Siren Song of the Russians

[User_4525289]

Kelly, how Leningrad came on the radar screen? This is rare, notoriously unreliable, revolutionnary designed, must have in the collection camera. I have never seen working one.

[bill pitt]

Bill Pitt November 9th 08

 

Not much about the Zenit I see. This sparked the entry of many Brits to the world of SLR Photography. It weighed

about half a ton - or felt like it - and used 42mm screw thread lenses, which made quick changes impossible. But,

the Helios lenses, its built in exposure meter and just the fact that it was an SLR that people could afford made it

irresistable - before Pracktica et al cornered the market. I've owned a Zorki, I still have a Leica IIIc, a Bronica, four

Nikons and sundry others but the thrill of my first Zenit SLR is still remembered. Some years ago I gave it to the son

of a friend to start him on the same magic path. sadly the attraction palled I think he found out about girls!

[Julio Fernandez]

<i>I have a little concern about the shutter speeds for the Kiev 4, particularly the 1250 - it seems way too long to be 1250 just from watching the curtain flash by. Frankly I don't think it's any faster than the 500 setting,</i>

<br>

The curtain moves at the same speed - what varies is the width of the open slit. BTW if correctly adjusted it does give 1/1250.

<br>

Bill, the Zenit 3M SLR (with a Helios-44) was my first serious camera. Very tough, and very similar to the Zorki-6.

<br>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Kozma; here I have one a Lennigrad body now for 11 years without any issues. I got it from a Ebay seller Anya inteh Ukraine for about 65 bucks. Its got a big wind knob and big button to fire off the frames from the spring wound motor advance. I bought several from the Ukraine and Russia in the early Ebay days and resold them here in the USA with no issues. I have heard and read woes and horrible stories about the Lennigrad but never had problems with any of mine I have owned. I am doubting or argueing that problems do not exist; I just have had any issues. Mine is not a collectors camera but just a handy "brick" to thrown inot my hockey bag for shooting adult league "pickup" hockey while playing it myself. The spring wind is handy; the rig works with gloves even. <BR><BR>To me the Lennigrad is just another Russian LTM camera like a Zorki or Fed. The lens flange is recessed abit on the Lennigrad; a 50mm F1.2 Canon will not fit; its too big at the flange area; it fits the body of the Lennigrad. The Zorki, Fed and Lennigrad have no roller cams; so of course the fit a subset of LTM lenses; ones with circular cam rings; NOT a stub like a 13.5cm F3.5 LTM Nikkor. The Lennigrad further reduces the subset of LTM lenses; it has to be not only a circular cam ring type; but also one thats not too fat withing a few mm's close to the lens LTM flange. At one time Lennigrads, Zorki's,and Feds; plus Nikkor and Canon LTM were low in cost on Ebay. One could buy a zorki 4 with Jupiter-8 and case with shipping for the same price as two rolls of 36 exp print film with developing the 4x6" prints. Many of us bought bulk of our Russian camera gear at trivial flea market prices 10 to 12 years ago.<BR><BR>The Lennigrad came in a color box; with a manual printed in colro too; with a case with chrome trim pieces.

[User_4525289]

>here I have one a Lennigrad body now for 11 years without any issues<

 

You are lucky one. Even old experienced techs in Russia refuse to fix it. It has got Grand Prix in Brussels in 1958.

BTW the camera name is Leningrad, not Lenni-grad :)

[backswamp]

OK gang, now that I have these two old range finders, I'm going to ask for a bit of help.

 

The Kiev 4 works very well. The rangefinder, with the supplied J-8 lens, seems to be correct at both long

distances and as close as a few feet. Images are very sharp just looking at the negatives on a light box. I

haven't tried to enlarge anything yet. Only so many playtime hours in a week, you know.

 

One minor detail that I note with the Kiev is that the lens is ever so slightly loose. Not much, and the

negatives look good. But there is a small perceptible amount of play in the lens. When I take the lens out of the

bayonet it is clear that the play is in the mount inside the camera. The lens itself mounts solidly into the

bayonet when it's clicked into the spring. At close focus, when the mount is screwed out on the helix, the play

is almost gone, as if there is wear on the helix threads at the closed in infinity position. Is this "normal" or

is there anything I can adjust? Or should I leave it alone so long as the negatives look good? I do want to find

both a 35mm and an 80mm lens for

this body in the future, so my gut says don't do anything until I have the lens compliment, then make everything

work as a system.

