victor_randin3

The Summicron (any version) gives a better "bokeh" than any Elmar.

Elmar' "bokeh" is looking double image and in rags.

Allow me to add my 1 cent, gentlemen. In the case when the RF focuses

past infinity it means that all the range of proper focussing is

shifted in the direction of nearest distances. So, for example, if

you focus on the eyes, the nose would be in the proper focus.

<p>

You could watch to see such shift of focus through a ground glass

(with a loupe) placed on a film gate then compareing the image on the

groundglass with the RF-image. In a practice the lens DOF covers such

a shift in proper focussing in limits of the lens/aperture DOF. But

in this case we lose the advantages of RF-camera when shooting with

full-open fast lenses.

<p>

Colour Christmas.

My M4-P refused to shoot on the Lake of Baikal (Jan �87) when it was �

30 �35 degree C, the shutter curtains moved very slowly. Nikon F

still was working, all functions fine, TTL metering worked normally.

Ten years ago I changed cloth curtains of my M3 and IIIf. I set titan

shutter curtains and use a special antifreeze lubricant. Since both

cameras are working very good on any frost.

Al, I currently use Leitz reloadable film cassettes in my IIIFRD.

Almost no resistance when advancing the shutter, I just roll the

advance knob with my thumb when the camera is near my eye. There are

no any scratches on the film. But before using, each cassette is to

be check up how easy it enters into the film chamber. I had a few

cassettes which are slightly more in diameter than the IIIF�s chamber

is.

It is a good choice to return to a classic IIIF or IIIG. You probably

know that Leitz redesigned Leica�s shutter and body starting from the

IIIc. The body appeared is more robust and keeps its working distance

(28.8mm) even when it is incidentally dropped on a pavement. The lens

flange of IIIC/IIIF/IIIG is set on the �inner� body consisting of

precise casting details, no any adjusting paper washers under the

lens flange as its predecessors have. But pre-IIIC Leicas have

flanges set on the external casting of the body. This is the reason

why the working distance is slightly changed when the camera is

gripped very tightly (I saw this on the indicator), or if it was

dropped. There are a few paper ring washers between the flange and

the body casting in pre-IIIC Leicas. It was a pain to adjust a

working distance of the body to 28.8(-0.05) mm with its paper ring

washers. The shutter of IIIC /IIIF/ IIIG have appeared more precise

and correct, no vibration.

An interesting thing: it�s strange, but my IIIFRD has been

manufactured so that the frame dimensions are about 25X38 mm, and

almost no frame bars (0.1mm), long sides of frame just touch

perforation holes. It is very noticeable when printing in a dark

room, standard magnifier's frames are not adequate to camera�s frame.

The advantage is larger angle of view, so my 21mm is approximately as

19�30�� and 20mm is 18�30��. Meanwhile the IIIFRDST I had before has

normal size of the frame.

Bad news is that all old Leicas need pro�s CLA: cleaning gears,

axles, optic elements lubricating, adjusting RF, shutter speeds and

working distance, inspecting and gluing or change curtains and much

more. But after these procedures they are working gratefully.

The only drawback of the IIIF is PARALLAX. When you forget to correct

this, it is very unpleasant to discover when the frame center on the

neg is displaced and composition is ruined. So, the IIIG is much

better than IIIF with its parallax auto compensation. But it is more

expensive, bigger and is looking worse than the IIIF (as for me:-).

There is no any ideal Leica. But I regret that I traded my two IIIG�s

and Leicavit. I shot with 90mm on my IIIG�s very rarely, as the Nikon

is for tele-lens. The IIIG was created for 50mm lens! I don�t like

any accessories in the hot shoe of my IIIF, I like to shoot mostly

with 50mm or 35mm lens.

Good luck,

--Victor

http://www.photo.net/bboard/

<p>

Medium Format Digest Forum is the best site dedicated to Hasselblad,

Rolleiflex TLR... Enjoy.

The aperture blade axles of the old type of the lenses have been

lubricated. Any lubricant is an evaporative material. It is

evaporating and settling on glass surfaces faced on aperture blades

during a long time. As a result a muddy efflorescence appears on

these surfaces and the lens loses its contrast characteristics.

I repaired a lot of these. For example, I have seen the lens (Zeiss

Sonnar 2/85, like new, never used) with the exact B�oil printB� of its

(set on f-stop 22) aperture on the surface of the inner element

facing to the aperture. This lens was stored about thirty years. Non-

AI Nikkors, old Leitz, Zeiss and many others lens have such kind of

efflorescence, as a rule, when looking through its aperture (set on

16-22 f-stop) on a light source. The above forced me to keep my old

lenses with full-opened aperture blades. But it doesnB�t matter for

the modern lenses. It is my two kopecks.

Tony,

<p>

I am Russian and I am afraid to be pre-conceived concerning the

quality of Russian/Ukrainian cameras like Zorkiy FED, Mir, Kiev etc.

