jim_baker6

The old Voigtlander Vito and Vitomatics with their Color-Skopar lenses are great cameras. I had a Vitomatic which had a dim rangefinder patch but it was repaired as part of a service. I think it was as simple as cementing an optical component back in place. Personally I always factor into the purchase price a service with these old cameras. The leaf shutter in particular sooner or later will need a service. If the light meter is not working then I don't think it can be repaired and, personally, I would look for another camera. The service completed and the light meter OK, I have peace of mind. In my case I eventually sold the Vitomatic for two reasons: firstly, the viewfinder tended to flare in backlit conditions and, secondly, the camera was a little heavy. I bought an early Vito B, the one where the aperture and shutter speed adjustments are completely independent. These early cameras do not have a rangefinder so I purchased a separate Voigtlander rangefinder that clips into the cold shoe on top. This simplifies the optics making the viewfinder and the rangefinder extremely bright (much brighter than in the case of the Vitomatic) at the expense of slower operation (the focussing distance has to be manually transferred from the rangefinder to the lens). I'm very happy with my Vito B and use it regularly. The Color-Skopar lenses in the Vito B and Vitomatics are the same and all produce great images.

<p>I had a plastic CV 21mm viewfinder that came with the (CV 21mm f4) lens I bought. I am a glasses wearer so either the viewfinder must have enough eye relief or there must be a way for me to fit a correction lens. I have had several CV viewfinders and have always found the eye relief to be inadequate. This 21mm was no exception. Also there's no way to fit a correction lens. I then bought the plastic Leica 21mm viewfinder and it worked, with glasses. Only just but it worked. It would be even better if I did not have to wear glasses. It's relatively expensive but I buy lenses with the intention of keeping them and after a while you forget the cost and just have the pleasure of using it. </p>

<p>Thanks for the link. It's a mine of information. It seem that the screw mount Leicas were specifically designed for the 50mm f3.5 Elmar i.e. the viewfinder was designed to just exclude this lens (which is just about as small a lens as you can get). So almost any other lens will intrude so the question becomes; does it intrude too much? I have the Canon 50mm f3.5 collapsible and it does not intrude either. The only other lens I know of that does not intrude is the Super-Rokkor 45mm f2.8. </p>

<p>Does the Voigtlander (CV) 50mm f2.5 screwmount lens intrude into the IIIf viewfinder and, if so, by how much? It looks like the lens was designed so that it did not intrude significantly, if at all. I have a few screwmount lenses and have a rough idea of the lens diameter and (flange-to-front) length combination that would intrude into the viewfinder so if a fellow member only has the lens and could let me know the dimensions, I would be grateful.</p>

<p>I use Newton Ellis (<cite>www.<strong>newtonellis</strong>.com)</cite> who are based in Liverpool in the UK. I can recommend them.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. Of course the 'contest' was fanciful. I just happened to have tackled the same problem for both cameras (how to adapt the viewfinders for glasses wearers) so I thought I would share that with you. When I was a teenager I had a simple camera (whose name I have long forgotten). It had 2 shutter speeds (probably 1/60 and 1/125) and apertures (fully open and a smaller aperture set with a lever that rotated a disc, complete with a hole of the required size, into the beam path). Coupled rangefinder? You must be joking! I fondly remember that camera and fearlessly guessed all the settings. I bought the Vito B with my old camera in mind. Can I recapture the simple pleasure of using my old camera? We'll see. If I'm happy with the results I'll share them with you. In 1963, as a 13 year old, I went on a school trip (from the UK) to Russia (Moscow-Leningrad) and took my camera with me. I still have all the slides. They have been attacked by fungus so I recently scanned them digitally. Under magnification I can see that the lens was pretty crummy but strangely I never worried about the image quality over the 50 years I was just looking at the slides! I just enjoyed them and they reminded me of some of the things that happened during the trip. We went to look at a mock up of the first manned USSR spacecraft. I got out my camera to take a photo and my teacher said to me: It'll never come out in this light. I got a great 'kick' out of the final image (see below) and I never fail to remember his comment when I look at it. </p><div></div>