 

The FED-2 (an old one with no self timer and the flash sync on the lower body) with an Industar-26 is good at

infinity, but at the close end focuses a little too close using the rangefinder. (Not to mention that the

viewfinder is pretty dim and hard to focus.) When I focus on an object which is 4 ft (about 1.2 meters) the lens

scale reads 1m when focused using the rangefinder. Stopped down to f/22 it's fine, but at f/2.8 the negative is

out of

focus on the target.

 

Unfortunately I didn't have anything in the frame that I could actually measure to see exactly where the focus

truly is, but regardless I need to check into this. This week I will set up a group of linear targets and see if

the lens scale markings are correct. My guess is that they are, since at very close range the lens scale markings

indicate too close when the rangefinder images are coincident.

 

I assume that the FED rangefinder is adjustable somehow, plus I certainly need to see if I can clean it up some

to make it brighter. I have read that they aren't particularly bright even when sparkling clean. Should I expect

to be able to clean it up enough to focus inside normal household night time lighting?

 

If someone can point me to nuts and bolts technical information about these I would appreciate it. I can find

tons of pictures, but not much about how to actually work on them.

 

Thanks,

Michael

[Brian1664876441]

> Is this "normal" or is there anything I can adjust? <p>

 

I would leave it alone unless it is so bad that enlargements are affected. Usually, it is the lens in the mount that can be slightly loose. That can be fixed by bending the bayonet prongs. But your lens sounds like it does not have a problem. Contax/Kiev/Nikon RF mounds do not use lubricants, and slight looseness is the norm.<p>

 

For a short telephoto- go for the J-9 85/2. I just dropped off a test roll using one on my Contax. We'll find out!<p>

 

On the Fed-2: check the actual focus before doing much. I've found that the distance scale and the actual focus on the I-28 and I-61 can disagree as often as the actual focus being out. So get a good test shot where you know the point of focus, focus with the RF, then examine the prints. You could also put a film strip over the film gate and test the actual focus of the lens vs the rangefinder. You'll need a loupe for this test. <p><div></div>

[Brian1664876441]

If the I-26 needs to be shimmed, it's not too hard. There is a retaining ring in back of the lens, optics module pops out. I cut up some thin material to place under the optics module as you screw it back in with the retaining ring. Maybe a better way to do it, but this method worked for me.

[User_4525289]

Michael,

Here is the link how to fix FSU cameras. Too bad it is in Russian. But may help a bit if you find someone who can translate it.

http://rangefinder.ru/articles/13/4/Remont_fotoapparatov_Zorkij

[backswamp]

Well, I haven't had a chance to do anything yet with the FED-2 and the I-26. What I know is that the focus at infinity is good, and focus by the rangefinder at several feet is off by some as yet undetermined amount. It can't be all that far out of whack, since the scenes with the lens stopped down weren't bad, only the scenes with the aperture mostly open were out of focus noticeably.

 

As I said, later this week I will set up a group of measured targets, and both focus with the rangefinder and using the scale engraved on the lens. I do know that when I focus the rangefinder on a target at 3 meters, the lens scale reads slightly more than 2 meters. And since the range finder looks like peering through a can of 30 weight oil, I think it needs to come apart for cleaning anyway.

 

I do like the FED, however. It's small, quiet, and seems solid as a tank. Honestly I've always admired the Leica too, but thought they were unreasonably and outrageously overpriced. It seems to me that this is a way for me to have a "Leica" within a reasonable budget. After all, I care about the pictures, not the equipment.

 

The one I have now is the 2b variant, without a self timer. Do the Soviet block LTM style lenses fit all the variations, including the other Soviet LTM "brands" like Zorki? Or do you have to have specific lenses for specific manufacturing lines?

 

MB

[User_4525289]

> Do the Soviet block LTM style lenses fit all the variations, including the other Soviet LTM "brands" like Zorki? Or do you have to have specific lenses for specific manufacturing lines?<

Yes the lenses would fit all M39 thread rangefinders prodused in the USSR: FEDs, Zorkies, Mirs. Exept FED10 and Zorki10 those have leaf shutter. You should probably avoid pre-war FEDs, but some info each of that camera had individually adjusted lenses. Actually standartization came only on the post war Zorkies.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Ralph Nader has a better chance in being elected president in any election year that a random J-9 85mm F2 in focusing OK on a LTM body. The samples I own and have bought and sold mostly had had a horrid miss-focus issue(s). It would be cheaper to buy a Leica M3 and a 85mm F2 Nikkor than the dozen or two J-9's to get one to focus OK.

