peter_a._klein

Alex: I'm curious--does the .85x "magnifier" allow you to see the wide-angle frames better when wearing glasses? With glasses, I can't quite see the 35mm frames.

Some people need more eye relief than others--I can't see the 35mm frame. Other glasses wearers are OK with 35mm, but not with 28mm.

Thanks,

--Peter

Joseph: Is that a Bartok string quartet in the examples? :-)

The K100D is beginning to look more and more tempting. Especially for available light fans. I can hand-hold a Leica at 1/8 second and get usable shots (and a few more unusable ones). The shake reduction would probably increase the percentage of usable shots and truly sharp ones significantly. It may help reduce the effects of vibration due to mirror slap, helping make an SLR more like an RF for slow-speed shooting.

--Peter

Hey, Ollie, nice t'see yuh! My cuzin from Noo Yawk wuz just here. So she sez to me, she sez: Brooklyn is considud duh new Manhattan now, 'cuz nobody can affowd to live in Manhattan no more!

Nice dawg.

(and do they unde'stand y'all down theah in Gowjah?)

--Peter

The year was 1976. After I'd graduated from college, in a fit of youthful poverty, I sold my M2, 50/2 DR Summicron and 90/2.8 "fat" Tele-Elmarit for the then-princely sum of $450.00. Approximately what I'd paid for them a few years before.

Fast forward to the early 80s. I wanted to get back something like what I'd sold. But it was not to be. I discovered that used "M" prices had literally quadrupled in the not-quite-decade since I'd sold my M2. When I asked of various camera sales people why prices had gone up so much, the answer was always the same: "Japanese collectors." I was told of Japanese businessmen who traveled the country buying up every piece of Leica M they could find in decent cosmetic condition, and shipping them back to Japan. They paid cash, and they would pay whatever ridiculous sums the sellers would come up with. The collectors back home in Japan paid those prices, and more. So U.S. prices rose to fit the offers.

I don't know if this was true, or part of the general Japan-bashing that was popular in the U.S. around that time. But I heard it from too many people to discount it entirely.

So I found a IIIf--what was then a fairly un-collectible Leica--and used that for years.

--Peter

85/90mm lenses I have known:

I own a C/V 90/3.5 Lanthar. It's actually about the best bang for the buck available. It is an outstanding lens, and very light and handy for hiking and travel. Though it's slow, you can open the Lanthar wide without discernable loss of quality. The only other 90 lens you can remotely say that about is the Leica 90 APO ASPH.

The 90/2 Summicron-M from the 80s and later is OK wide open, and as sharp as you'll need from 2.8 down. I use it when I need f/2 (e.g. for theatre/concerts) or when I don't mind the weight. The black 1980s and later models (49mm or 55mm filters) are a little better optically and much lighter (~400 gm) than the older chrome models (>600 gm).

The only way I know of to improve on the 90 Summicron-M is to get the 90 APO ASPH Summicron. Very expensive, but as good at f/2 as the older lens is at f/4 or 5.6. It has a very sharp "peak" in the focus, so at f/2 you may find that the object in focus looks spectacularly sharp, but the object one inch behind it looks less sharp than if you took the same picture with the older Summicron wide-open. I tried one, but decided against it because of price and how much I would actually use it at f/2. If I had the money to burn, I'd buy it in a minute.

Before the 90 Summicron, I had an 85/2 Nikkor. Very heavy chrome, about 600 gm . Almost as good as the Summicron in the center, significantly less so at the edges and wide open. It also has a wiry, "double-line" or "ni-sen" bokeh, so it was better for theatre work than for stuff with a lot of out-of-focus background. Aside from the 90 Summicron-M, this is as good as it gets in a non aspheric f/2 medium tele RF lens.

Before the 85/2 Nikkor, I had an 85/1.9 Canon. Didn't like it. It was too soft wide open, and didn't improve as much as it could stopped down. Also, very heavy chrome/brass lens.

The old 90/2.8 silver elmarit from the 60s is a very good lens, much underrated and therefore available at less cost. It's not quite as sharp as the Lanthar, but has a very pleasing quality, a bit like the difference between the 50mm Dual Range Summicron vs. the modern one. It's a long, skinny lens, about 330 gm. Great for people who have big hands, like me--the focus ring is out a bit farther than other lenses. Great for portraits at f/4, sharp as you need at f/8. Other lenses are better on a dull day or with slow film when you have to shoot at the widest stops. It gives the tactile pleasure of the old E. Leitz build quality and craftsmanship.

The old 90/4 Elmar is a perfectly usable lens at middle apertures. I happily used one for years. The 90/3.5 Lanthar is better, though.

