Rangefinder Choice / Suggestions

[JDMvW]

<p>I've got a bunch of the Soviet lenses and have done some comparisons to various other makes.<br /> People often talk* about unevenness in quality of the Soviet cameras and lenses, but I have a bunch of them, and my experience is that most of them are just fine, and the best of them the equal of their sort made anywhere, given that the raw materials may be a little less, well, finished.</p>

<p>Here is a Helios 53mm f/1.8 lens on a real Contax IIa: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00bqWG . This lens is a descendant of the East German Zeiss Biotar, and some have suggested that it was directly inspired by the Leica Summitron.<br /> I have some other lenses that are as good, but very few that are better. I have essentially this same lens in a number of different mounts and all of them are superb.<br /> The Jupiters are often Sonnar copies rather than Biotar/Planar family, although the wide angles have their own history.<br /> They are also very, very good. See some of my other posts comparing the various Soviet lenses to some Canon RF lenses and others:<br /> <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00bmE4">Jupiter 12 on Nikon S2</a><br /> <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00c0si">Canon VL2 with various Soviet lenses</a><br /> <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00c7Ga">Soviet 'Start' SLR with Jupiter-11</a><br /> <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00cFEQ">Zenit (zLTM) with Industar lens</a><br /> and some others as well.</p>

<p>Many of the LTM and Contax/Kiev mount lenses are based more on the Dresden (East German after the war) designs, since those were the sources of the machines and often workmen too that were taken back to the USSR as war reparations.<br /> In the Leica Thread Mount lenses, you need to be aware that there are two different lens-flange-to-film-plane registers, one for the Leica style RFs and the other for the Zenit mentioned above.</p>

<p>_______</p>

*So much of this 'talk' seems to be based on discussions by people who have seldom laid hands on an actual lens of a given type, but who have read about them on the 'internets'. Out of a large number of Soviet lenses I have, exactly one (1, count it) was a problem, and it was probably outgassed oil from the reworked (into a Leica lens) Industar.<div></div>

[dhbebb]

<p>I agree with much of the above – it was indeed ergonomics which decided the Leica versus Contax battle in favor of the Leica in the 1950s. The Leica M3 and subsequent models were so much easier to handle. Re Leica IIIf – nice camera, I have one, but they’re going for $400 and up these days. Lens condition – sadly Leica (Leitz) used softish glass and a badly formulated grease for their lenses in the 50s – it’s getting harder by the minute to find unscratched examples without haze inside.<br>

At least the Russian and Zeiss lenses of this period rarely suffer from this. I have numerous examples of the Jupiter 8 in 50 and 53 mm versions – my favorite Russian is the Jupiter 3 f1.5 – have 2 of these in LTM and Contax versions – the LTM version had a prophylactic clean and collimation check – seems fine. This lens has gone up in price but is still much cheaper than its Leitz equivalent (Summarit).</p>

[ken_tuvman]

<p>So much great info to digest - I guess this is gonna take some time to process and sort out - luckly for me, patience is a quality I now have but took a long time to acquire!<br>

I do wear glasses and use my right eye - hmm . . . lots to think about!</p>

 

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I do wear glasses and use my right eye</em><br>

Slight point in favor of the Leica IIIf - a focusing eyepiece!</p>

[carbon_dragon]

The IIIf had two eyepieces, one for focusing that was magnified (making focus more precise) and the other for framing.

That is effective but awkward. IIIfs at this point often have dim rangefinder patches that are hard to see.

 

 

You can get good soviet screwmount lenses but it's still something of a crapshoot. You might get a great one and you

might get one that is lose or has oil on the blades etc. Buying from reliable Russian/Ukrainian dealers helps.