[backswamp]

"Ralph Nader has a better chance in being elected president in any election year that a random J-9 85mm F2 in focusing OK on a LTM body. The samples I own and have bought and sold mostly had had a horrid miss-focus issue(s)."

 

So this means I'll have to spend some time working on them to make them right? Don't all good things require effort? At the prices I see Leica's sell for, that buys a lot of my effort.

[User_4525289]

Michael, if you want you can visit Moscow and do everything in a professional shop for less. People said that it is not very expensive and they do quality work there. Afterwords you can test the lenses on the Red Square or on the details of St.Basil Cathidral. LOL. And it still would be cheaper than the price of Leica M7 and Zeiss.

[User_4525289]

Michael,

Kelly is talking about J-9 85/2.0, not J-8 or J-3 50 mm lenses. J-9 is relly needed a custom adjustment to the specific camera. They are old and have soft aluminum body which are often worn up. For that reason people often opted for J-9 for Zenit/Praktika SLR it also fit all M42 cameras like Pentax or Yashica. There is even better FSU lenses for SLRs called Helios 40 85/1.5 they are heavy though but legendary facinating.

[Brian1664876441]

The J-9 is Kim Coxon's specialty. He adjusts both the main shim for the optical block to fit in the focus mount, and the secondary shim for the rear module. Once adjusted, it is a fine lens. Lower contrast than the Nikkor 8.5cm F2. I sold my LTM J-9 after buying the Nikkor, but recently picked one up for my Contax IIIa.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here the many J-9's I have owned ranked up there with Firestone 500's and Vegas.:) The 1970's J9 date codes I have worked on have a massive focus error; nothing subtle; the worst I have seen in say a thousand lenses. Its the lens one recomends to ones mother in law or worst enemy; or the devil. Its like they regreased batches of J9s and an were drunk and mixed up the parts. The ones I have worked on one can adjust the lens block to focus at infinity; but the pitch of the helix is really alot off for its focal length. One can adjust a zorki so that a bastard lens only works on a custom bastard body by adjust the pie cam. I did this for one of my Zorki 3C's and its a great lens. A 1959 J9 of mine focuses great on a Leica M3; its one before then J9's design got ruined.

[User_4525289]

Kelly,

I cannot beleive that all M39 J-9 are junk. I post that question on a Russion forum and see what people think aboit it. May be they sell only bad ones, or may be a quality issues.

[User_4525289]

Here is an update regarding J-9. A very credable specialist from Russia said to me that they are indeed all required the adjustment and custom shimming. The good thing it is not very difficult to do yourself.

[Brian1664876441]

This is with the LTM J-9 that I sold. It must have been adjusted for the Leica before I got it.<div></div>

[User_4525289]

>This is with the LTM J-9 that I sold. It must have been adjusted for the Leica before I got it.<

 

What is F stop there? Seems to me that the focus was on the elbow. My Nikkor 85/1.8 is better IMHO. Looks like J-9 does not worth the efforts.

[Brian1664876441]

Focus is on the plane with the hand and the swirling motion. F-stop is F4. This was a $50 lens.

 

Next shot is at F2, closest focus. Focus point is on the bee. This is a 1970's Black J-9.<div></div>

[Brian1664876441]

The Nikkor 85/1.8 is one of Nikon's best portrait lenses ever. They tend to command a premium, used ones still in

the $200 range. It is not avilable in LTM. I have the Nikkor 8.5cm F2 in Contax mount. Once I verify the new J-9

is good, shim it if necessary, I'll test the two. In LTM, my 8.5cm f2 Nikkor was sharper and higher contrast than

the LTM J-9. BUT: for portraits, the J-9 rendered a more pleasing shot. I thought it was worth $50+10 shipping.

[User_4525289]

50 bucks is good. I like the price but nowdays they seems to be more expensive around $135-150 + folks in Russia discurage me to purchass J-9 unless I have an access to a good repair facility, and I do not. I think that I will stick to I-61 for general purposes since it is the sharpest one. Too bad that Helios 103 is not available for M39 camera. According to the Russian info that lenses were done on a brend new Japanise line and were really high quality lenses. I like your shot with that lenses.

[Brian1664876441]

> Too bad that Helios 103 is not available for M39 camera.

 

That is SO true! Someday, I'm going to make one in LTM. Not sure how yet, but it is going to happen. Probably use a junked Canon LTM lens, or even a Summitar focus mount that I have.