<p>This might seem like a very unequal contest. The Leica IIIg is indeed a wonderful camera but the little Vito B does hold its own and bears comparison, particularly as regards the viewfinder and focussing. Firstly I have found that the Vito B 50mm f2.8 (and the more common f3.5 version) are excellent lenses but at medium-near distances and wider apertures need to be focussed with the aid of a rangefinder accessory. The optimum focus is not as tolerant to guesses as is suggested by the depth-of-field scale on the lens. The genuine Voigtlander rangefinder is best because its scale matches that on the lens. This makes setting the focus more intuitive. I wear glasses which presents a problem for both cameras. The peep holes are small so it is difficult to see all the image without moving my eye; using the rangefinders with glasses is fine for both cameras. My prescription is -2.5D spherical plus -1D astigmatic. For the IIIg I found an SLR dioptic correction with -3D. I removed its sides using a Stanley knife and substituted it for the 'double peephole'. I used Blue Tack to fix it. It provides enough adhesion without damaging the body. It works fine! The Vito B was more tricky. Although I can use its rangefinder with glasses, its easier to use the camera with when both the rangefinder and the camera have correction lenses, like the IIIg. For the rangefinder I used a couple of washers stuck together to provide the required offset. I ground a flat on one side, using a bench mounted belt sander, so it would fit. The lens was cut from an old pair of glasses; again it was cleaned up and a flat added by using the sander. Double sided foam tape was used to stick the lens to the washer; Blue Tack to stick the washers to the rangefinder. I was careful to keep the orientation of astigmatic axis since I always use the rangefinder in 'landscape' mode. This would not work for the camera viewfinder in 'portrait' mode so I purchased a lens used for opthalmic swimming goggles (the Aqua Sphere Eagle system). A -3.5D lens worked best. It was easy to cut out the required shape and trim it with the sander. I cut a triangular piece with a 'mousehole' from an Al sheet to get the required offset so I could mount the lens (using the same double sided adhesive and Blu Tak combination). How do they compare? The IIIg viewfinder is great what with its parallax corrected framelines. The Vito B is incredibly bright, I guess because the optics is so simple (just 3 lenses including my correction lens). It's by far the brightest viewfinder of any camera I own. For the rangefinders, the IIIg is 1.5x so being a telescope it needs to be focussed; the Voigtlander is 1x and so doesn't need to be focussed. Both will distinguish by focussing an object at 4 from an object at at 5 metres, although the IIIg is a little better. On the other hand, the 1 metre to infinity rotation of the Vito B lens is 240deg vs. 180deg for the IIIg lens and this makes the Vito B focussing a little better. But its 'splitting hairs', both work fine, the main difference being that the IIIg is coupled and the Vito B is uncoupled. Both are more accurate than my SLR (an Olympus OM-1n) fitted with a 50mm f1.4 lens. With my SLR I can't distinguish by focussing an object at 4 metres from an object at 5 metres (and almost in recognition of this the 1 metre to infinity rotation of my f1.4 lens is only 90 deg) . The Vito B leaf shuttter is slightly quieter than the IIIg cloth shutter but there's not much in it. The Vito B wind on ratchets but the IIIg knob wind is completely silent. Of course the leaf shutter synchronises flash at all speeds. So all-in-all the little Vito B is not steamrollered by its more illustrious opponent. It emerges bloody but unbowed from the contest...and it's a lot cheaper, too!</p><div></div>

<p>I'm a physicist and have written a number of patent applications. An application does not have to 'reflect the process' by which the invention was developed. An application has to describe the thing and show how it is 'inventive over the prior art'. To achieve this its normal to describe the 'prior art' and then state the 'inventive step' for which a patent is being applied for. This 'inventive step' and any other essential details form Claim 1. All inventions have to actually work so you also have 'embodiments' i.e. practical examples of the invention. In the case of a lens it would be certain radii, glass etc. leading to certain (acceptable) aberrations etc. It's not necessary to describe in an application how you actually arrived at the invention.<br>

Boy, it's much more interesting talking about lenses than it is talking about patents... <br>

</p>

<p>Hmmm, yes, agreed JDM. It's inconcievable that Rudolph did not know about the triplet and who knows what actually went on inside his 'little grey cells'? But of course he worked for a company (Zeiss) that (like all companies) would present the narrative to suit its purposes (Patents, marketing, lens sales, etc.). It would suit Zeiss for the whole development to be a Zeiss development. But what Zeiss unquestionably did (with Schott) was develop the new glasses that were needed in the Tessar design. </p>

