vidom

I own quite a few East German lenses, and, living in the former GDR and having seen lots and lots of these lenses when shopping around for old stuff, I have never ever encountered an East German lens that did not have this 1Q-designation. Some say that this mark was used for lenses selected for the export markets, but as far as I know all lenses available in the GDR also had this mark. I believe this was a marketing gag; socialist propaganda didn't allow for anything else than first quality products anyway, so they wouldn't admit that there were lenses of lower quality.

I think this is a film flatness problem. Your Super Ikonta is a folder; whenever you unfold it you have negative pressure on the inside that may effect the film flatness. One measure against that is to unfold the camera before winding the film prior to shooting. Any Tessar type lens works best stopped down to at least f8 anyway, so stopping down may also improve your results. This is a very solid camera so there is no alignment problem to be expected as long as the rangefinder is ok, which it seems to be.

My latest akquisition is an Icarex 35S TM with a Carl Zeiss 1,8/50mm

Ultron lens. This lens is a strange beast. Icarex cameras were the

first Zeiss Ikon SLRs made after the Zeiss Ikon / Voigtländer merger

at the end of the 60s. Some of the Icarex TM (=M42) lenses are

Voigtländer designs, some are Zeiss designs, all had the Zeiss

designation on the front ring. Normally the lens names would indicate

the origin of the lens design, so a Distagon is a Zeiss design and an

Ultron or a Dynarex a Voigtländer design. With the Voigtländer VSL1

TM camera (which is nearly identical with an Icarex 35s) came a

1,8/50 Color-Ultron lens that is an exact Zeiss Planar copy. I have

one of those as well and it's definitely a different lens design

compared with the 1,8/50 Ultron. The Ultron has a concave front

element that no other Ultron labled Voigtländer lens seems to have;

this is a most unusual feature for a late 60's normal lens. So - is

this really a Voigtländer design? Can anybody give me more

information on this lens?

 

Peter

I have one (with a few lenses and a Turnit 3 finder) and I like it. What I like most is that everything is completely different, compared with a Leica III f or a Contax IIa of the same vintage. The Voigtländer design department must have taken a Leica and a Contax, analyzed them and spent much thouhgt about an alternative approach to every design problem this kind of camera may cause. Actually using it may seem strange at first, but I think this is mostly because Leica controls have become kind of a standard. The Prominent's ergonomics are not that bad. What I don't like is the size of the wideangle and tele lenses; they are too big due to the complicated bayonet mount that resembles the Contax mount.

There is a very intersting feature on this by Dante Stella:

 

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

 

In short, there is a plausible explanation why some Russian LTM lenses may cause trouble.

I am using the VC-Meter. Results are fine; I think it's more precise and covers a greater metering range than a Leicameter (CdS vs. Silicon), batteries are no problem. It's also smaller and works with all my meterless cameras, a Leicameter would be useless for my Voigtländer Prominent or my Super Ikonta III I'm using my VC-Meter with. I have no trouble with the ISO dial, but I don't like the "on"-switch on the back that accidentally activates the meter when carrying it around in a bag or pocket. This is why you can't use it with one of these Leica everready-cases made to accommodate both body and Leicameter. Still I'd recommend it.

I'm using a Leica IIIf and a IIIa for actual shooting. My only LTM

wideangle lens is a Jupiter 12 2,8/35mm; all my other LTM lenses are

original Leitz lenses. I'm getting quite satisfactory results with my

Jupiter 12, but there still is this metaphysical doubt - it's not a

Leitz lens. I wonder if there is any visible improvement to be

expected from using a Summaron 3,5 vs. my Jupiter 12 (as I will not

spend the premium for a LTM Summaron 2,8/35). I believe the Summaron

M 2,8/35 I have for my M3 is a little sharper, but without serious

testing I won't know for sure, it's not much of a difference anyway;

the Summaron 3,5 is said to be not as good as the 2,8. Has anyone

actually directly compared a Jupiter 12 vs. a Summaron 3,5?