[mark f]

<p>Well, I've had a variety of 70's rangefinders, a decent Fed2 and an M2. The 70's rangefinders are a bit delicate, but the rangefinders and lenses are generally pretty nice. The Fed 2 is pretty rough and very tough. The rangefinder isn't very bright. I also went through 3 Russian rangefinders to get a decent one. The Industar 50mm 2.8 is reasonably sharp with lots of character. The M2 is infinitely better than all of them. If you have an appreciation for mechanical things (the motorcycles and Hassy says you do), an M2 is the ticket. Get one from KEH in Bargain condition for $500-600 and get a 50mm screw mount that you can afford....a rigid Summicron or a screw mount Canon would be nice. Yes, they cost more than your limit, but I'd say that it is the least risky approach. I went through a pile of cheaper options before the Leica....I didn't exactly save money with the cheaper options. You can easily sell the camera for what you bought it for if it doesn't work out. Based on my experience, the Leica is a bargain.</p>

[ray .]

I had a Minolta 7s as well as the Canonet. I'm not sure I'd call either delicate so much as a bit clunky.

I see Minolta 7s's are going for as low as $20 on ebay. Not much risk there, and surely a camera you can throw in a backpack with zero worry about it being too precious. I never used either camera beyond one roll though, but that has a lot to do with already having used a Leica for years.

 

I agree with what Mark is saying about investing in a Leica, if you were to choose to expand your budget.

[ken_tuvman]

<p>Good Morning!<br>

All great info - so many rangefinder camera choices online - my heads spinning!<br>

First, the pics shared by JDM with the Kiev are amazingly brilliant, well composed and sharp! <br>

And yes, Mark hits the nail on the head - I'm a engineer, not by trade but think like one - always have been a tinkerer and like to know how things work. I've had good experience at KEH and they do have a return policy and a good reputation. At this point, will keep looking towards a Leica IIIF, M2 or Canon P. Don't need a built in light meter, as I have a very nice Sekonic hand held.<br>

I enjoy shooting B&W with the Hassy. Picture below was exhibited at the MN State Fair last summer - I think what did it was the square format, amazingly sharp detail of the Zeiss lens, and going with B&W vs color - it's also well composed - sometimes I get lucky - and the more I practice the luckier I get!</p>

<div></div>

[ken_tuvman]

<p>Good Evening!<br>

As my learning curve on RF cameras is evolving I believe I'm narrowing things down here and would appreciate your input.<br>

Looking online at all the various makes and models, particularly the Canons and Leicas, I kept wondering "why are the sellers not selling camera & lens, mostly camera bodies." I guess there's more profit selling the parts a-la-carte or that the majority of photo enthusiasts / professionals like to choose their own lenses. <br>

Am right now pretty certain I'm going to pull the trigger on a good condition Canon P and then search for a Seranar 50mm lens. From what I'm seeing the eBay sellers in Japan are offering pretty decent camera bodies. <br>

It's been a process and I've looked at all the camera models you've suggested. I keep coming back to the Canons and the reviews really rave about the P models.</p>

 

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I kept wondering "why are the sellers not selling camera & lens, mostly camera bodies ,,, "</em><br>

You are right in saying that on e-bay and elsewhere you can charge higher prices by selling bodies and lenses separately. Above and beyond this, as I mentioned earlier, many Leitz lenses from the first years of coated production after World War II have fallen by the wayside due to scratching, haze and mold.<br>

I have several examples of pre-war 5cm Elmars that are fine, I got rid of my 50s Summicrons because they were needing constant maintenance. My collection of 1950s 50mm lenses is now a Jupiter 3, a Canon Serenar and f1.5 and f2 Zeiss Sonnars, plus modern f3.5 and f2 Heliars. The Jupiter 3 has had a clean and re-calibration, the others have never been touched but are fine.<br>

The only vintage Leitz lens I use is an f3.5 35mm Summaron, and the last item in my out-and-about Leica outfit is an 85mm Canon Serenar, Bodies survive much better - I have a Leica IIIf, IIIg, M2 and M4 - all needed a CLA and will now probably go on indefinitely with light use.</p>

[ken_tuvman]