In 70B�- 80B�s I visited a few works (Krasnogorsk, Kharkov, Kiev) where

these were produced. I was surprised with a low level of culture of

camera producing in comparison with Wetzlar. It is hard to say but

itB�s a true: nothing changed there from the years of NKVD till now,

the same equipment, the same technology, the same culture. In 90-s

the camera producing was almost stopped at all. I remember one

occasion in FED Works (Kharkov), when I asked for the guide-man: what

is the crash hearing around there, I was answered that this is the

Assembling Section where leaf shutters for FED-Micron are assembled.

Then I saw 10-15 men were sitting there around the table, all of them

were knocking with hammers upon leafs and axles of shutters. Once in

Kiev I came with the guarantee-card to service center to order

adjusting my wide-angle lens. Three days after I came again to get

back it adjusted (as I suggested). The repairman told me that he

nothing can do with my lens and advised me to send it to the NezhinB�s

branch of B�ArsenalB� where it was produced. Occasionally I had shaken

the lens near my ear and we had heard the sound produced with shaking

glass components. The repairman and me were shocked! Ha, ha! B� we

were thinking about subtle adjusting of the lens and he tried to make

it vainly centering loosing elements! I knew Nezhin as a village

where people produce very good cucumbers, but lensesB�..(?!?).

Sorry, but it seems to me that discussing of such kind of cameras (to

be exact similarity of cameras) on this great Forum would be a time

to waste. The Leica Forum would become like a whisky diluted with

plenty of water. BTW, so named Russian Leica-copies of WWII Leicas

(gold plated with a nazi symbols) are home-made from obvious ones

produced in Kharkov and Krasnogorsk. Just my two copecks. Thanks.

I would like to remind a very good example of the enlargement from

Popular Photography, September 1978, p.75: "For the first time ever,

a 35mm transparency was used for Kodak's 60-foot long Colorama in New

York's Grand Central Station. All previous Kodak Coloramas (27 years

worth) were made from Large-format negatives. What was truly

astonishing was the fact that the tiny 35mm transparency, though

magnified an incredible 516 times, retained sharpness. A very

impressive testimonial to the quality of Leica lenses and

photographer Ernst Haas. The camera: Leicaflex SL with Summicron 50mm

lens".

Good luck,

Mani,

<p>

If you mean original screw mount Leica lenses (Leica Thread Mount)I

use a few ones(21,28,35,50, and 90mm -a little bit) on M3, M4P,

IIIFRD, Canon 7S. LTM-lens cams are working fine as well as M-lens

cams. If you mean non-leica screw mount lenses made for RF-cameras

(Leica-type\copy), for example Canon 7S, I don't see any problem, so

as such kind of lenses are produced with cams and are working on M-

cameras exactly as M-lenses. I have own and use cheaper and very

light non-Leica LTM-lenses: 20/5.6 Russar, 35mm F1.8 Canon lens,

35/2.8 Zeiss Biogon, 50/2.0 and 85/2.0 Zeiss Sonnars on Canon 7S,

M4P, IIIF RD. Concerning a cam there is no any mechanical difference

between M-lenses and LTM-lenses with M-adaptors. I haven't ever seen

any LTM-lens whithout a cam, exept a cheaper 20/5.6 Russar with the

exeptional DOF.

<p>

Regards,

Just a very good example of a quality of R-lens:

"For the first time ever, a 35mm transparency was used for Kodak's 60-

foot long Colorama in New York's Grand Central Station.

All previous Kodak Coloramas (27 years worth) were made from Large-

format negatives.

What was truly astonishing was the fact that the tiny 35mm

transparency, though magnified an incredible 516 times, retained

sharpness. A very impressive testimonial to the quality of Leica

lenses and photographer Ernst Haas. The camera: Leicaflex SL with

Summicron 50mm lens" (Popular Photography, September 1978, p.75).)

Elmar has the triplet-type formula, Elmarit has the complex triplet-

type formula(like Sonnar-type designed by Bertalone); Summars,

Summitars, Summarons, Summarits, Summicrons, Summiluxes, Noctiluxes

have the Gauss-type formula. Elmar-R 15mm (retrofocus) is exeption.

Robin, I have just read, that R6.2 shutter is more quiet than R6 I

have had

http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~leica/leicaslr.html

Robin,

<p>

Thank you for your comments. I realy don't know R6.2, R7, R8 and have

never shot with them. My personal conclusions about R3(shutter Leitz-

Copal),R4(shutter Seiko-MCE)R6 are not so good.I like horizontal

shutters. Seems, that R6 in operation was close on R4, it was very

nice and pleasant, with exellent performance as all leicas are. But

it wasn't a true pro-camera for me (like all Minoltas, exept XK with

horizontal titan curtains). R-leicas are delicate cameras, not for

hard work. Meanwhile, though R is not my cup of tea, I would like to

play a little with a new R8 too. The difference between men and boys

is the price of their tois, isn't it?. By the way, SL,SL2(I have one

yet)are more weighty and more bulky in its dimensions than F-non

photomic, F2, F3(I like them). But, sorry, seems, I got away from the

main theme.

Regards,

Thank you, John and Al. Al you are right. Darryl from DSCamera (L.A)

old me that I have the M2 version of this lens and the lens is not a

TRUE screw mount lens. It may have been converted in the past, but it

started out as a bayonet lens.