Hope this helps,

--Peter

. . . TO JERRY LEHRER. . .

Jerry: The DVD may not play automatically, depending on your computer setup. And it's not like a movie. It's just a collection of Adobe PDF files of the various Viewfinder issues. There's also a "Topical Index" that links subjects to individual issues (but does not jumpt to the exact page number, you have to go there yourself).

The following assumes you have a PC.

Your best bet is to put the DVD in your DVD-capable drive. Wait about 10 seconds, then double-click on your "My Computer" icon.

Find the drive letter of your DVD drive and double click on that.

You should see the root directory of the DVD.

- Introduction.pdf has rudimentary instructions on how to use the CD.

- Readme.txt tells how to obtain Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is needed to read the pdf files. Many people already have this.

- Topical Index.pdf is the index.

You could also go into the Publications folder and browse the issues individually.

Hope this helps.

--Peter

Oops, a stray comma got on the end of my URL for Dante Stella's article on Russian lens incompatibility. The correct URL is:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

--Peter

Henry, my experience is that all four Russian lenses I have tried focused incorrectly on my Leicas. The two I tried after I got a Zorki 4 both focused correctly on the Zorki and incorrectly on the Leicas. And my Leica and VC screw-mount lenses don't focus correctly on the Zorki. They're just different machines that share the same lens mount.

You don't notice it as much with a 50/2 or 35/2.8 as with a 50/1.5 or an 85/2. But I believe Dante Stella's assesment is correct--Soviet lens cams are calibrated for a slightly different standard focal length than Leica lenses. See:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html,

especially the section "Ivan the Incompatible."

Perhaps the myth dies hard because people want to believe they can get Leica quality in a lens that cost only $12. Or because they shoot stopped down. And because real information on what went on in Soviet factories is so hard to come by.

Others may differ, but my experience is that you can adjust them to focus correctly at infinity, and they will be slightly off close up, or vice versa. Or you can adjust them for about 8 ft., and you'll have a reasonable compromise that depth of field may cover most of the time. But it isn't quite right, and you'll notice it at wider apertures, close up. Many people interpret this as evidence that the lens isn't as sharp as it really is. Or they blame lousy Soviet quality control.

That said, the difference may not matter at f/8 on a bright day.

I like my Jupiter-8. At wide stops, it has a pleasing retro quality that evokes the 1930s, and stopped down it's a perfectly good lens. So I shoot it on my Zorki when I want to use it. If you want a lens of similar design, the f/1.4, f/1.5 and f/2 Nikkors and Canons have the same general optical flavor, but without the focusing funkiness. Another article on Dante's site talks about them quite extensively.

Here's a self-portrait take with the J-8 on a Zorki 4, I believe 1/30 at f/4: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/

--Peter

Do you wear glasses? Many people (myself included) have trouble seeing the entire 35mm frame line set when wearing glasses. On a vertical shot, the bottom might be the thing you don't see at moment of pressing the shutter, hence if you shifted the camera up even slightly at the last moment, you wouldn't notice.

--Peter

I *had* to find this word. It turns out to have at least two spellings. It was posted here with the less common of the two, hence there was difficulty in "Googling" it. Anyway:

<p>Snollygoster

snol?ly?gos?ter

Pronunciation: 'snä-lE-"gäs-t&r

Function: noun

Etymology: probably alteration of snallygaster a mythical creature that preys on poultry and children

Date: circa 1860

: a shrewd unprincipled person

- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

: One, especially a politician, who is guided by personal advantage rather than by consistent, respectable principles.

- American Heritage Dictionary

<p>See:

<br>http://www.snollygoster.com/html/whatissnollygoster.html

<br>http://users.ezwv.com/~fritzius/avatar/snollygoster.html

<br>http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0512800.html

<br>http://www.funwords.com/library/s.htm

<p>--Peter

<p> Let's try those links again in a more usable form:

<p><a href="http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P2190709Harpo.jpg">

50/1.4 at f/2 </a> <br>

<a href="http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/Pb270206Grac.jpg">

50/1.4 at f/1.4 </a> <br>

<p><a href="http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P2190711Footsie.jpg">

100/2.8 </a> <br>

<p><a href="http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P3110765Furry.jpg">

28/2.8 </a> <br>

<p><a href="http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P4190807Harpo.jpg">

50/3.5 (a) </a> <br>

<a href="http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P4190802Laurel.jpg">

50/3.5 (b) </a> <br>

<a href="http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P4190801HarpoRimlight.jpg">

50/3.5 © </a> (50% crop) <br>

<a href="http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P4190797blossoms.jpg">

50/3.5 (d) </a> <br>

<p><a href="http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/PC180419SkateRail.jpg">

50/1.8 a </a> <br>

<a href="http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/PC180434Boing2.jpg">

50/1.8 b </a> <br>

Roger: You can use aperture-priority and manual exposure control. Operation is just like using a (very) old-fashioned manual SLR with no auto diaphragm. The lens is alsways stopped down to whatever the aperture ring says it is. You have to open up for focusing, and stop down for metering and shooting. You can only use ESP or center-weighted metering, not spot.

