stindphoto

<p>Mine is number 2302 from the first batch - full serial 1177803 - I posted about these early ones back in 2008.<br>

<br /> The link is here: <a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00RSGG">http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00RSGG</a><br>

Nice to see this topic come up again. I later added an M2 in used condition but the M4 is awaiting new curtains - when money permits. I also added the latest Elmarit 90mm - which I love too. One day I hope for chrome Elmarit 24mm ASPH and 50mm Summilux ASPH in chrome to accompany the 90mm and my chrome 35mm Summicron ASPH. Maybe soon if I ever get around to actually selling some of all the other goodies - anyone for a 1000 8.0 Fujinon? </p>

<p>Newer finders with the same magnification as the M2/M4 can be retrofitted by Leica - but probably not cheap. I believe independant repairers do it as well. I mentioned my recent experiences with the M2 bodies bacause the M2 is a later camera than the M3. It seems that the M2 is the cheapest entry to the Leica Ms. <br>

With the prices you mention you really cant go wrong. Let your preferred focal length decide. There isn't much to loos - and you can have the camera checked/upgraded/fixed later when you have saved for it. </p>

 

<p>oops - sorry for double posting</p>

<p>Didn't the French change a law some few years back - virtually making it impossible to shoot in public for publication without everyone appearing in the photo signing a release form? I have been to Paris many times... love it :-)</p>

<p>Didn't the French change a law some few years back - virtually making it impossible to shoot in public for publication without everyone appearing in the photo signing a release form? </p>

<p>I just picked op a user M2 - bought from the most respected dealer here in Denmark. I inspected four M2s - all with warranty - three of them showed clearly signs of prism separation when looking at the prism from the front side of the cameras. Two where hanging in the slow speeds...<br>

Just check! But it can be fixed or the rangefinder upgraded later if you need more frame lines. Upgrade only applies to M2/M4. Good luck and tell us about your experiences! Film is great ;-)</p>

<p>Moderator - please remove this entry - sorry - for some reason my post came double. </p>

<p>Are we not just getting what we want? I refer to the tittle of this post. This title will show up in google searches, maybe it is all people checking the list of messages in this forum will see.<br>

If we want film to stay alive and available, we need to communicate positively about film! We got Polaroid back, we got Agfa back, Ilford is still here, new film are coming out like Ektar in large format, Velvia is still here, I want Kodachrome back, but we got Rollei film thanks to digital. Isn't sales of large format film increasing? I called Leica in Germany, but did not get a definite answer when I mentioned the rumour about the end of film Leicas, instead the lady said: "There is also the M9" and I replied: "The M9 that you cannot deliver" which made her laugh and say I was right. By this I pointed someones attention inside the Leica organisation to the rumour. Who can ask the Leica heads? <br>

Shooting film has never been cheaper when you look at the prices for used film cameras. <br>

Almost 15 years ago I was told by a dealer, that the Kodak film I had come in to order in bulk, did not exist. And I was told this in a very arrogant way, with the guy at the desk saying to another employee: "This film never existed, did it?" "No" he said. Well - two days later I presented the jerk with the non-existing film I sourced elsewhere. Ignorance versus reality versus attention can lead to strange things. <br>

I have seen a lot of beautyfull B/W work from M8s and M9s. But how many rolls of B/W film could you buy, have processed and scanned for the price difference between a used M6 and a M9 (that only a few people so far got)? And I will not start ranting about the absurdity of adding digitally generated grain effects to make the digital shots look right... Neither will I mention that I'm not a member of the local photo club, as the club demands exif-data printed out and attached to all paper photos entered...<br>

The more we talk about "film is dead" the more we kill film! No film means no film camerea from Leica, Voigtlander, Hasselblad, Alpa etc. <br>

Bring out your film cameras, shoot film and tell everyone why film is great! That's what I do when I'm not spending my time updating firmware on my 6 DSLR's, installing larger harddrives, upgrading graphic cards, doing colour profiling and feeling helpless when I ralise that PhotoShop raw plug-ins are not backwards compatible. This is actually unbelievable!! Buy a new digicam, and your PhotoShop is totally obsolete if you want to shoot RAW (DNG is better in this respect - cadeau to Leica for choosing DNG instead of some proprietary format).<br>