<p>Thanks, David for your comment above about the older lenses falling by the wayside - your comment validates that in general, a lens made in the 1950 -60's is susceptible to mold or haze.<br /> In looking at lens prices online, specifically the Jupiter 3, it seems it would be a lot less $$$ to purchase a Kiev but they have the Jupiter 8 lens - what are the differences in Jupiter lens models - I'm sure price has to do with quality and sharpness. The other lens option, described above by JDM is the Helios 1.8<br /> Thinking I can find a nice Canon P body and mate it with one of the lenses above, based on what i've read the amazing photos posted by JDM.<br /> One more question - probably like asking which brand of oil is the best to use on the BMW forum but here goes - I'm interested in the Canon P or Leica IIIc body - the Canon looks a lot faster to operate - film loading, advancing, focus, shoot - using the Leica looks like a process - lots of preparation / deliberation before taking a shot.<br>

About how much $$$ to CLA either of the camera bodies?<br>

<br /> Thoughts?</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>what are the differences in Jupiter lens models</em><br>

The main contenders in 50mm are the Jupiter 8 (f2) and the Jupiter 3 (f1.5). Both can be excellent - obviously there are both bad and good examples out there, but the coatings seem durable and the risk of haze/mold seems to be low. Also bearing the name Jupiter are the Jupiter 12 (35mm), Jupiter 9 (85mm) and Jupiter 11 (135mm). Canon versus Leica - yes, I'd say the Canon was user-friendlier, the Leica more durable.<br>

The whole basis of CLAs is (usually) that Leicas were made of high-quality materials and often lightly and gently used by amateurs. The really good ones on e-bay are likely to be from estates and may well have lain unused in drawers for years. Any "malfunctions" are likely to be due to dried-up grease, which is easy for a good repairperson to fix. Occasionally heavy use or clumsy operation may lead to damage to shutter curtains, which may need replacement, occasionally too rangefinder prisms (which are front-silvered) may become tarnished and, if too bad to clean, may also need replacement. It's VERY unusual for a Leica to have worn-out or busted gearwheels, etc.<br>

Cost? YMMV, but the guy I use (Ian at Newton Ellis & Co. Liverpool UK) charges about £100 for a CLA, shutter curtains and rangefinder prism replacement each about £100 more.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>PS: The bargain basement choice in LTM lenses is the Industar 61 (newer ones are LD = low dispersion glass):<br>

<a href="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-INDUSTAR-61-L-D-2-8-55-Russian-Lens-M39-Zorki-Micro-4-3-Sony-NEX-Lumix-/181361104460?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a39f6d64c">http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-INDUSTAR-61-L-D-2-8-55-Russian-Lens-M39-Zorki-Micro-4-3-Sony-NEX-Lumix-/181361104460?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a39f6d64c</a><br>

There are (or were) an incredible number of these in the Ukraine - I bought 3 a couple of year ago for £10 each new and in perfect condition - they've gone up apparently to a shattering $40, which is still affordable :-) !</p>

[Brian1664876441]

The Canon P has a parallax corrected 1x viewfinder, the Kiev, Contax, Leica screwmount cameras and some

others- "Squinty" viewfinders compared with the Canon.

 

I have seen a lot of variation in the Russian camera equipment,

 

http://www.leicaplace.com/showthread.php?t=199&highlight=valdai

 

But- if you can rebuild motorcycles you would probably like a Kiev and reading through "the survival

guide". The weak link in the Kiev: light leaks, and the shutter straps. The same is true of the 1930s

Contax cameras. The Nikon cameras- use a Contax style mount but with the shutter mechanism of a

Leica and RF mechanism closer to the Canon P, the Nikon uses an RF follower that rides the back of

the built in helical.Easier to work on if you remove the helical for cleaning.

 

Lots of choices, some will be driven by the amount of time you are willing to put into the camera.

 

The later Black Canon RF lenses used a new "Low-Dispersion, High refractive index" glass which reacted badly with the lubricants of the lens. Oil on the blades, spilling over to the glass can usually be cleaned off the older glass- but could damage the later lenses.