<p>While it is possible for the Tessar to have been developed from the Triplet, as Martin says this was not the way the design evolved and that evolution was sufficiently inventive for a Tessar Patent to have been granted. Zeiss and others produced many new lens designs but where Zeiss was unique was in the development of novel types of glass e.g. the barium crowns (in collaboration with Schott). This enabled Zeiss and others to develop the new lens designs. The front achromat of the Zeiss Anastigmat was 'old' glass and the rear achromat was 'new' glass. Ultimately the Tessar was formed by splitting the front achromat of this Anastigmat (what a mouthfull!). This provided two additional two glass-air interfaces for the designer to play with which, it appears, made a big difference. </p>

<p>There is a slight difference in quality. The 24mm f2.8 is optimum in the f5.6-f11 range across the frame. The 28mm f3.5 peaks at f8 and is slightly soft fully open, particularly at the edges. The 24mm is a fantastic lens. I use it as a landscape lens and where I want to photograph people in the context of their surroundings. The 28mm would just about do the same job and the image quality would be almost as good as the 24mm. The 28mm is astoundingly good value-for-money. Wider lenses (21mm and wider) in my view are for where you want to exaggerate the foreground vs. the background but for simple landscapes everything looks too far away. On the other hand, 35mm is sometimes not wide enough for landscapes. So my advice is go for the 24mm f2.8 if you can afford it. You will not be disappointed. I have two 36" x 24" landscape prints on my wall taken with my 24mm f2.8. I also have a 28mm f3.5. I would use it if my 24mm f2.8 lens was away being repaired (or something like that) and I'm sure I would be happy with it...but otherwise I would always use my 24mm lens.</p>

<p>Many thanks!</p>

<p>The IIIg has a black flash sign on the shutter dial for flash synchronisation at 1/50 sec. It has another (red) flash sign for synchronisation at 1/30. The manual states that these are the only settings for flash synchronisation. So far so good. There's a 30-1 setting to access the slow speeds. The red flash setting also enables the slow speeds to be accessed while maintaining flash synchronisation. My question is: what does the 30-1 setting do that the red flash setting doesn't?<br>

I can understand that the flash synchronisation will not be maintained if the 30-1 setting is used instead of the red flash setting but is there any occasion when I must use the 30-1 setting in instead of the red flash setting? </p>

 

<p>You have certainly chosen a great 35mm camera for travelling and backpacking. I go trekking in places like Scotland and the Andes with my OM 1. I carry an Olympus Zuiko 24mm f2.8 for landscape (i.e. wide) shots. This lens has an extremely good reputation which I can confirm. I have 36" x 24" prints on my wall taken with this lens and they look fine (to me at least!). The only other lens I carry is a 50mm f1.4 but your f1.8 will do fine as well. I also carry a small flash gun. Both lenses are fitted with the right lens hood. That's all. A cheaper alternative to the 24mm lens is the 28mm f3.5. It's also a good performer, it's 'wide' but is not quite so 'wide' as the 24mm. As for your infinity focus problem, if you have the standard focussing screen (which you almost certainly will), it has a 'split image' patch dead centre. When the split image coincides, you have focus. If you can't do this while focussing on something at infinity, there's a mechanical problem somewhere. You should send everything away to have it looked at. If the camera and lens are working properly, when the lens focus is turned to infinity (i.e. until it can't be turned anymore) then everything at infinity will be in focus. If not, again there is a mechanical problem and you should have the camera and lens looked at. </p>

<p>I know this thread is no longer active but for the record I'd like to report that MS Optical have just (September 2012) produced a 50mm f1.1 'Sonnetar' lens. The 'Sonnetar' is in fact the same optical construction as their f1.3 Sonnar (which I mentioned above) and of course is the same optical construction as the Olympus 85mm. What is particularly interesting about this new lens is that the rear of the lens has a 'coma adjustment ring' with settings for infinity, 4m, 2m, and 1m. I suspect this adjustment does the same as the Olympus 85mm 'automatic adjustment at close focussing distances' except that it is a manual adjustment. Although MS Optical call it a 'coma adjustment ring' it appears also to correct for spherical aberration, at least that's what it says on the japancamerahunter.com website (they are marketing the lens). </p>