I have to say it again: Bring out your film cameras, shoot film and tell everyone why film is great!</p>

<p>Need for the longer range - I would go for the new 85mm 1.4 finally with AF-S, and use it on a dx-body like the also new D5100, D90 to keep it cheap or even a D2X. We know how good the optics are in the current AF 85mm. I used to shoot weddings with the 28-80 AF (not the plastic crap one) and N90/F90 - no problem - happy customers. Group shots and formals? Medium format! It is often just as fast to switch cameras as to zoom, and you can have a new body and new prime for the same or cheaper than the new 24-120. </p>

<p>Many people report that the 105mm VR is a pain to use on a tripod because magnification/focal length changes considerably with focusing. If you are getting into macro, a relatively cheap entry is the above mentioned Tamron 90mm. I owned the first AF version but sold it because manual focus was not perfect, it flares in some conditions, and light areas could gloom/glow into darker areas. The newer version should have better coatings, and both AF versions go to 1:1. I now use the older all metal Tamron SP 90mm 2.5 - perfect focusing butter smooth like the best Zeiss Contax lenses, and no tendency at all to glow! Older is sometimes better, but without extesion tube the 2.5 only does 1:2. This older lens is also smaller physical. It is an Adaptall mount lens. It's a keeper! I have the old 55mm Nikkor with scalloped metal focusing ring - excellent but hard to find/expensive. Only other lens I might ad some time is the AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm - excellent sharpness but ugly bokeh. </p>

<p>Arthur - I have been playing with the same thought - I know someone who has an O-Series replica with the optical finder for sale...<br>

The lens is a four elements in three groups design in both replicas. <br>

This post from 2001 by a guy named "Eliot" increased my curiosity: <em>"...according to Erwin Putts and Popular Photography, the very best Leica 50mm lens is the 50/3.5 Anastigmat (fully coated), currently offered only on the 0-Series Camera. PP says it is the second best 50 mm lens they ever tested (the best was a Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar)"</em><br>

The first Anagstigmat lens dates back to 1889 developed for Carl Zeiss (and named Protar from 1890). The quote says "very best" but what does this mean? A guess could be highest center sharpness, which doesn't say anything about images formed by the lens, but maybe someone here knows the context of Mr Putt's remark and maybe the issue of PP with their test/measurements. I believe that it is generally understood that the 1.4 Planar does not have pleasent bokeh - but then again this has little to do with formal tests and measurements. <br>

The first version replica vas produced in 2000 (4000 pieces) and the 2nd with the small viewfinder in 2004 (1000 pieces). <br>

The Photographic Historical Society of Canada has more informatione on the first replica here: <br>

http://www.phsc.ca/Leica_null_series.html<br>

Maybe someone here has photos shot with this "old" lens - we would love to see - or links to high-res postings. <br>

Peter</p>

<p>My 35mm Summicron ASPH is also exactly as described - but with very positive clicks at each step. I can open it a bit beoyond f2.0 and at 2.0 the aperture blades are a little closed and not circle round. As others have noted this is as should be. </p>

<p>Can anyone tell anything from the serial number on the suspected M9?</p>

I posted at photo here. It isnt glowing. Some would say it has good plasticy or 3D rendition because the woman at the

right stands out - more than just because of sharp subject against unsharp background.

 

Keith L commented on my photo: "In fact, looks like that image was shot with a "highly corrected lens" -- I would even

guess that it has aspherical element(s)." - sorry Keith, but wrong (no offense, please read on.) The photo was made a

few days ago with a beaten up 1964 design - the Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8 - shot wide open. Maybe its all in the eye of the

beholder. But we still miss to see photos with glow.

