means to protect it without intereferring with its field. It is protected well enough in its plactic case but disaster looms when the protective shield is removed for mounting on the camera. Has anyone any suggestions?

I've always kind of wondered what's wrong with having oil on the aperture blades. Could someone enlighten me?

Oil on the aperture blades is a result of dissociating of the petroleum of animal grease that was used on the old lenses aperture command cams. With years this grease sometimes dissociates into its basic components and then the aperture blades gather the oil that is one of the grease components.<p>

 

The next step of that bad process is an oily film on the internal lenses because the oil on the blades will progressively spread all over the lens barrel. Thus the lens gets what is called <i>haze</i>. A <i>hazy</i> lens is a lens with a tiny film of oil on the internal lenses.<p>The further step is fungus, because oil on the glasses helps the growth of fungus.<p>Of course it's a very long process ; if you're middle aged and have lenses that are on step 1 (oil on the blades) then that's your grand'son who might be left with a funged lens. But sometimes the bad process can be very quick. Five years ago I shot decent pictures with a folding 6x9 Kodak ; last month I looked at its lens and had the bad surprise to discover that it was so hazy that I couldn't see a clear image through it. So - it's not an exact science.

Of course, fungus is an organism so it requires the correct conditions for growth: food, an energy source such as oil. Water is often a limiting growth factor so humidity helps. Many are sensitive to light and will not fluorish in the presence of it.

 

Fungi that need oxygen (aerobic) most often thrive in lenses where there is air movement through them, e.g. zoom lenses. Tightly-sealed lenses do not generally have enough airflow to support growth of aerobic fungi.

 

There are also fungi which can switch metabolism or are indeed locked into a non-oxygen metabolism (anaerobic). These produce lactic acid as a by-product. Acid dissolves lens coating, hence this is the nastiest type. Lactic acid is the same stuff that makes your muscles ache when your activity rate is such that not enough oxygen can be delivered. Your muscles switch to anaerobic metabolism and accumulate lactic acid.

That's just why Lance Armstrong climbs the Mount Ventoux much faster than a 1955 Zeiss-Opton Sonnar which has fungus would do :)

Thanks for the push Nicolas - its now a CLEAN Jupiter 12. The Kiev survival site has good instructions.

 

The grease in this '79 model was different than what I've seen: more crumbly than the waxy stuff you see in the older lenses. It took quite a while to get the oil from the diaphragm blades: probably about an hour of dabbing, actuating, dabbing, actuating. The optics weren't bad but got a cleaning anyway. Haziest was the inside of the front element when I took the front group apart.

Yes <a href=http://www3.telus.net/public/kaylalyn/index.html>The Kiev Survival Site</a> recently updated his various lens service instructions by adding the J-12 CLA chapter, I had seen that before I shipped the lens.

 

Glad to know you did the job. Congratulations. And now, have fun shooting with it - and your turret finder :)<p>

 

<i>Heavystar</i> (the guy who sells vented hoods in 40.5mm) also sells a nice <a href=http://cgi.ebay.fr/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=78999&item=7516038091&rd=1>40.5mm metallic hood that is designed for wide angle lenses</a>. <p>Might be fine for the J-12 or my prewar Biogon. The price is attractive ($6.95) and might be easy to tell to somebody you know well without having fear of any retaliation :)

$6.95 is a no-brainer but I'm not certain that the J-12 even needs much of a hood with such a deeply set element. Plus, setting that darned aperture is hard enough! Filters must be a major pain.

 

BTW, this one had some sort of ink-blue material that was coming out of the retainer holding the front element in its group. Maybe some kind of threadlock? It was necessary to remove it because this blue stuff was leaving a residue behind no matter how much I cleaned.

Yes that's probably a Soviet equivelant of Loctite blue threadlock. I've seen some in my Kievs lensmount, frontplate, shutter casting and top casting screws already. Not very useful generally in photo gear unless the threads are worn.

 

Useful in my Campagnolo roadbike stuff though.

You wouldn't think ammonia or alcohol soluble would be the best choice. I guess its hard to question Soviet economics. The factory owner probably had 200,000 left shoes to trade for it...

There was no factory owner during the Soviet era. Factories belonged to the community of Soviet people. So, Arsenal Plant in Zavod belonged to the Ouzbekistan peasants and to the Novosibirsk medicine doctors as well :)

 

At least is it the official version of the official USSR history :)