<p>Maciek: thanks for the advice. I have a Vito BR so I can appreciate what you are saying! It's a great camera, the only one I own where I can see the framelines, with glassses on, without moving my eye. Like the Vitomatic, it's a heavyweight. All my rangefinder cameras do a great job while being different. If I do have a problem it's having too many cameras to play with! I have a Konica II (no framelines, rangefinder and viewfinder combined), a Leica IIIg (separate magnified rangefinder, projected framelines), a Vito BR (combined 1:1 rangefinder and viewfinder, with projected framelines) and the Vito B (completely separate rangefinder, no framelines). To a greater or less extent as you add optics into the viewfinder, you lose contrast: clearest is my IIIg, then my Vito BR, then my Konica II. On the other hand, the Vito B has the simplest possible optics and is astonishingly bright which makes the viewed image appear sharp, too. Also the separate rangefinder, which is extremely easy to view, is 1:1 (there are no lenses in the viewing path, just a semi silvered mirror) so, unlike the IIIg, it doesn't have to be focussed. The only downside is of course that the rangefinder is uncoupled (although having the scale on the rangefinder match the scale on the lens barrel is a help).<br>

As I said, they are all different but, provided the problem of being a glasses wearer is addressed, they all do a good job. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>...one thing I forgot to mention: of course the existing Leica 'double porthole' is removed before attaching the correction lens.<br>

The Leica IIIg performance of course exceeds that of the Vito B in almost every way but I have a fondness for the Vito B puffing along behind the Leica. The 1:1 Voigtlander rangefinder is extraordinarly bright, brighter than the IIIg. Also the viewfinder (they are both about 0.7 magnification) is brighter, I guess because it consists of just two lenses (plus the correction lens). So optically I think the Vito B viewfinder wins out but of course the Vito B rangefinder is not coupled. The 50mm f2.8 Elmar vs. the 50mm f3.5 Color Skopar? They are both about the same at f8. At f4 the Elmar is a little sharper at the edges and the bokeh, again at the edges, is definitely better. That said in general use most of the pictures taken with either camera would be fine. The Vito B is lighter and, even with the rangefinder fitted, fits nicely in the hand. The Vito B wind on is ratcheted but the IIIg is wind on is completely silent. Both shutters are whisper quiet. There's quite a big difference in the price...<br />Well that's all folks!</p><div></div>

<p>I wear glasses so I'm always concerned about how useable is a camera's viewfinder. I've had a Voigtlander Vito B for some time and used it with a Kontur finder because its small viewfinder is hopeless for glasses wearers. The Kontur works fine but getting the best out of the lens needs rangefinder, even for its f3.5 lens. I recently bought a Leica IIIg whose viewefinder, even though it has parallax corrected projected framelines, is also hopeless for glasses wearers. I was determined to find a solution for both these cameras. My right eye glasses prescription is -2.75D spherical plus -2.0D cylindrical for distance and -0.5D spherical plus -2.0D cylindrical for near. I've tried cutting out the middle of my (plastic) glasses lens and fitting them into an eyepiece. It works fine when the camera is used horizontally but not when the camera is used vertically. There's just too much cylindrical astigmatism. I therefore experimented with correction eyepieces designed to fit various old SLR's and found by trial-and-error that a -3D correction eyepiece worked fine on the IIIg. I cut away the 'grooves ' at the side of the eyepiece (which would enable the lens to be slotted into place on an SLR) but kept the lip along the top. How to fit it to the Leica? You may laugh, but Blu Tak works fine! It holds the correction lens securely and of course does not damage the camera in any way. This solution was not possible for the Vito B because any SLR correction lens is too big i.e. would not allow the camera back to be opened (of course this is not a problem with the bottom opening Leica). I therefore experimented with plastic lenses designed for opthalmic swimming goggles. By trial-and-error I found that -3.5D lenses worked best with the Vito B. These lenses can be cut quite easily using a fine toothed coping saw. Again I used Blu Tak to secure the lens in place. As you can see, the lens is just the right size and does not interfere with the opening of the camera back.<br>

They both work fine!<br>

</p><div></div>

<p>Agreed, the 85mm handles like a standard 50mm lens. I can use it hand-held at 1/60th, in that respect its just like a 50mm lens. I have a 135mm f2.8 and a 200mm f4 Zuiko and I find these lenses need a higher shutter speed (1/250th or higher) to suppress the effect of vibration. If I am going to use these longer telephotos, I favour 400 ASA film and try to keep to a higher shutter speed. My 85mm version is particularly sharp at f2.8. Gary Reece in his exhaustive testing of all Zuiko lenses notes the same thing in one of his 85mm samples (his 'Zuiko MC' sample) so it appears to be a feature of some versions.</p>