 

None of the photos shown in this thread show glow. I have Leica books from the 1940s and '50s - no talk about glow

formed by lenses. Ludwig Leitz - son of Ernst Leitz II writes in 1949: "When everything goes right, a slide is a

reproduction of nature in terms of range of light levels and color and the reproduction can only be influenced by cropping,

perspective and - if you go further - lighting." So with everything right, Leica founded their products on reproduction. A

few years later Ludwig Leitz would lead Leitz with his brother.

 

The closest I get to glow is in a text by Alber Boger in the Leica-Brevier 1949 published by Photographia zu Wetzlar. He

writes about the strongly developed negative, that on a soft paper grade gives a smooth enlargement with a soft glow

with a quality equal to a contact print.

 

In an 1949 interview with Professor Dr Max Berek - wissentschaftliche Leiter at Leitz and responsible for designing the

5cm Elmar, the 5cm Summitar, the 5cm Summarit, the 8,5cm Summarex etc - he explains that even the first lenses for

the Leica were highly color corrected. This I believe sets the Leica lenses apart from many competitors. But he goes on

to say: "If we were to talk about differences between similar systems, then it would be on the basis of limitations in the

measuring techniques." I believe he here refers to the Contax - what other similar system was there? His final remak in

that interview was, that "with todays (1949) level of optics, the wellmade photograph is less of an optical problem but

much more a matter of the technical precision of the camera, the properties of film and especially the schooling of the

user of the camera." Sorry, but still no glow.

Would you say that this shot has glow? - Just answer "yes" or "no" and briefly explain your verdict!<div></div>

Thank you for your responses. I must admit that I'm actually pleased that your responses indicate that even a first batch

M4 isn't more special or valuable than another M4. As I initialy wrote, I bought the camera as a user and because I

thought the price was very good at around a third of the current street price here in Denmark. I will probably send the

camera to Solms for a CLA and to have new strap lugs fitted.

 

Michael - I agree with your view on collecting versus using. Many cameras have had their times and are less uasble

today - the M Leicas definately not belonging to that group. I have a lot of cameras - but most of them were more or less

saved from being thrown out like the two Olympus 35SP I'm happy enough to have and use!

 

Paul - I bought a 35mm 2.0 Summicron ASPH after a lot of research - but my final decision to go for the ASPH was a link

posted here at photo.net comparing the version IV (latest pre ASPH) to the ASPH. This comparison shoved shallover

depth of field of the ASPH at f:2 which I prefer and actually better bokeh with no tendency for lines to appear double in

the out of focus areas. This apparently contradict the generel impression of the ASPH version. Of less importance to me is the better

resistance to flare. Unfortunately I cant find that link again.

Like probably many other people I wanted a Leica M. I've discussed this with myself for more than 10 years. I've gone through the pros and

cons over and over again while shooting fixed lens rangefinders from the 60s, 70s and early 80s - Yashica, Minolta, Olympus and Konica

alongside Nikon F, FE, FM, F2 and newer autofocus film and digital bodies. But the Leica stayed in my mind - and eventually I bought a

chrome M4 and a chrome 35mm Summicron ASPH. Now with this camera and lens in my hands I'm sure I did right in buying into the M

system.

 

I bought it recently from a guy who also had a black paint M4. I know the black ones are more sought after, but I prefer the chrome ones.

The seller knew this as well, which is why his asking price for the black M4 was 5 (five) times higher then for the chrome body I bought.

The only thing I focused on, was to find a good condition chrome body with the brass gears.

 

Out of curiosity I searched the web for further detalis on the M4. I went to Stephen Gandy's site and checked the serial. Leica introduced

the M4 in 1967, but Leica produced 3,000 pieces in the first M4 batch - serial range 1175001-1178000 with production starting on the 28th

of November 1966. My M4 falls in this batch with serial 1177803. This has made me wonder. whether my M4 is something more than a

"regular" M4 in the eyes and hands of a collector. It even has the seal intact. I ask this, because the M4 is a user to me, but if it holds

more value than this, I would consider trading it. I love this little great camera. But whether I use this early sample or a later made one isn't

going to change anything for me.