You will probably find that the metering is a little off at the widest and narrowest stops, and the effect is greater the faster the lens. All you need to do to deal with this is to shoot a bunch of pictures on manual exposure at all your lenses' different stops but the same equivalent exposure. Then figure out the amount of compensation you have to use.

For example, the E-1 with my 50/1.4 lens meters 2/3 stops too dark at f/1.4, 1/3 stop too dark at f/2, and a tiny bit low (but too little to bother with at f/2.8). It's about 1/3 stop high at f/16.

Once you know this, you can dial in a +/- exposure compensation when you use the extreme stops.

I find the use of manual lenses to be easiest in availalble light, when I can just focus at the widest couple of stops and shoot without stopping down. For static subjects in bright light, it's no big deal to stop down. For anything moving, it can be a pain.

You can see some of my E-1 shots here, many taken with OM Zuikos.

http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/

50/1.4 at f/2: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P2190709Harpo.jpg

at f/1.4: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/Pb270206Grac.jpg

100/2.8: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P2190711Footsie.jpg

28/2.8: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P3110765Furry.jpg

50/3.5:

http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P4190807Harpo.jpg

http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P4190802Laurel.jpg

http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P4190807Harpo.jpg (50% crop)

http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/P4190797blossoms.jpg

50/1.8:

http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/PC180419SkateRail.jpg

http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/E1/PC180434Boing2.jpg

--Peter

--Peter

Kelly: Thanks, I've read your earlier posts re. Russian lenses and was hoping you would weigh in.

Mike: Yes, the whole compatiblity controversy really muddies the waters. If the issues with Russian lenses on Leica/VC cameras is just a matter of quality control or incompetent repair, then it's just a question of getting a good specimen. But if Dante is right about "Ivan the Incompatible," then the only thing we can do is rely on depth of field with a lens adjusted for best compromise. Russian roulette, anyone?

I'll have to decide how much time and dollars I want to sink into this. Meanwhile, I have a working Zorki-4 with a matched J-8, CLAed by Oleg Khalyavin, so I don't have to rock the boat if I don't want to.

I just wish I could use the lens on my M cameras. . . :-)

--Peter

David: My lens, vintage 1962, doesn't have a visible yellow cast, and the coatings are a nice blue color. I don't have any personal experience with any J-8 lens except this one, and I haven't delved into things like pincushion distortion.

The Kiev repair site describes the Kiev/Contax version of the lens. On the Leica screw mount version, the lens is more complex, because the lens mount does the focusing, not the camera. Same optics, different mount. It was fun to read, anyway. :-)

If you read up on the Zeiss Sonnar 50/2, you'll get plenty of information on the J-8, because they are basically the same lens.

Here's a mirror self-portrait with the Zorki and J-8, taken at f/4:

http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/31PeterZorkiMirror.jpg

--Peter

I normally shoot with an M6 TTL or an M4-P. I also have a Zorki 4

with 50/2 Jupiter-8 that I inherited from a late friend. While the

camera works well, it is a bit clunky and the viewfinder is

impossible when I'm wearing glasses. I really like the J-8 lens,

though. It has a 1930s "retro" look that I really like, especially at

f/2.8 and f/4. Great for B&W pictures of people.

Right now the lens focuses correctly on the Zorki. It is a bit off on

the Leica. I suspect the Zorki and J-8 were adjusted to each other.

Would be worth it to get the J-8 adjusted to focus on my Leicas (with

LTM-M adapter)?

I'm generally familiar with the compatibility issues between FSU

lenses and Leica. If the J-8 can be adjusted so that it focuses

properly at all distances, great. If I would end up with the

infamous Jupiter-9 85/2 problem, where the lens focuses properly from

12 feet to infinity but is off at closer range, then it's not worth

it. Been there, done that. :-)

If the J-8 could be adjusted so that it is accurate in the 3 to 12

foot range wide open, and depth of field would cover the farther

distances at f/5.6 and narrower, that might be OK, but I'd have to

think about it.

Any thoughts, particularly direct experience? Thanks.

--Peter

When I had an 85/2 chrome Nikkor in LTM, I used a generic clip-on Pentax hood for (I believe) an 85mm Pentax lens. It was meant for a 49mm thread, but it worked fine with the Nikkor.

--Peter