jnoir

<p>I fully agree with Gunnar, it is a great camera and one of my favs, too. I regularly use a IIIR with the Orthar, the two Anticomar or the Tele-Makinar. A real eye catcher, and really fun to use (once you learn to live with its quirks).</p>

<p>I followed this auction, out of curiosity to know how much it'd fetch. Actually, I expected it to go a little bit over a grand. See item 280869206783 which is also for sale since some time ago, but it does not sell.</p>

<p>Sorry for not updating before, I forgot about it. Maybe somebody could find this information useful.</p>

<p>In the meantime, I have:</p>

<p>- Tested the "<em>long focus lens</em>" side by side with a 75mm Pilotar lens. Nothing scientific, just taking one picture, replacing the lens, and taking the same picture.<br>

The picture taken with the long focus lens is here:

The picture taken with the 75mm Pilotar is here:

I still have to do some serious side by side comparison with all the different lenses I own.</p>

<p>- Noticed that the issue with the right position of the lens when mounted happens <strong>only</strong> with one specific body. In the meantime, I have managed to put my hands on another Pilot Super, and oddly enough, all lenses can be mounted in the right position on this second body, long focus lens included. The mistery evolves... why my first body mounts other lenses than its Pilotar in the wrong position? Did KW introduce some change in the mount?</p>

 

<p>Thanks, mate !<br>

I think I'm going to buy it...</p>

<p>Hi Bob !</p>

<p>Maybe you can assist me re: serial number 2112800 ? Could you confirm me it is a Technika V? Late '60s, maybe?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance and happy 2012 !<br /></p>

<p>BTW, it may also be worth mentioning for clarification purposes that the 105/4.5 lens actualy came with the Pilot 6 MkII pictured, which is dated in 1938. I am also not sure right now as if the long focus lens was advertised together with the Pilot 6 MkII or only with the Pilot Super.</p>

<p>There's plenty of knowledgeable people here :-D</p>

<p>Pete, you may be correct in your assumptions (again there's no way for me to know for sure, unfortunately), since distances in the focussing scale are in meters, not in feet, so the lenses were definitely not prepared for export.</p>

<p>It is also worth mentioning that Kamera Werke moved to newer, bigger premises by mid 1939. That factory was later on resposible, e.g., for the Praktiflex. My guess is that the Pilot Super was manufactured once that factory was in full working order, taking the base of the Pilot 6 MkII with slight modifications (except the dual format, I'd risk saying they are exactly identical) to start the production run ASAP. Nevertheless, I have nothing to prove that, just guesses. The new factory by mid 1939 at Bismarkstrasse is a fact, however.</p>

<p>Thank you very much for your informative comments!</p>

<p>I have only seen it mentioned in the ads, in the last line, stating a price of 20USD (the camera with the f/4.5 lens goes for 32.50USD, with f/3.5 lens for 42.50USD and with f/2.9 lens for 52.50USD). IIRC, those are prices from ads in Popular Photography. I have somewhere similar ads from the UK, but I can't find them right now and can't recall the prices. Actually, I did not know it was marked as a 10.5cm lens (note the focal lenght in cm, pre-WWII) until I saw it, since I have not seen reference to that anywhere.</p>

<p>The lack of information, and my liking for these "photo misteries", drives me to investigate. Unfortunately, the only thing I know about its procedence is that it was found in a car boot at the UK (the camera with a 75mm lens and this 105mm lens, together with the case.). This set was between a Nikon and a plate detective camera, so my guess is that the previous owner simply bought the best he can afford in the shop he went into by then (the 75mm lens is the f/2.9). I guess he/she was somehow wealthy, since usually UK prices in pounds, compared to those in Reichsmarks of that time, where way higher.</p>

<p>By "turn the camera 180 degrees" I meant "upside down".</p>

<p>Dave, that's a good one.<br>

<br />I have no way of knowing if it is a prototype, but my feeling is that it is not: it was advertised in magazines and books of that era, and the serial number looks "regular" to me. As for a custom made adaptation, again I have no way of knowing: I hardly doubt it is, however, since the barrel style, construction and building quality are identical between normal and long focus lenses. The black long tube cannot be dettached. Only difference is that the 105mm lens is chromed, the others are brassed. In addition to that, the f/4.5 lens from the Reflex Box was a Stenheil, while this is marked KW Anastigmat and the lens cap is from Meyer. The Pilotar is from Ludwig (and my guess is that it later evolved on the Meritar). Also (not shown in the picture) the ERC comes with a case attached to the strap for carrying the extra lens.<br>

