konrad_beck1

<p>K1000 was introduced in 1976 in Japan and worldwide. It could be regarded as the bajonet version of the 1973 Spotmatic SP1000.</p>

<p>I have consulted John Foster's PEN SLR book, and cannot find any reference to such markings.<br>

As the R is not engraved, I do not think that it comes originally from Olympus. I assume that the owner has marked it himself, e.g., to differentiate it within his collection (R = reversal film?).</p>

<p>Try Cameraquest or search for: "Rayqual Olympus OM Lens to Leica M Body"<br>

Last price was $149</p>

<p>A quick search with google typing in "Die letzten 999 M6" reveal the following links:<br>

http://leica.nemeng.com/002ba.shtml<br>

The lower half shows a letter from Leica "Information No.: 61/2002" that the last 999 M6 for sale (not production!) will be specially packaged and have xxx/999 on the top. This does not need to be related to any other serial number, but Solms seems to have wanted to clear their warehouses: could have been produced anytime before.<br>

<br />Camera 839/999 with s/n 2595963 was sold by Christie's (let's assume that they know a little bit about auctions and integrity) in March 2007 for $3769.<br>

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/leica-die-letzten-900-m6-ttl-no-4878517-details.aspx?intObjectID=4878517<br>

<br />The differences in sn between Christie's and ebay is: 2595963 - 2595670 = 293<br>

The difference in the xxx/999 code: 839 - 674 = 165<br>

----> the 999 numbering does not directly follow a consecutive serial number run.<br>

Currently on ebay.co.uk (131178391033) is 631/999 with sn 2755057, i.e. indeed close to the 2760000 end number, but more 999 away.<br>

Photo Arsenal has on ebay no. 700/999, but the sn is not given (price $3474).<br>

So nothing seems fishy to me with the ebay seller.</p>

 

<p>Just in case that you don't have it, there are "explosion parts diagrams" for most OM Zuiko lenses at:<br>

http://olympus.dementix.org/Hardware/olympus_hw.html<br>

although they are not very specific on how things have to be handled.</p>

<p>Rob, you are right that I should have given the source of the data in the first place: the 15,000 production figure, manufacturing period 1983 to 1987, and 11 elements in 8 groups comes from the book: P.H. Pont:<em>Angénieux</em> (Paris: Éditions du Pécari, 2003). This book also gives as mount for this lens: Canon FD (not EF), Contax MM, Leica R, Minolta MD (not AF), Nikon AIS (not AF), Pentax K, M42 and Olympus OM. This lens seems also to have been sold in Alpa mount where the author indicates that this might be an M42 lens with a PRAKTIBAG adapter. I imagine that the author has gotten the 8 groups wrong by assuming that the closely spaced elements 2 to 4 with apparently similar opposite surface curvatures would be cemented together (for a 35mm still lens, this would be very unlikely although there were multi-element cemented groups in cine lenses), thus I believe the picture of your manual (which is in German, not French, so take the right dictionary if you want to translate it) gives the right 11 elements in 11 groups design. These closely spaced and similarly curved elements certainly demand extra care to avoid internal reflections and thus the 50+ multicoating might have been taken as an approach to diminish the problem. Nonetheless, the lens is very prone to flare, based on my experience and pictures presented in the mflenses forum (http://forum.mflenses.com/angenieux-2-5-3-3-35-70mm-leica-r-mount-t19877,start,30.html) from were you have obviously copied "your" picture of the manual, or are you Mr. Hinnerker?).</p>

<p>The given length of 120mm I have measured on my lens (OM mount) in infinity position from the front to the camera flange. This seems usual practice as also all OM Zuiko lens length data are given in this way. At closest focus (0.46m), this length (of my lens, at least) is 134mm. BTW, the weight determined on a recently calibrated balance is 544g instead of the 525g as stated in the manual, but this will depend on mount.</p>

<p> The P.H. Pont book also presents a table correlating Angenieux's serial numbers to production years. Serial numbers 1476845 to 1528999 span the 1983-1987 period: if you want any Angenieux lens produced after the begin of 1990, your serial number should be >1536500 (mine is 14926xx = 1984). A quick search on current ebay sales (there is currently one 35-70/2.5 in OM mount, and one sold last week for ca. $750; so with yours, mine, and the two ebay lenses we nearly have all of the handful of lenses produced in OM mount ...) indicates that all of their sn in the various mounts fall into the 1983-1987 production period stated.</p>

