duane_kucheran

Hello Mark,

 

Until I got a 12575 I used a 39-49 mm stepping ring to a metal hood for a Pentax/Takumar 135 mm lens. The Pentax hood came from a camera shop used bin & cost me $2. The stepping ring cost $15 and allows me to use other filters. I've found the 12575 to be the easiest to use option as it takes the least space and is easy to attach & detach.

 

I now have an extra 12575 with cap if you're interested.

 

Cheers,

 

Duane

Had a lecture by an associate that used to work for ELCAN (Ernst Leitz Canada) in the design group. If memory serves, he said the mechanical tolerances for the cine lenses were on the order of one fifth of those for the still lenses. ie. five times as tight. There could be shimming and adjusting of each lens to get it to work at its best. Cine lenses have lower quantities and higher prices and I suppose that if you want your 1:10 zoom range lens to work as well as possible, this is what needs to be done and they do it.

 

Cheers,

 

Duane

The Rollei Sl66 Distagon 40 and 1st gen Hasselblad Distagon 40 lens hoods are the same except for the logo. I use the 'Blad hoods & B104 filters on the Rollei as they were easier to get than the Rollei items.

 

I think the hood is of value as it does help with flare & subsequently contrast.

 

Cheers,

I believe aki-asahi/store is the place you want. He's in Japan. I bought a cover kit for a Leica & have been generally pleased with the stuff. It seems to be a fairly tough plastic that has an adhesive that doesn't leave a residue. I could imagine something better but it'd be a lot more money. For my F-1 I just use the bottom of a never ready case.

 

A local camera store was clearing out a bunch of cheap, new camera straps that had the rings and leather shields for all of $2. You might want to look in your local store's treasure pile & see if they have something similar.

 

Cheers,

It looks to me like you may need a unit with exceptional low light performance. Some friends of mine produce scientific cameras although I don't know if it has the performance you need.

 

Please look at www.prosilica.com & maybe get in touch with them.

 

Cheers,

 

Duane

Ketil, I don't know if the new FD is built the same. I seem to recall that generally the cones snap in and have to be pried out with some sort of tool like a small spatula.

 

Ed, the rubber stopper is a great idea. I dont know why I didn't think of it.

 

Cheers,

This lens is easy to take apart. The conical shaped bezel is plastic and just unscrews and allows you to access the front optical elements. To do this you'll need to make a rubberized cup about 50-52 mm in diameter that can grip the bezel. I used a round piece of wood inside a latex rubber glove to increase friction against the bezel. Allow a few drops of isopropanol (rubbing alcohol) to wick into the interface between the bezel and the filter ring to loosen up the crud and provide some lubrication.

 

If the discoloration is rainbow colored, you could just have some oil on the inner surface which can be cleaned off with a 50-50 peroxide/ammonia solution. More likely though you have element separation. It can be repaired but you'll have to completely separate the elements, clean them off and recement them with UV curable optical adhesive.

 

My lens had a bit of fungus which I cleaned off. But to tell the truth, it really didn't make a bit of difference.

 

Good luck,

 

Duane

To Vivek,

 

Sufficiently strong UV will bleach out most any dye or coloring. That's why most colored stuff fades after a while in the sun. One optical device I worked on had a continuous Xenon arc lamp (not the flashed type) that was a great UV source. The black anodized lamp housing's interior coating turned clear after about a year.

 

I don't know if solar UV is strong enough to do that, but I hear tell that UV levels have increased over the past few years due to ozone depletion...

 

Cheers,

The FD 50 f1.8 is single coated so it's a little more prone to flare. When I got mine years ago I also bought a UV filter to protect the front element in addition to the hood. As I learned more about photography and optics I discovered that the filter was uncoated. When I got a coated version I had far less trouble with flare & my images generally picked up contast.

 

My experience with FD lenses is, that on the whole, they are a little less contrasty than Nikon, Pentax, Zeiss & Leica and I believe it is due to the anti-reflection coatings not being as effective.