John Robison - I will try to make some shots with and some without a filter in the back of the

lens. On the schematic drawing of the lens construction the filter is not included.

 

David M - Thanks for your comment! Old time camera manuals often have a lot of the

information about the system the camera belongs to. I know about the soft focus lens too -

was offered that lens a couple of years back but didnt buy it - big mistake I guess.

 

And now - dare I mention the word value of the Fujinon?

Was able to dig up some more info! <br>

<br>

The lens is a EBC Fujinon lens, although it doesn't say EBC anywere. The lens was designed

for use with the Fujica ST701 and ST801 which were introduced in 1971 and 1972

respectively. <br><br>

 

The lens composition is 5 elements in 5 groups. Weight is 5.2 kg.<br><br>

 

As John Shriver noted probably quite few were made. <br><br>

 

Found this information here: <a href="http://406club.dyndns.org/camera/index.php?

act=Print&client=printer&f=6&t=132">http://406club.dyndns.org/camera/index.php?

act=Print&client=printer&f=6&t=132</a>

John Robison - there is no filter drawer or a slat for drop in filters. However, there is a

thread on the inside of the bayonet mount (described above) where I succesfully placed a

49mm filter. When I mentioned the filter size it was more to indicate the size of the front

element and to say there is a thread at the front as well. As the shade is of the collapsible

type it doesn't need a thread.

 

Dan Fromm - the lens is indeed a monster, needing a very sturdy tripod. For the photos

here I put the Fujinon on my Manfrotto 074 legs and 029 head - both proving not to be

enough. 055 legs would probably just have collapsed! The lens with Fujica camera weighs

in at around 6kg. Maybe I should look for a machine gun turret as Rob Holz suggested!

 

Regarding picture quality I don't expect wonders from this lens. Even in the finder of the

camera the image looks very soft wide open, and pretty hard to focus. Stopping down

removes the softness and makes the image appear sharper and easier to focus, even

though the image is darker.

Thanks for your comments so far.

I smile at the gun sight too - the rear part folds down flat when not in use. It is actually

quite practically to have those sights. On 135 film this lens delivers 20x magnifications

compared to a 50mm - and 30x when mounted on a d SLR with an APS C sensor. With this

level of magnification the sights are really helpfull when setting up the lens.

 

The mount features a bayonet mount towards the lens. You mount a M42 camera to the

bayonet and then mount the bayonet to the lens. This makes mounting the camera easy

and prevents cross-threading the M42 mount. In addition the mount features a rotating

mount with a lock and click stops making it possible to rotate the camera in increments of

90 degrees all way round. Thus, changing from horisontal to vertical shooting can be done

both left and right and you can even mount your camera upside down.

 

I believe the lens is single coated, and a yellowish/brownish cast might indicate that some

rare earth glass was used like in some Takumars, maybe lanthanium.

 

It seems the lens has a pretty large image circle. I removed the mount and aperture

mechanism and got an image circle covering at least 8x10" when focusing on a window

approximately 8 meters away.

 

The lens is really big with a filter diameter of what I think is 136mm. Even compared to the

Topcon Topcor 300mm 2.8 the Fujinon is big!

 

Please keep your comments and questions coming.

 

Hopefully someone will dig up an old brochure from Fuji!

... and a third photo.

... a second photo.

I just stumbled over a huge lens - the 1000mm Fujinon-T - F-stops 8-45 in 42mm screw mount.

Focusing is done with rack and pinion instead of a helical thread.

 

The text on the lens reads FUJINON-T 1:8/1000 FUJI PHOTO FILM CO.

 

I haven't been able to find any information on the net about this lens, but maybe someone here knows this

beast of a lens.

 

I thought this to be the most appropiate forum to post this question, although I'm not quite sure when the

lens was made.

 

Any information on this hunk of glass is much appreciated!<div></div>

ooops - my typos reveal my time of day (night). Hagl?fs is Hagloefs - Swedish brand. And the

pack I use is the Tight XL Pro - http://www.haglofs.com