<p> ".....1500 each if its an even production! And for Olympus OM it could be far less than that if the bulk of production was the more popular Canon and Nikon."</p>

<p> I suspect that the Canon FD mount wasn't too popular as Canon had its own 35-70/2.8-3.5 lens since 1979 in a similar price range as the Angenieux lens. The most popular mount was probably the Leica R, as Leitz hasn't had much of zoom lenses on offer (and Leica owners are used to Angenieux's prices). As mentioned above there seem to have been 8 mounts (your manual says 6) available.</p>

<p> "Production of the Angenieux zoom lens for 35mm SLR was up until 1994."</p>

<p> Angenieux has indeed produced a zoom lens for 35mm still cameras in the 1990s, but this was a 28-70/2.6 AF lens available in Canon EF, Minolta AF, Nikon AF mount (production period 1989-1994 acc. P.H. Pont).</p>

<p> Am I a fan of the 35-70mm Angenieux lens? Not really; besides being lighter and smaller (though obviously a full stop slower), I always preferred the 30-70/3.6 Zuiko lens for image quality. Given the price I paid for the Angenieux, I just couldn't resist.</p>

<p>"... Angenieux zoom is a retrofocus lens originally designed by Angenieux in the 1950s"<br>

<br />I think what is meant is that Angenieux introduced the retrofocus fixed focal lens design for still cameras in 1950 (a 35mm/2.5 lens). For cine cameras, this design was used since the 1930s.</p>

<p>The Angenieux "2x35" 35-70mm 1/2.5-3.3 was not produced in the 1990s but from 1983 to 1987 (I doubt that it was developed in the 1950s). The 11 elements are in 8 groups. My lens in OM mount has a length of 120, not 136mm. I also doubt that "they only made a handful in Olympus OM mount"; you might want to go shopping in French used photo department shops where I have gotten mine for ca. Euro 200 a few years ago. The total production (in all mounts) was about 15,000.<br>

Similarly to the Zuiko 35-70/3.6, zooming of the front group acts as an additional hood.</p>

<p>Lex Jenkins advice on checking the trigger voltage is worth to consider. According to the list at<br>

http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html<br>

the Olympus T flashes should be fine, but I measured on the earlier Quick Auto 300, 310 trigger voltages in the 250V range, and the even older PS200/PS200Quick ca. 190V.</p>

<p>The 85/2 was specifically designed as a portrait lens "for obtaining soft focus effect by operating it in such a mode that slight symmetrical coma will remain with resolution kept at high level " (from the US patent 4063802 relating to the later, multicoated version) whereas the 100/2 (and 100/2.8) were optimized as general purpose (higher contrast) lenses. This agrees with my own experience with all three lenses (based on film; with digital now, Photoshop will allow you easily to reduce contrast and/or simulate various soft focus effects).<br>

The 100/2 isn't too difficult to find, only expect to pay a substantial price.</p>

<p>Note that the T20 coverage angle is roughly equal to that of a 35mm wide angle lens, i.e., with a 28mm lens you will have dark corners.</p>

<p>There is a Wide Adapter for the F280, which will cover the range of a 21mm lens reducing the light to GN 19m. This snap-on adapter is difficult to find. It is easier to find the Wide Adapter for the T32 (it comes together with ND4 and ND8 filters), which will also extend the T32 range to that of a 21mm lens (GN 22m). For details, see: http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/flashphotogroup.htm</p>

 

<p>Might be that it was too cold (thought SF weather report says something of 15 oC during the day)? In that case, you could have taken the batteries out and warmed them up in your pocket. It has happened to me with an OM-4 (old circuit), and worked for a number of shots (though in that case there were freezing conditions). You could also used the mechanical 1/60 time and adjust w/ aperture, though photographic creativity would be quite limited.</p>

<p>If you want a 3-lens kit with a 50mm and 100mm one, I regard the 24mm as too wide. Do not disregard the older 28mm f/3.5 single coated Zuiko lens, which is my preference for landscape photos at f/5.6 to f/11. Another old-fashioned 3-lens kid would be 24-35-85mm.</p>

