User_502260

<p>Rick,<br> There is beauty to be found in all four seasons and you have found some.</p>

<p>I had a short stay at the show yesterday. I got a 35-135 f/3.5-4.5 Tamron Adaptall II (2nd version) in nice condition and without an adapter, a fresh Pro-Pack of 120 Portra 400, John Hedgcoe's The Art Of Color Photography (1998), three 1 Quart cans of D-76 ad one Gallon can of Polydol. One seller gave me two small APS cameras. If I had more time I might have bought more books. The show is moving back to the fire house in Wayne, NJ and the next one is in only two weeks, June 14th. </p>

<p>In 1968 the original Spotmatic of 1964 would still have been in production. The SRT-101 was the same as it was in 1966 with the possible exception of some internal parts. The SRT 101 gave you a bayonet mount, full aperture metering, CLC metering and a larger selection of OEM lenses. The SRT 101 would have been a little heavier. Its slower standard lens was the 55/1.7 while the Pentax's slower lens (slower than f/1.4) was the 55/1.8. Both lenses are very good. Pentax's faster lens was a 50/1.4 and Minolta's faster lens was a 58/1.4. In 1968 Minolta introduced the 58/1.2. Pentax's fastest standard lens for the Spotmatic was the 50/1.4. Very few 18 year olds in 1968 could afford an f/1.2 standard lens. Another friend in High School, who would have been 15 nearly got his Konica with the 57/1.7 Hexanon but went for the less expensive 57/1.4 Hexanon. Both original lens systems were very good but not every person that age could afford an OEM lens other than the standard lens. That's where Vivitar, Soligor, Tamron etc. came in. I have many SRT cameras in my collection and I enjoy using them. Today a chrome SRT 201 with a 45/2MD Rokkor-X arrived. It's a late non-CLC model. Tomorrow a black SRT 201 with a 50/2 MD lens is scheduled to arrive. I don't know how many SRTs or SRT 201s that makes but it's a few. It sounds funny to say this but when I started with a Konica in High School I think I spent more time with the other Konica users so we could swap lenses. Maybe the difference from using another make turned out to be social and not photographic. </p>

<p>As I have said many times before the Spotmatics are not my favorite cameras. I still have a Spotmatic, a Spotmatic II and a Spotmatic F. All need some work. Every time I am about to send one out for an overhaul I wind up getting a K mount Pentax overhauled instead. I actually prefer the metering function of the Mamiya 500 and 1000 DTL cameras because there isn't the clicking sound of re-setting the meter for each shot. There is also the choice of spot or averaging metering with the Mamiyas. I have read that the Spotmatic was originally supposed to have a spot meter but would up with an averaging meter. Any of these metering systems can be used for good results if some care is taken and some compensation is made in difficult light. I think I will get the Spotmatic F worked on first. There is still a chrome Pentax MX and a chrome Pentax KM lying around so who knows what I'll finally do. I just sent out two Minoltas for work earlier this week. The Spotmatics have fairly dim viewfinders and for this reason I find myself using non-Pentax lenses on my screw mount cameras. The 28/3.5 Takumars are fine performers but the 28/2.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount is also a good performer. The 35/3.5 Takumars are excellent but the 35/1.9 Vivitar Fixed Mount is pretty good too. The 105/2.8 Takumars are small, light and sharp so I am not tempted to look for a faster alternative. If I need one I can use my 90/2.5 Tamron SP 52BB. The 135/3.5 Takumars are very sharp and not very heavy. The 135/2.5s are a handfull. The 200/4 Takumars are probably better than the later 200/4 SMC-Ms. I do not have a 50/4 Macro Takumar so I use a 55/2.8 Vivitar or 55/2.8 Soligor Macro. The Vivitar goes to 1:1 without any additional extension. I did have a late 35/2 Takumar briefly but I sent it back because infinity focus was off. Maybe I should have kept it and had it adjusted. I consider my 35/2 SMC-M to be very good. I guess I consider my Takumars suitable for use in good light on a Spotmatic body. I find all versions of the 55/1.8 and 55/2 Takumars to be excellent. Sometimes I use them on other cameras with adapters. The early K mount versions are also excellent. I am somewhat indifferent about the 50/1.4 Takumars. They are quite good but I have so many f/1.4 standard lenses for so many different cameras that it would take a long time to compare them all. A favorite is the 50/1.4 MC Rokkor-X (also marked just MC Rokkor in markets outside of the U.S.). To my eye it is better than the later MD models. I have three or four of these. My first memory of what a Spotmatic camera with a Takumar lens could do was seeing what a friend in High School turned out. He was a perfectionist and made the very most of his outfit. The camera was a Spotmatic II. The lenses were all S-M-C-T: 35/3.5, 50/1.4, 135/3.5 and I think 200/4. He used to call the results "ultrasharp." His 50/1.4 S-M-C-T gave my 57/1.4 Konica Hexanon a run for the money. Back then my other lenses were Vivitars. While I was still in High School these included the 20/3.8, 28/2.5, 35/1.9, 135/2.8 and 200/3.5. I would say they compared favorably with the S-M-C-Ts optically if not mechanically. The S-M-C-Ts were coated a little better and this showed itself in some lighting situations. The finder of my Konica Autoreflex T2 was not much brighter than the one in the Spotmatic II so even when my eyes were much younger, the faster lenses made focusing easier. </p>