[ken_tuvman]

<p>I emailed Youxin Ye and he hit the nail on the head for me - he's suggesting Leica body as parts are readily available - not so with Canon - reminds me of the BMW restorations - parts are always available and for my Honda projects, parts always a challenge. He suggested the Leica IIIf RD - will focus on that.</p>

<p>Great lens suggestions - thanks again!</p>

[Brian1664876441]

I've had 7 or so Canon 7 bodies, including one that bad been dropped so hard that the prism for the

framelines sheered off at the base. As in the solid glass sheered, rather than coming out of the fixture. It was provided as the rear lens cap for a lens, so was "free". Took

it part, got the glass shards out of the mechanisms then glued the prism back together. It worked. The

Canon 7 has projected framelines, goes for $100~$200 these days. Same for the Canon P, which I've had

at least 4 of. Still have two of each. It is true that there are more parts out there for Leica, but the Canons

just don't seem to wear out.

[dhbebb]

<p>Just for interest - this is a camera I have just bought for $99. As I have several Kievs, I was prepared to pay just a little more for this one labeled as a Contax (the seller described it as a Kiev-based Contax fake). I am not really sure what it is - I think it's almost certain it was assembled in Kiev, possibly some or all of the parts were genuine Zeiss seized by the Russians. In any case it is fully working - one of the base locks needed a fraction of attention, rather than take the time to fix it I swapped the base from another Kiev. The lens (labeled Zeiss Sonnar) has a tiny scratch on the front but is totally free of dust and mold, the rangefinder is clear and the shutter and self-timer work, a take-up spool was included. It came with a case onto the nose of which someone has clearly (but neatly) stuck a Zeiss roundel. I may never take a picture with this particular camera but I am sure it would work fine - the same camera labeled as a Kiev would have cost probably $60.</p><div></div>

[canwewin]

<p>I'm surprised no one mentioned the Minolta CLE.<br>

It's not too expensive, it's compact and has great lenses. You can use almost all the M-mount lenses, and I have used some LTM lenses as well without problems.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm going to pull the trigger on a good condition Canon P and then search for a Seranar 50mm lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not a bad strategy, and for a "Leica" copy, the later Canons are easier to use and load with film.<br /> Be aware, however, that the earlier Canon Serenar lenses often have a problem with 'cloudiness' - probably from some lubricant outgassing inside the lens. Vendors will usually note this. Like my "Leica-glow" reworked Industar*, this is not permanent, but the lens would need cleaning.</p>

<p>The later Canon brand lenses are less likely to have the problem. I got my Canon and its various lenses directly from Japan on eBay and the condition of all the various items was superb.</p>

<p>The Kiev above is reworked into a Contax, I have a lovely one in all black (a color Contax neglected to make). One of the giveaways is the extra large Zeiss icon on the front. Mine is exceptionally smooth, nearly as good as my real Contax IIa.</p>

<p>____<br /> * Industars and Jupiters are often reworked into Elmars and Sonnars..</p><div></div>

[ken_tuvman]

<p>Gosh guys - this is tough! Way too many choices. <br>

Mr. Ye can offer me a fair price on a Leica camera body but wants more than I want to pay for a Sumitar 50/2 lens. Wondering if I could buy the body from Mr. Ye (IIIF RD) and pick up one of the Russian lenses as discussed in above posts? <br>

I know the upside of buying equipment from him is it includes CLA, which is money well spent. Wondering what caveats I'll have on a used lens - decisions, decisions.</p>

[Brian1664876441]

Youxin's CLA'd cameras are smooth as butter, I have bought directly from him and sent him many Leica

cameras and a Leotax D-IV for CLA. You can buy the body from him, and a lens later. Leica lenses are

way up in price, the Summitar is no exception.

 

The Russian lenses are easy to work on, are a good value. Try to get one from someone that has used it,

but they are easy to work on and adjust if necessary. Just to add- there are a lot of fakes on Ebay. It's gotten to the point where some sellers are adding new namerings to make the lens appear older, made by KMZ using German glass- to run up the price. A lot of them are being made into "Sonnars" and "ZK" lenses- to run up prices.

 

http://www.leicaplace.com/showthread.php?t=156

 

Personal experience, the best years for KMZ were from 1951 through to 1956, ZOMZ from 1958 through to ~1968. If it is a Black J-3: best to avoid it. Looks nice, the quality on the machining varies a lot. The worst, completely unusable.