 

Cheers,

I think the new F-1 (F-1N) without a winder is the quietest of the bodies I have or had (A-1, AE-1, FtB, EF, T70 or T90). I don't have an F-1 but my brother in law did & it was quieter than my A-1. I think Canon FD bodies tended to be louder than others - I noticed that the Leica R4 I diddled with in a shop made a quiet snick whereas my F-1N sure didn't.

 

Cheers,

When I got my F-1N & winder, the auto aperture did not work. The previous owner had lost the cover over the film rewind port in the camera base. I wanted to use the camera without the winder so I located a cap. I found that installing this cap then made the auto aperture work correctly when the winder was installed. I suppose this was due to slight misalignment between the camera and winder because the missing cap helped align the winder to the camera.

 

What I would do is ensure that the pins on the motor drive are free to make a good connection with the contacts on the camera and that the contacts are clean. I would then try to move the motor relative to the camera one way or the other to see if a slight misalignment between the two could make a better contact.

 

Cheers,

According to the Canon Camera Museum Website, the Aspherical version came out in March '75. As far as I can see, it weighs a few grams less. Molded aspherics didn't come out till the mid '80's so the older aspherical elements needed to be ground and then manually figured. I understand that by then, Canon figured out a way to mechanize the figuring.

 

I picked up one of these which was built in '79 for a song. I have made some great (to me) images with it. Compared to the new FD 50 f/1.4, at larger apertures it has an smoother rendition with more fine details showing. The new 50 just doesn't resolve the shades and details as well as the 55. I have an image shot at f/1.2 where my silhouette is clearly visble in the reflected sparkle of one of my twins' eyes.

The T90 viewfinder does not show the aperture set by the ring on the lens. The number in the display is what the body will set the lens to and is determined either by the Av setting or the lightmeter. This makes manual operation less convenient than it could be as you have to look at the lens to determine the aperture set.

I found my 75 'lux in a private sale for about $1100 with box, hood, UV filter and caps. I got it in a deal with an M6. It wasn't my first choice for a first lens but for portrait and candid photography it doesn't disappoint. I'll echo the above comments regarding its characteristics. As part of a set with a 35 & 24 I see no need for a 50 or 90.

 

A possible correction to a previous post. I have the 1st generation lens with removeable hood. It uses E60 filters which are hard to come by. Perhaps Leica/Leitz made some running changes during the production run and so some were made with 58mm filter threads.

 

Cheers,

 

Duane

Hello all,

 

I'd like to protect the front element of an Elmarit-M 24 with a UV

filter and also have the hood (#12592) fit. I've tried a B+W 55mm

filter (non thin ring type) but the filter's diameter seems to be too

large for the hood to slide over.

 

Would anyone know if the appropriate Leica filter or other quality

types might fit?

 

Thanks kindly,

 

Duane

It works but it's not an astounding improvement. I think that a 1.4X would be better. I have an angle finder for SLRs that goes to 2X and that really makes a difference.

 

I got my Leica magnifier used and think it was overpriced at $180. Mais, c'est la vie, non?

My background is engineering but I've been exposed to economics and accounting. Those that know more will have more insight into Leica's situation.

 

Lenses are probably only a part of of Leica's revenue but it'll give you an idea of their gross revenues:

 

Assuming they make 80 lenses a day, and there are 200 working days per year (might be less for Germany) and each lens goes for USD$1K FOB Wetzlar this gives USD$16 million. Assuming there are 500 employees (I think I read this in a recent post) this gives USD$32K revenue per employee. A good rule of thumb is that companies in industrialized countries should earn at least USD$100K to cover salaries, benefits, facilities, materials and whatnot.

 

Now having said that, Leica also makes other things such as camera bodies and accessories. It probably also provides consulting services. It also provides servicing and spare parts which should add to the revenues significantly. I don't know if it's enough to break even or make a profit & from what I understand, it may not be.