Nice picture! I have a mid-50s silver LTM Jupiter-12 I bought for about 10$ a few years ago; I must have been lucky, my one seems to be as sharp and contrasty as my 2,8/35 Summaron, although it is, ahem, mechanically challenged, thanks to Sovjet qc.

Mike,

don't forget that these 6x6 or 6x9 folders have very shallow DOF, especially those with 105mm lenses, so exact focusing is necessary to get sharp pictures even when the lens is stopped down (just try what effect a few cm difference on your distance scale will have with a 105 mm lens on your SLR, DOF is exaclty the same). Guestimating won't do at distances below at least 10 meters. These amateur-level cameras were originally meant to produce negs for contact printing, big enlargements never were an issue, so ultimate sharpness wasn't really required. Even a perfectly aligned lens will be very hard to focus precisely. Film flatness is another big problem with 6x9 folders. Nowadays these cameras are best used for landscape photography, using a tripod, stopped down a lot and focused at infinity. For anything else, use a rangefinder or another camera.

ZS makes a lot of sense if you try to print every neg on grade 2 paper and want a full scale of tonal values on your print. With the greater exposure latitude of modern negative materials and multigrade paper there is a big chance to get quite acceptable results from most negs using average exposure and average development; the rest can be done with dodging and burning most of the time. But understanding the idea behind ZS still helps getting good pictures. Sometimes I'm using a spot meter to identify the darkest and brightest areas of the scene to find out if all values are still within the contrast range of the film I use, trying to get shadow detail without burning out the lights, and I know that I have to increase development time with low contrast subjects - this is far from working with ZS, but it's the same idea, in a way. Just don't make a religion of it.

Your Nettar Lens is propably uncoated. The Novar Anastigmat is a (pre- WWII) three element triplet design, so there are not too many glass-to-air-surfaces that could cause flare, but use a lens shade anyway. With this lens design there is not much difference to be expected between coated an uncoated lenses. You'll want to stop down at least to f16, then you may expect relatively sharp pictures with low to medium contrast; HP5 is not very contrasty, so it may be advisable to increase development time a bit. Just try and have fun!

Hello Jason,

 

you found arguably the finest classic compact camera of all in your closet. The multicoated Sonnar lens is a Zeiss lens licenced to Rollei; it plays in the same league as Leica optics. Some people lament the lack of a rangefinder or any automatic functions; admittedly this is hardly the right camera for action photography, but it gives you total control about all camera functions, which may be what you want joining a photo class. You may want an external rangefinder for close distance work, but normally guessing the distance will do due to the DOF of the 40mm lens. You better avoid flash work, the hot shue on the bottmom of the camera is very cumbersome. If the camera hasn't been used for a while the mechanical shutter may need a CLA, just check if 1/2 second sounds like half a second. The camera originally takes a PX27 5,6V mercury battery not available in the US any more, but Stephen Gandy writes that it works with the modern 6V PX27 as well (no liability for this info). Check Cameraquest for further information. Have fun with it!

 

Peter

I am proud owner of a Voigtländer Prominent I that originally came

with a 2/50mm Ultron lens. I have recently added a 3,5/35 Skoparon

and a 4,5/100 Dynaron lens to my collection. The Ultron has a great

reputation, but there is very little information on the web about the

other lenses. As far as I know Voigtländer wanted to play in the same

league as Leica and Contax, but didn't succeed due to the slow speed

of their lenses and the complicated behind-the-lens Compur shutter

design. I'd like to know whether the quality of the Skoparon and

Dynaron is on par with comparable offerings from Leitz and Zeiss of

that time. Has anyone ever tested these lenses or compared them

directly with their peers of the same vintage? The only thing I can

say - without serious testing - is that my Ultron seems to be

somewhat sharper than my 1949 coated Summitar (at least in the

field), but not quite as good as a 2nd Series Summicron - but getting

close. I have not yet seriously shot with the other lenses and I have

no Zeiss lenses to compare them with. Any experiences?