[carbon_dragon]

People are different. The choice that is right for me isn't right for you unless you decide it is. But starting with something

cheap and then investing in lenses just to decide you don't like it and then facing a second or third or fourth purchase that

might eventually land you at a Leica M (exactly the way I bought my current tripod) isn't as one person said the cheapest

option. It seems like it, but it isn't.

 

 

I thought my Canon 7 was a great camera with a good viewfinder, easier to load film, a good working meter, etc. But the

experience of using one compared with a Leica M had the 7 coming out the loser even though it had some better options.

If you can, try to at least hold an old M2 or M3 before you buy. If you can still rent leica film cameras maybe renting an M7

would give you some idea of what the top of the line feels like so you could evaluate whether it is worth stretching.

 

 

I rarely regret my few really expensive purchases, but I often regret my cheap ones. Right now I'm trying to buy a used

M9 so that will set me back over $4000. That is going to hurt.

[dhbebb]

<p>... the cheapest option ...<br>

David, the OP specifically said he was looking to spend up to $400 - possibly because he just doesn't have any more at the moment. I think I've made it clear that I do own Leica and that these cameras are in many ways the best choice, but to tell someone to try to get a Leica and lens for $400 is poor advice. Any money saved buying a Leica body below $400 will be spent immediately on servicing, someone might just get a good deal on a coated f3.5 Elmar, but the preferred choice (Summicron) is getting harder to find because design faults are reducing the available numbers and I very much doubt if anything worthwhile can be found for less than $400 to 500.<br>

I like the feel and operation of my Leica M2 and M4 as much as anyone, fortunately I bought a stock of lenses, including two new Heliars, to keep me going for the foreseeable future (these now seem to be sold out), but I have to say that I could not recommend anyone to buy a NEW Leica lens. Anyone who really wants one is going to buy and not take any notice of me, but by any rational standards these lenses are farcically overpriced (compared. say, with Canon L lenses). Of course a new $2,500 Summicron is better than an Industar 61LD for $40 or a Jupiter 3 for $200, but not by as much as some people might think, and in any case telling the OP this is not going to help him right now!</p>

[Brian1664876441]

<img src="http://www.leicaplace.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=960&d=1376264704">

 

<p>

 

A good Jupiter-8 is as good as a Canon 50/1.8 or Nikkor 5cm F2, renders differently from a collapsible

Summicron- but just as good.

 

1968 Jupiter-8, shimmed for the Leica, wide-open on the Leica M Monochrom,

 

<p>

 

The Jupiter-12 3.5cm F2.8: the late black ones did away with the collar around the rear element, and the early KMZ chrome ones have a small diameter collar, both fit the Leica M8 and M9. You must be careful with the Canon 7 and Canon P as the light baffles in those cameras are unusually big.

 

<p>

Late J-12, wide-open on the M8.

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://www.leicaplace.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1798&d=1393374123">

 

<p>

 

These lenses were under $100 for the pair.

[ken_tuvman]

<p>Decision Made: <br /> Leica IIIF RD and Summitar 50/2 - purchasing from Youxin Ye.<br /> Ideally Canon P would be my first choice but I may be surprised with all the finite details on the Leica.<br /> Youxin has made a fair proposal and the camera and lens will be CLA'd plus he's including a lens cap, strap & 1/2 case. The equipment will come with paperwork stating the CLA date and a 1 year warranty. I feel good with this decision and after speaking with him, corresponding via email, and reviews from folks like you!<br /> My problem with eBay is I can get a "good deal" on equipment and then need to turn around and send in for cleaning/repair. I got lucky with my Hasselblad 501c camera kit purchased locally on Craigslist from a University student who used it a few times and lost interest - but I purchased a nice Zeiss modern wide angle lens, a 50mm FLE T and after 6 months the shutter leaf blade stopped working - I sent it in for service and it added another $200 to cost of lens - still happy but with my first rangefinder camera, this purchase works because I'll the equipment and not have to send it anywhere initially for repair. Plus he's very knowledgable and will answer a phone call or email if I'm having any problems getting started. <br /> Plus, it will look nice with my BMW Airhead! Thanks, guys! Learned a lot in this thread!</p><div></div>