The main difference is that my lens has focus from 0.7 meter, but

true lens has focus from 1 meter.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Victor

Please, accept my two cents, gentlemen. During last 25 years I had

many R-Leicas: the very first Leicaflex, then SL, SL2, R3, R4, R6 and

lenses: 21, 28, 35, 50, 90(2.0, 2.8), 135, 180/2.8-old 2 cam, 180/2.8

compact. After many years of experience I have returned to a classic

Nikon F. But RF Leicas I have never left. My opinion is that Leica R-

lenses are weighty but excellent, may be the best in all respects,

and almost comparable to M-lenses and to a few Nikkors AI-AIS

(28/2.0, 35/1.4, 50/2.0/1.8, 105/2.5, 180/2.8 ED). Lecaflexes are not

so reliable as Nikons F, F2, F3 are and are very huge, but no

vibration. R-bodies have Minolta interior design and Seiko� shutters.

So much vibration and noise, and so much unsharp pictures made with

mid-tele on short distances when handholding even on 1/60-1/125. Even

FA is more quiet camera, but has limited reliability too. It is

difficult for me to recognize R-Leicas as genuine pro-cameras.(I

don�t know R7, R8). So, for me R-lenses are exceptional, but R-bodies

are not so good for them, R-bodies and R-lenses are created in

different styles. By the way, I dream to shoot as David Alan Harvey

does, with a single Leica with 35 and 50mm lenses.

<p>

Best,

Victor

Hi, everybody!

<p>

It would be very interesting to identify my LTM Summicron 35mm F2.0, # 1631461. I am a shooter, not a collector and do not have a good reference book except Hove pocket book. Some years ago I purchased this lens in Germany in ex+ condition. I use it on MP4 and IIIf and get razor-sharp pictures. This lens has screw-mount & bayonet-mount facilities. The bayonet-adapter is fixed to screw-mount with a tiny screw. As Hove says, LTM Summicron was produced from 1958 in a quantity of 577 units. In 1958 only one LTM 35mm Summicron was produced. I referenced the number of my �cron (1631461) exactly to 1958. Pardon my language. Any comments would be appreciated.

Hi, everybody!

<p>

It would be very interesting for me to identify my LTM Summicron 35mm

F2.0, # 1631461. I am a shooter, not a collector, and do not have a

good information guide except Hove pocket book. Some years ago I

purchased this lens in Germany in ex+ condition. I use it on MP4 and

IIIf and get razor-sharp pictures. This lens has screw-mount &

bayonet-mount facilities. The bayonet-adapter is fixed to screw-mount

with a tiny screw. As Hove says, LTM Summicron was in production from

1958, only 577 units were produced. In 1958 only one LTM 35mm

Summicron was produced. I referenced the number of my �cron (1631461)

exactly to 1958. Pardon my language. Any comments would be

appreciated.

The Master Technica 45 (in production from 1972) is slightly improved

the V:

Master has a synthetic bellows, a top body flap for extra movements

with wide angles (shorter than 90mm), some internal changes, a black

leatherette, and a little more movements than the V. But these

improvements cost about $7000!!! (body only). The V does the job for

a lot less, though, search pinholes in bellows.

Best,

Beautiful pictures, Steve, thanks. My two cents, gentlemen.

For street photography I use 0.72M-4P with 35mm f2.0 Summicron,

28mm/5.6 Summaron, 21mm/3.4 S.Angulon , 20mm/5.6 Russar ; M3 & 50/1.4

Summilux (in darkness only), and IIIf RD, my favorite for twenty

years, with the above named lens, all of them are screw mount &

Leitz M-mount adapters. No flash. Film 400-3200. I almost do not use

any viewer and rangefinder when shooting with IIIf and short-focus

lenses. In a few years of practice I can feel the frames of 21mm and

28mm. The human eye focus is about 18-21mm. My rule is �don�t afraid

to waste a frame�. My favorite techniques with IIIf is not to look

through RF/VF when shooting specially a tiny dog�s, cat�s portraits

on exhibitions, for example, or macro. I just set the f-stop for

required DOF (from 4�� or less) on the Russar and direct the IIIf to

the subject as near as possible. Sometimes I get cartoons because of

distortion, and it�s fanny. The IIIf�s film advance is very smooth, I

make it very fast and easy, just roll a wind knob with my thumb. NO

one of M�s has double exposure feature, IIIf does. Seems, loading is

so easy as M's.

Best pictures.

<p>

--Victor.

I use the tiny 28mm F5.6 on my M-4P (0.72 the same as the first

version of M6) during many years. The 28-frames are visible. No

goggles, no problem.

When shooting I see the inner borders of the viewfinder, it is a

pain, but this allows me to use 21 mm too with no parallax

compensation. In any case, when shooting with RF & short-focus lens

(shorter than 28mm), frames are not so correct when shooting with

SLR. This problem, if any, I solve in the darkroom. Just I don't like

bulky Nikon for street shooting.

Best.

Victor.