<br />However, it has one odd detail: while all other 75mm/80mm lenses, when mounted, keep the focus and aperture marks in the upper part, the only way of mounting this 105mm lens makes those marks to be placed "downwards" in both my Pilot 6 and Super. A bit annoying, since every time I need to verify the selected aperture, I must turn the camera 180 degrees.<br>

<br />But hey, I'm on my 20s, I wasn't around when this camera was made (actually, only one of my grandparents was xD )</p>

<p>KW Anastigmat 105/4.5</p>

<p>I know there are some people here who, like me, loves this cute tiny camera, so I wanted to share this with you. Here my two of them, a Pilot 6 MkII from 1938 in need of some care, and my Pilot Super from 1940 in excellent shape. So, what do you make of this?</p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6205/6069177649_02d1180231_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="575" /><br />And yes, the thing in the middle between the Pilot Super and its mask is the <em>interchangeable f4.5 long focus lens </em>and its cap<em>.</em> AFAIK, this lens is the only known and documented unit.<br />I have tested it, and contrast is lower than that of my Pilotar 75/4.5. I still have to test both against the f/2.9 lens</p>

<p>Franka and Welta are different things. Welta has relation with Belca, but Franka was a maker on its own (actually, founded by a married couple that started as a photographic shop and then went on manufacturing cameras). However, both are similar in that made cameras for others (see e.g. the Rodenstock Perle which is actually a Welta Perle, or the Hapo 5 which is a Franka Rolfix).</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe is right in that the mask should simply unclip. Maybe it was not put in the right position by the previous owner and it is locked: i'd try moving it gently towards the sides to see if it slides and makes it easier to remove.</p>

<p>Bueh, you may like to know that the <em>interchangeable lens</em> is actually a 105/4.5 lens. The one that I own - which is actually the only one I have ever seen - is a KW Anastigmat. However, the lens cap it came with is from Meyer. I have no idea whether this is the original that came with the lens, or it was added later. It has its own leather case, attached to the camera case's strap, although again it is unmarked and I have no idea if this is a later addition. Oh, and yes, my Pilot Super does have its original cute little mask, similar to the one pictured by JMD from a Weltax, only thinner and more flimsy (I have a couple of those Weltas, too, the mask is shared, e.g., between the Weltax and the Weltur 6x6)</p>

<p>One of my favorite cameras (and I have used and own quite a few). My Super works like a cham, but the Pilot 6 MkII needs to be taken care of.</p>

<p>An image for illustrative purposes</p><div></div>

<p>In case someone is monitoring this thread and/or loves historic data:</p>

<p>My EOS 55 (a kind of "special" edition of the EOS 50(E) / Elan II(E) sold in Japan only, with Panorama function and QD back) came with EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 USM Silver, matching the finish of the camera. It is a Mk I and not a Mk II, and I cannot find any reference to it in Canon's Camera Museum.</p>

<p>Hi there!</p>

<p>I'm not sure what's going wrong (if anything) but I'd rather ask than wonder. I have dismantled an old Rolleiflex 2.8C with 2.8/80 Xenotar lens. The cosmetic condition of the camera was quite ugly, mechanically I haven't fully assessed it yet.</p>

<p>The front element of this Xenotar lens was suffering of haze. This was the main failure in this particular camera, and the owner told me that if lens cannot be cleaned then restoring the remaining of the camera does not really makes sense. So, I went for the lens first. I have had it soaked in 50-50 ammonia-hydrogen peroxide. It seems to help a bit, but I have taken the lens off the container because I have noticed it's becoming a bit yellow. When cleaned with tap water and dry with a cotton glove, the multicoating is clearly visible (prior to this soaking it wasn't, so I expect the most external part of dirt is going off). But still, in some angles there is a strange yellow color. When looked straight through the glass, no yellow reflections are present. They can only be noticed when lens is almost perpendicular to the eyes.</p>

<p>Right now, it is soaking in lighter fluid. Lens seems to be cleaning veery slowly, but I'm not sure if it might become useable again. My main question is, why this yellow reflection? Is it normal?</p>

<p>What other methods should I try to remove haze? I have also tried warm water and a bit of detergent, and also a couple of drops of Windex (not really Windex brand, but window cleaning liquid anyway), to no avail.</p>

<p>Any suggestion appreciated (and even needed) !</p>

<p>Thank you everybody for your excelent answers!</p>

<p>As Mr. Kathurima notes, an "L" series is still far from my budget... if I ever can put a hand on one of them, they'll have to take it back from my cold, dead fingers ;-)</p>