<p>I have a silver Topcon RE Super with the ASA dial which goes to 1600. The RE Super name appears on the front on the side of the rewind knob. Later RE Supers and Super Ds show the name on the front but on the side of the shutter release. Does anyone know about when Topcon made this change? </p>

<p>Tony, nice photos as usual. I think you may have meant the 58/1.4. There was a 50/1.4 (GN) but the lens pictured is the 58. What about the 50/2? I have the 58/1.8 and the 55/1.7. I don't think there was a 50/2 in RE mount. My interchangeable finder model is the RE Super so the chrome around the shutter button and self timer isn't as pretty as on your Super D. My only other Topcor is a 58/1.4. I do have Vivitar and Soligor T4 adapters as well as two Tamron Adaptall adapters so I have a good selection of lenses which will fit my Topcons. </p>

<p>In the fall of 1971 I got a chrome Konica Autoreflex T2 with a 57/1.4 Hexanon - chrome & black with the EE lock pin- with the strap and case. If I could go back to 1971 I might do some things differently. The F-1 was nice but did not have automatic exposure without many attachments. The Konica served me well. The original one was traded late in 1975 for a T3 but I have many T2s in my collection now.</p>

<p>You are thinking of the Topcon Unirex (leaf shutter) and Topcon IC-1 (focal plan shutter) models which took the UV Topcor series of lenses which had a completely different mount from the RE Topcors. The reason the RE200 and RE300 cameras had RE in their names was that they continued the mount of the earlier RE Super cameras. The 58/1.8 RE Topcor fits the RE200 and the RE Super. The 58/1.4 RE Topcor fits the RE Super but not the RE200. The later 55/1.7 RE Topcor fits both cameras. </p>

<p>The mirror in the RE200 can't slide down because it is held in place by what look like metal brackets. I have used the RE200 and it seems to be working properly. I'm not sure Topcon even made the RE200 or RE300 models. They were sold under more than one name. </p>

<p>The 58/1.8 RE Topcor arrived. It fits both the RE Super and the RE200. It has some scratches on the front element. I will need to shoot some test film and see the results. </p>

<p>Yesterday I picked up a 58mm f/1.8 RE Topcor. It's the chrome (aluminum) model with the black rubber coated focusing ring. I put it on my Re Super and it fit perfectly. Then I tried to put it on my RE200. It would not fit. the RE200 was originally sold with a 55/1.7, a 50/1.8 or a 50/1.4. The last two were GN lenses. Mine came with the 55/1.7. It looks like part of the 58/1.4 protrudes too far into the mount and touches the bottom edge of the mirror. The manual for the RE200 does not mention this incompatibility. The 55/1.7 fits the RE Super with no problems. Later today I am expecting a Topcon D-1 with a 58/1.8 RE Topcor. It will be interesting to see whether that lens fits the RE200. </p>

<p>When you are in a fairly dark room and your lens is set to f/8 and you need to advance a few frames to get the leader out of the way, leaving the camera on A (with the flash removed) can cause the shutter to stay open for quite a while for each frame.</p>