 

I wouldn't write them off, but their market is shrinking & they'll have to do something to either increase the market size or adjust their costs to compensate.

While I can't say much about the digital aspects I can comment on the T-S 35. A few years ago I needed a geometrically accurate picture of the back of my house for a home improvement project. Because we have a short backyard I couldn't back up too far. I shot an image on APX 25 with full upward shift at f/8 and scanned it in on an Eversmart scanner. I recall that looking at the digital prints it was sharp out the the edges & I could pick out the blades of grass (& the weeds). I also recall that the images were quite square so there wasn't too much distortion; probably less than if I were to try to use a 20 mm lens and crop the image.

 

Cheers,

This link doesn't provide a direct answer but it indicates there's a difference between the X and non X versions: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6519

 

I understand the Minolta made 39 mm diameter lenses have a coarser filter thread pitch of 1 mm vs the Leitz made which are 0.75 mm. Could the X version of the polarizer be for them?

 

Cheers,

Red SSC label,

 

S/N 184XX, date code X204 (1983)

 

Cheers,

I've had an early ('81) 75 for about a month now. The spec sheet says it focuses to about 1 M but I see it goes about 0.85 m on its scale. I understand the 2nd version goes to about 0.7 m.

 

Can't comment on the specifics of multicoating of various lens versions, but in any multistep process there can always be little changes and hopefully improvements over the lifetime of a product. Cars are a point in fact.

 

This lens does not do a soft focus effect - rather things just aren't quite as detailed or snappy at the larger apertures as they are at f/4 - f/8. The lens helps make stunning portraits where the subject does indeed pop out of the background. The Canon FD 85 f/1.2L does almost as well but with the 'Lux there is a more pronounced effect probably due to somewhat greater contrast. A filter could always do the soft focus effect.

 

I initially didn't think I'd get this lens and would probably get a 90 of some sort, but I'm pleased with how versatile it is and how well it performs. If memory serves, it cost close to what a Noctilux did so it's quite an expensive piece of optics.

 

Cheers,

If memory serves, the 'help' message is not due to the shutter but something in the aperture control mechanism. My T90 gave me the 'help' message when one of my lenses had a sticky diaphragm mechanism. The body was fine - the lens was the problem.

 

I'm going to assume this problem occurs without a lens? If so, the body has a problem. If not, it may be the combination of the body and the lens. Have a look at the various levers in the body that control the lens to see if they move when an exposure is made. Perhaps one is bent or is binding.

 

Cheers,

It wasn't worth it for me. If memory serves, it was a strong yellow filter mounted in a holder that made it easier to use. While it gave an impression of making the scene monochromatic, the effect didn't last long as my eyes accomodated to the strong yellow tint. I quickly learned to see in monochrome without it and so it sits.

 

Psst, wanna buy an MVF, cheap?

 

Cheers,

 

Duane

Many thanks to all for the insights & replies. It's a bit of shift to a rangefinder. Ya gotta love the quietness of the concept.

 

Cheers,

 

Duane

G'day,

 

I'm new to the M6 and have a few questions:

 

1.) I don't have much trouble using the range finder to focus when

the camera is horizontal. With the camera vertical, I can't seem to

see the ghost image consistently. I move the camera around and

occasionally find the sweet spot where I do see the ghost image but

it's hard to use it to focus. Nothing seems to be loose inside the

camera. Any thoughts?

 

2.) the battery compartment cover is chrome with a Leitz label in the

center. The body is chrome and is from 1987/88. All the pictures

I've seen of M6's show a black cover. Is this normal or a

replacement from something else?

 

3.) I have a 'lux 75 f/1.4 and want an f/2 28 or 35 to go with it.

I'd prefer a 28 but a 35 'cron has come up locally. I haven't seen

the lens yet, but from the serial number it appears to be an early

4th gen made in about 1979. Any thoughts on improvements Leitz may

have made (in particular coatings) or any other caveats?

 

Thanks kindly for any insights,

 

Cheers,

 

Duane