<p>I am guessing between fall 1981 and spring 1982. If the camera back has not been changed, you will probably find the correct production month below the film pressure plate. This is easy to remove and to reinstall by pressing it on on side to the other and lifting the spring out of its pin. There should be a white code reading something like E1X5 where the E stands for XXX (production plant?), 1 stands for 1981 (9=1979, 0=1980, 2=1982) and X for October (1=Jan, 2=Feb, Y=Nov, Z=Dec). No idea on what's the 4th digit means.</p>

<p>another good site on Coloramas:<br>

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/features/coloramas/colorama.html</p>

<p>check:<br>

http://olympus.dementia.org/Hardware/PDFs/MotorDrive1.pdf</p>

<p>The usual Olympus hood marked as 35mm/F2.8, 50mm/F1.4, 50mm/F1.8 works perfectly fine for the 50/1.2 lens, but indeed a special rubber hood (US cat. # 108-233, no metal version was produced) was produced which allowed reverse mounting on the lens. Both hoods are of 51mm slide-on type.<br>

The old 55/1.2 lens required a 57mm slide-on hood which was only available in metal.<br>

I would not recommend a hood, as Matthew Newton uses, which does not vignet with a 28mm lens because it means that it is not very effective for a 50mm lens.</p>

<p>Mark Dapoz has compiled quiet a bit of information on the history and differences of the M-1 to OM-1 at<br>

http://olympus.dementia.org/M-1/<br>

So it was shown at Photokina 1972 (not 1973) and the "extremely rare" means a production run of ca. 52,000. The "many hundreds of pounds" value means many = 3 to 5.</p>

<p>Regarding the T20 flash, keep in mind that it only covers an angle corresponding to a 35mm lens (for 35mm film). The T32 covers roughly that of a 28mm lens, and the older Quick 300 and Quick 310 flashes covered nearly the angle of a 24mm lens. Don't use these early flashes (300/310) on a digital camera as their trigger voltage (150-200V) might fry the sync circuit.</p>

<p>Krisalid:<br>

If your lens was build after around 1978/79, it is very unlikely that it contains radioactive elements as the major optical glass manufacturers stopped their production by that time. A 50/1.2 lens is also of the more "modern" design: most fast standard lenses with radioactive elements were 55mm or 58mm f/1.2, though some 50/1.4s of the early 1970's like the Olympus Zuiko also contained radioactive elements.</p>

<p>Here is a description how the professionals did it in 1981:<br>

http://maitani-fan.co.cc/maitani_fan2/pursuit_file_13.html<br>

They could mount their cameras only 1-mile away, but the photographers themselves had to be another 3-miles further away.</p>

<p>Peter, the parts diagram indicates that all lens elements/groups received a new order number but nothing else. As besides refractive index, dispersion, surface curvature etc. also the distances between lenses (air space) defines the optical formula of a lens, it is highly unlikely that anything else than the coating was changed in the transition from SC to (N)MC.<br>

The SC version came both first with a chrome front ring and later a black one (both marked G.ZUIKO). The early MC lenses were marked ZUIKO MC, and the later/latest lenses were marked ZUIKO only (MC omitted in late 1981). The 21/3.5 was in production up to the final month' of the OM lens production in spring 2003</p>

<p>For the lenses you are missing, you have chosen the wrong system: If you read the Olympus lens patents, up to 1982 it was the goal to produce more "compact" lenses (this word is in nearly all their patents). A 70-200/2.8 defeats this purpose. Olympus was (and is) a commercial company who makes their products not for fun, but for a profit. So they had/have to select a program which actually finds their customers (and no, they do not earn one penny on all your lenses which you bought used on ebay). From the 60 "Olympus OM-System Lenses" (incl the 2 converters), 14 lenses account for 90% of all lens sales (by number, not value/price), and with 20 lenses it comes to 95%. So the remaining 40 lenses just make up for 5%.<br>

The ratio of Zuiko lenses to OM cameras (again not including the AF and PF series) is smaller than 1.2, which means that on average for only each fifth OM camera a second Zuiko lens was purchased (many -especially OM-10's- were sold with 3rd party zooms, and their owners probably have never purchased an Olympus lens). Interestingly, this ratio is similar to the Leica rangefinder and Leica lenses.</p>

 

<p>I am surprised that the manual is dated 1965. To my knowledge, the three long miror lenses were developed for the Japanese national TV NHK to cover special events at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics.</p>