<p>On Sunday I was shooting pictures with a Minolta X-700 at an indoor party. The roll of Fujicolor 1600 which was in the camera was finished and it was time to reload. To speed things up in the dark space I turned the shutter speed dial from A to 1/1000 so the leader frames would fire more quickly. A roll of Fujicolor 400 was now in the camera and I made sure the ASA was changed on the camera and showed on the flash. After I shot about ten frames I noticed that my shutter speed was still set at 1/1000. I thought those frames were just lost. When I picked up the film today all of the frames were good. What happened? I was using a Minolta 320X flash because I couldn't be bothered to find one of my 360PX units. By doing this I had regular auto using the sensor on the flash rather than the TTL flash available with the 360PX. I forgot that both flash units, as long as they are on and the flash has recycled, keep the shutter speed at 1/60. </p>

<p>The surgery is complete. The lens elements from the MD Rokkor-X have been transplanted into the barrel of the MC Celtic. The fit is perfect and I will shoot some film with the lens soon. There is also new rubber on the focusing ring. I may have the only 50/3.5 Minolta Celtic macro lens with Rokkor-X glass. </p>

<p>Try KEH.</p>

<p>I have a meter prism for my GS-1s but I usually use the plain prism finder. To see the LED readout in the finder your batteries need to be fresh and your eye must really be centered. If fresh batteries don't do the trick then a call to Frank Marshman might be in order. </p>

<p>If you are using 1.5 or 1.55 volt batteries then you can come close enough by adjusting the ASA or exposure compensation dial at the beginning of the day for that day's shooting. I used a Konica Autoreflex A1000 with the 1.4 volt hearing aid batteries and added one stop of exposure. I haven't looked at my A1000s recently but I don't think they have meter switches. What I have read is that when a camera with a meter switch, like a T3, is turned on it takes a while for the voltage to reach its maximum output with zinc-air batteries. The reading you get right when you turn the camera on might be different from the reading you get after a few minutes. I have had good luck using MR-9 adapters with cameras which take a PX-13/625 size battery. For some of the cameras an MS-76 is fine but for others the thinner 386 is better because the battery cover doesn't stick out and if the battery is on the bottom, the camera will sit flat. MR-9 adapters are about $30 - $35 each so I have started buying plain copper size adapters and using them in some cameras with the 675 hearing aid batteries. Earlier today I pulled out one of my Canon F-1 cameras and I discovered that I had removed its MR-9 adapter and put it onto something else. That something else was probably an Minolta SRT 201. Which SRT 201? Don't ask! </p>

<p>I recently got a 50/3.5 Minolta Celtic macro lens from an eBay seller. From the photos and description it just looked like the lens needed new focusing ring rubber. Sometimes that look alone will really bring down the price of a lens. When it arrived I didn't examine it too carefully but left it with my repairman. It turned out that the lens elements had fungus in and/or on them and it looked like it would be difficult to clean it up. I already had a number of these and other 50/3.5 Minolta manual focus macro lenses so I didn't think about it too much. Then I remembered that that another eBay seller kept showing a 50/3.5 MD Rokkor-X which looked like it had been dropped. I got it for $17 and packed up both lenses to send to my repairman. I am hoping he will be able to replace the bad elements in the Celtic lens with the good ones in the MD Rokkor-X. As far as I know the formula for this lens did not change between the time it was first offered in Leica 39mm and Minolta SR mounts as a pre-set model. The coatings certainly changed over time. The Celtic uses the metal barrel construction of the Rokkor which was made at the same time. The MD Rokkor-X has the same plastic inner barrel construction as the late MC Rokkor-X and later plain MD models so it may take some doing for this to all work out. If it doesn't then I will look for an MC Rokkor-X or MD Rokkor-X or MD in good mechanical condition but with bad glass. It is rare to find a lens like this with front element problems like scratches because it is recessed so much but the rear element is another story. </p>

<p>My 35/2.8 PC is the second to last version. Others have commented that the PC is better in the corners than other 35s because it has a larger image circle to cover its movements. When the movements are not in use, the corner of the frame is not as close to the edge of the image circle as on a non-PC lens.</p>

<p>Now I will have to find mine It will be no easy task. You must mean a very old 85/1.8 because according to the photosynthesis website the first 85/1.4 was an AIS and dated to March of 1981. I have never seen a 35/2.8 Nikkor with the SC marking. The 'K' lens which replaced it has six elements rather than seven. It was carried over to the first version of the 35/2.8 AI. This six element design was better than either the old S or the five element design which followed as the second AI and the AIS. I have one 'K' version and one AI version. The late AI with five elements isn't bad. It's just not as good as the six element design.</p>