<p>I should have also mentioned that I don't plan to stay on a cropped body for too long (again, budget constraints, but definitely my next camera will be a FF one, being cropped bodies useful as backups or to carry to those "hostile" places we sometimes go to). That was my main reason to go for EF series instead of EF-S (and going for the EF 100 macro instead of the EF-S 60 macro, even after knowing the latter was a "reduced" version of the former)</p>

<p>Anyway, I didn't knew the 18-55 IS was worth it. Isn't it the "kit-lens"? Anyway, this lens is a cheap alternative that can provide me with a wide-angle focal range I actually don't have. When in film I don't use it much anyway (well, I haven't ever had anything below 28mm) but maybe it's time to try it.</p>

<p>I also didn't knew the 50 f1.4 does not have the real USM ring, I'd have sweared it had. I use the lens mostly in manual mode, but when in autofocus mode I don't have lots of complaints (for me, a noisy rotor does not mean a lot... performance does, so maybe in the end I'll go for both, and by the way I will compare the kludged USM of the 50 f1.4 against the everybody-says-it's-better USM of the 28-105)</p>

<p>Once again, thank you for sharing your knowledge!</p>

<p>Maybe I can answer myself. According to Canon Camera Museum:</p>

<p>[The EF28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM]is practically identical to the EF28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM optically and mechanically, but it has a leather toned exterior finish for a higher quality look.</p>

<p>Also according to the same source, the non-USM version has different appertures.</p>

<p>Do both EF28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 have non-rotating front lens?</p>

<p>I do own the 50 1.4 and I always recommend it. In my case is particularly useful as when in film my favourite primes were 85 and 100 so, now with a 1.6x crop body (EOS 40D) the 50 provides me roughly 85 and it's worth every cent I paid for it (i bought the 40D body only and the 50 1.4 at the same time). Now I am going for a "cheap" zoom and considering 28-105 and 24-85 (maybe you'll also like to have alook at it) but, from what I have read and seen until coming to those two glasses as only options, the 50 1.4 is better at 50mm than both of the zooms. Anyway, it's double the price...</p>

<p>Edit: Didn't notice your update. Seems like you are not very budgt limited, so if it's a good price i'd go with the kit and buy the 50 1.4 also, easier to travel with ;-)</p>

<p>Hi there!<br>

I do own a EOS 40D, along with EF 50 1.4 USM and EF 28 2.8 and I'm happy with the 1.6x crop factor (in fact, when in film, my favourites are 85-100 and the 50 1.4 is worth every cent) but I was looking for a "summer gift" for myself and, despite my liking for the primes, and until I can afford the 100/2.8 Macro USM I was thinking in getting into a small zoom. So far, my options have been reduced to two: EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM and EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM</p>

<p>There are plenty of posts in these forums regarding opinions and comparisons in both lenses, so now it's only a matter of me to choose. But, still there is one question I haven't been able to come to an answer: which are the differences between the first and the second version (i.e. 3.5-4.5 II) of the aforementioned EF 28-105 USM? Can I safely assume are minor improvements and in terms of usage and quality both versions can yield the same results? Am I correct in that there was even a version without USM? (this just out of curiosity, I'm also a big fan of "true" USM and if the option exists I'll go for it)</p>

<p>Well, I cannot refrain myself asking... Any other suggestion you experts may have as a third alternative for me to look for? You know the paradox of choice (the more choices you have, the more insecure you are with your decision), but... ;-)</p>

<p>Thanks and greetings from a sunny Spain!</p>

<p>First hint: The winder knob screws off clockwise - i.e. against the winding direction.</p>

<p>Thank you! Unfortunately, no luck (or no hability to locate a suitable result ;-)</p>

<p>Hi there!<br /> I have been trying to remove the top plate of an Isolette III mk2 in not a great shape. This is the first one I am dismantling (not Isolette but Isolette III mk2) and the top plate removal is a bit tricky in this version.<br /> AFAIK (mainly per instructions in rolandandcaroline's website) the film winder knob should be removed clockwise (i.e, as if advancing the film?) but I have ended up with a broken knob (top wheel in one hand, film shaft in the other).<br /> My question is, can anybody please provide me with some more detailed instructions on this particular step? Are the instructions I'm following correct? Any remark to them? What am I doing wrong? Could it be possible that due to the general shape of this individual camera, the film winder was weaker than expected? I have another one to check, but I would rather ask to someone with experience on this matter than break the other camera.<br /> Thanks in advance for your help.</p>