 

Peter

Hi Al,

 

just to put one thing right: Leica customer service has finally realized that there are quiete a few people around actually shooting with thread mount Leicas. I have just had a IIIf CLAed and the shutter curtains replaced in Solms, and the service person I talked to told me they service any old Leica now. It cost me twice what I have originally paid for the camera itself, but it works perfectly now.

 

It's true that any screw mont Leica is a very old camera now, the old lenses are - in spite of their reputation - not on par with modern glass, and it definitely requires a special attitude towards photography to shoot with one seriously, so I wouldn't think a Leica IIIc would be the right choice as a first rangefinder camera. But I love the feeling of quality these old cameras radiate, and I do believe it inspires me using it.

 

Peter

This is going to start a holy war. Anyway, I think this is a no-brainer. You're talking about a classic camera on the same precision level as a Rolleiflex... Leica M3 with Summicron lens. Vintage Alpas are said to be prone to trouble with their shutters, so are the original Zeiss Contax cameras (although a well-maintained IIa with Sonnar lens is a very fine camera indeed); early Contarexes may have problems with the selenium meter, later ones with the electronic metering. Or does it have to be a slr? Do you need a built-in meter? TTL metering? Consider a Leicaflex SL 2 then.

 

Ciao

Peter

I have a Super Ikonta III with Tessar lens. It's absolutely peerless due to its size. Apart from Voigtlander's Perkeo (of which a very rare rangefinder version exists - I have yet to find one) there is no smaller 6x6-Camera with coupled rangefinder. It's a lot smaller then any new 35mm SLR outfit. Results are fine. The older Super Ikontas are bricks by comparison. The IV is a III with an uncoupled selenium meter that is propably next to useless after 50 years, so I'd prefer the III.

 

Peter

This thread doesn't make much sense to me. The noise of the shutter depends a lot on the state the shutter is in. I went to a Leica dealer and had a look on quite a few used M-Leicas recently (which ended up with me buying a perfectly working M3 that looks like it was used by a war photog for all of it's 38 years - but cheap it was!), each of the M bodies had a different sound, some of them were actually quite loud. I also had a IIIf body CLAed recently which was significantally quieter afterwards. I presume that new or recently serviced shutters are the quietest ones, never mind which M they are in.

 

Peter

Roberto, I think it's the other way 'round - build quality is way beyond any new Leica lens I've seen lately (and my one is certainly not falling apart in spite of it's bulk or weight). It's supposed to be quite soft wide open; I can't confirm this from my own experience since I haven't used it wide open yet, but image quality stopped down is very satisfactory, certainly a lot sharper than my Summaron 2,8/35. I can positively confirm that it has a bad tendency towards flare. And heavy it is! But it really is fun to play with!

 

Peter

Hello,

 

on his wonderful homepage Stephen Gandy writes: "Not generally

recognized is all 90 Summicrons are low production lenses. From a

collector's standpoint, nice original style chrome versions are VERY

under priced relative to their rarity."

 

Having bought a 1963 chrome Summicron 90 a few days ago (for shooting

and as a match for my M3, not for gatherig dust in a showcase), I've

tried to find out more about that; Denis Laney gives some numbers in

his Leica book but he stops with the 1967 or 1969 production numbers,

as far as I recall. This early version must be the second one (the

first being the one with detachable hood) and as far as I know was in

production to the late 70s. Does anyone know the total number of

lenses of this type produced, and how many of those were chrome ones?

 

Anyone else using this Summicron type for shooting - please share the

experience!

 

Thank you!

 

Peter

Hello,

 

my Pentacon Six ttl metering prism (bought very cheap) is up to 3

stops off, using the correct batteries. The misadjustment seems

nonlinear, so it doesn't make much sense to simply change the ASA-

setting. Is it possible to readjust the meter? If so, what has to be

done?

 

Thank you!

 

Peter