<p>If you compare the look of a lens which is known to have multicoating with one which does not have multicoating you can see the difference. Typically the multicoated lens will show reflections from the front and near front elements and these reflections will show more than one color. I have an old 13.5CM f/3.5 which has older coating with a blue cast. It is coated but not multicoated. The comment that the 105/2.5 with the serial Number of 277155 is "not coated" is not correct. It simply has an older coating, which we would not call multicoating. The next batch of 105/2.5s is shown in the details section to be black. My black P lens, which I do not have in front of me right now, was probably made at the tail end of that production run and may have overlapped the production of the PC model for a short time. The photosynthesis website, like the Canon Camera Museum website, is a good resource but not all of the information in it is guaranteed to be correct in every detail. According to what I have seen on the photosynthesis website, production of the early 50/1.8 AI and the late 50/2 AI also overlapped. </p>

<p>One of my 105/2.5s is all black and has the P marking. It was the one right before the PC and the slightly later 'K'. The all black P lens I have has a coating with the same colors as the 'K' so some P lenses, very late a black ones, were also multicoated even if they were not yet marked PC. As a manufacturer switches from one model of a lens to another there is bound to be some overlap as some parts are used up more quickly than others. Some Minolta MC Rokkor-X lenses still had the depth of field preview tab left over from the MC lenses. I also have a Canon 24/2.8 FD SSC with the chrome front ring.</p>

<p>I don't have any of the standard f/1.2 manual focus Nikkors or the 45 P lens. If I ever get an f/1.2 Nikkor it will probably be the 58 Noct. I do have just about every manual focus version of the 50/1.4. In the 45 focal length I have two GN Nikkors. One is the C and has seven blades. My earlier pre-C lens has nine blades. The GN lenses are quite good but I rarely use the GN feature on either one. The 50/1.8 which was just mentioned, with the 4XXXXXX serial number, is one which a neighbor recently gave me. It needed an overhaul and now looks perfect inside and out. I have a number of other 50/1.8s and I think the original one is my favorite. In good light and for subjects which are not too close, the 45s are very nice. They are just slightly wide. On a mechanical Nikkormat or an F2 the smaller size and weight of the 45 doesn't seem to matter. The whole package is heavy anyway. I have enough 55mm Micro Nikkors that I would rarely if ever use a 50/1.8 with extension. Years ago Modern Photography compared various macro set-ups and a 50/2 Nikkor with a single element Nikon close-up lens was sharper than some macro lenses. The two most common reasons for using an f/1.2 lens have been the ability to use slow fine grained film and selective focus. Films have been improved enough that most of what an f/1.2 lens was used for can be done with an f/1.4 lens now with results which are at least as good. Specialty lenses like the 58 Noct or Canon's 55mm Aspherical or 50/1.2L gave better performance wide open than was previously possible but not necessarily much better than what a good f/1.4 lens of the time could do. I agree that trying both the 50/1.2 and the 45P is worth doing. I prefer the more solid feel of the older 45 GN lenses even if the P has some improvements. My f/1.2 lenses? A 55/1.2 Canon FL and two 57/1.2 Konica Hexanons. The Hexanons are better than the FL. I will soon take delivery of a 58/1.4 RE Topcor for my RE Super and RE 200 cameras so I will get to see what kind of rendering it provides. It's the older all silver (aluminum) version with the black rubber covering on the focusing ring. </p>

<p>For most subjects I prefer a grid type screen. A split image screen would be more useful for copy work and maybe even for some architectural work. In dim light the halves of the split image circle can black out and even when they aren't blacked out, the two halves do not show very well whether you are in focus. In too many situations I find the split image focusing aid distracting. </p>

<p>I cringe every time I hear that someone is using a squeegee on film. It's not necessary and it is far too easy to damage the wet emulsion that way. You can let the film sit for a short time in distilled water for its final rinse and then just hang it up. I agree that Photo Flo should be used sparingly. I use a few drops while the film is sitting in the distilled water. I move the reel around a little, pour out the liquid and then hang the film to dry. I never wipe either side of the film with anything. </p>