<p>I have never handled the 100mm f2 lens so I can't compare but I have owned an 85mm f2 (s/n 218xxx) for many years and find it to be a very good lens. I did a bit of research on the design and posted my findings on this forum (13 April 2012). The lens is about as sharp as most Zuiko lenses; certainly sharpness, or lack of it, is not an issue for me. What I do notice about this lens is a nice smooth bokeh. I mean, you notice it on a 6x4" print, a print size that does not test the lens sharpness at all. As I said in my post, very sonnar-like. I think you will be very pleased with this lens. Good luck! </p>

<p>As Makul says, the lens takes the picture. However, I've read that, particularly in the early days, small changes were made during production so this would make me favour the later (OM 1n) version. </p>

<p>It is a solid performer. My one is 'black nose' and has a serial no. 317113. From what I can see, it's single coated (it has a pale blue reflection). Its at its best around f8-f11. </p>

 

<p>It's often overlooked and sometimes maligned, but the OM2000 has by far the smoothest wind mechanism in comparison with my other OM's. Also it has aperture and mirror prefire when using the self timer (to minimise camera vibrations when the shutter fires), 1/125th flash synchronisation, and spot metering. The shutter firing sequence is quite noisy, I think because of the mirror return. My OM-1n and OM 4 are quite similar. There's an audible 'flourish' to the wind on but with the OM2000 you hardly hear it happening.<br>

The main problem I have with the OM 3Ti is that it doesn't have a self timer and you can't lock up the mirror (or prefire the aperture). The OM 4Ti is a much better featured camera and in manual mode it mimics the OM 3Ti. </p>

 

<p>Peter: I have walked around in the Ullapool area for many years, not too far from Torridon. Haze in Scotland is much less of a problem that it is at altitude in the Andes. The light in Scotland can be very favourable. I sometimes look in 'Scotland the Wild Places' by Colin Prior to see just how good landscape photos in Scotland can be (although your portfolio currently at the bottom of this page is also a source inspiration). I have also experimented with ways of carrying my camera kit while trekking. I have settled on a small rucksack with a rugged bag-with-belt to hold the kit. The rucksack rests on the bag (actually an obsolete CCS 'Venus' bag) so most of the weight is supported on my hips via the belt. The advantage of this arrangement is that if I want to take a photo, I simply rotate the bag to the front to get my camera. I don't have to take off my rucksack. On long treks, the belt proved to be a little flimsy -it was a simple webbed belt and tended to drag on my hips- so I've just bought a much stiffer belt (similar the the belts used by the UK police) + a cushioning that attaches using velcro tabs. The whole arrangement is much more like a big rucksack with a proper hip support, while retaining the ability to rotate the bag to the front.<br>

</p>

<p>I think you have to think hard about exactly what pictures you are going to take. I can only share with you the reason for taking my 135mm f3.5 when I was trekking last year. My basic kit comprises an Olympus 24mm and 50mm prime, an OM2000 and a flashgun. My style of photography is narrative i.e. I take pictures as I go along that tell the story. Occasionally a great scene presents itself and I briefly turn all Ansel Adams. I take the OM2000 because it has a flash synchronisation speed of 1/125 sec. Contrast is a real (photographic) problem at altitude. Together with the flashgun, which has a GN of 28, I'm just about able to balance flash and ambient i.e. take adequately exposed photos of people + the background <em>during the day</em>. Normally, my 24mm lens is for scenes or for putting people in the scene and my 50mm is for everything else. Last year I was trekking over the Andes with the objective a ridge that afforded an unusual view of Machu Picchu. From the map I knew the distance from the ridge to the ruin and I had an idea of its extent, so I could guess the field-of-view. I figured the 135mm would do the trick. I chose the f3.5 because it's lighter and I bitterly regret carrying any excess weight when I'm struggling for breath half way up a hill-side. In the event either of my 135mm lenses would have been OK because haze was the limiting factor (see below where as much blue as possible has been removed using Photoshop). As a trophy shot it was great. It really puts the ruin in its context. I'm really pleased I took the telephoto but I didn't think the quality of the image was good enough to make an enlargement.<br>

I doubt I'd take a 200mm lens on a trek. I think the kind of scenes it would isolate would likely be too far away to make a really good photo. I use my 200mm for safaris and things like that. <br>

<em> </em></p><div></div>