orsetto

Wow: you snagged some NICE rarities there, @ben_hutcherson ! The 2.1 cm non-reflex superwide is still regarded as quite excellent: probably still eclipsing the later reflex-compromised 20mmf/3.5 v1, f4, f/3.5 v2 and f/2.8 iterations. It also looks really REALLY cool mounted on a plain-prism Nikon F with separate viewfinder fitted over the rewind crank. The original 7-element 5cm f/2 lenses are almost unknown today, most having been discarded, lost or hoarded by collectors during the rush to AI (they could not be officially updated to AI). The final most common 5cm version (without tick marks or other collector gimmicks) can still be found at cheapish prices if you look for one patiently. It has a different optical rendering from the its more famous/numerous successor, the six-element 50mm f/2 Nikkor-H. Used with care, the 5cm can get you close to the subtle qualities the Japanese market prizes in the 58mm AFS f/1.4, at a tiny fraction of the price. The later 50mm, while a uniformly good and consistent lens, has more clinical balance between correction and subjective rendering.

Certain digital implementations with a cult following will remain sought after for as long as they can be made to work. But eventually the battery availability issue will probably do them all in, at which point they'll join old iPhones and Androids in a toxic landfill. Which will be a shame, as some of the old timers do offer a style that is difficult to emulate with todays gear. Along with the redoubtable Phase/Leaf medium format CCDs, Leica M8 and unique Sigma Foveons, other mfrs like Fuji took an even more maverick path. Fuji approached the challenges of early DSLR limitations head on, and carved a niche with very specific color and imaging characteristics targeting the portrait/wedding industry. Their final opus the S5 comes to mind, with its bespoke Fuji "dual-pixel-binning-WTH?" sensor housed in modified Nikon D200 body. Sadly, Fuji opted for a really idiotic and greedy proprietary modification to Nikon's standard battery, so its become increasingly difficult to power them up nowadays. Speaking of Nikon, some of their older sensors still offer interesting "looks" that can be tedious to emulate with newer gear. The rendering of their D2X chip was so popular they had to offer a firmware option for buyers of the full-frame D700/D3 that swapped in its color profile. Even some early Nikon consumer P/S cams were/are very underrated because of external design gimmicks: the actual PQ was quite marvelous. I've yet to see a current phone camera that matches the ethos of my pocketable 20 y/o CoolPix 3500: it exploits every one of its measly 3.2 megapixels to the hilt, and gave me many memorable travel/landscape shots. Alas Nikon battery tech in the early '00s was dreadful: most of their P/S had their power circuits wrecked by bad batteries to the point they can barely take a couple shots before dying. I spent a week traveling thru Italy back in 2005, removing and replacing the battery in my CoolPix for literally every shot to prevent instant battery drain (the pics were worth it).

What a beautiful array of black Nikons, Niels -NHSN! 😊 Re pricing, see below for the 1976 Nikon retail list (actual typical discount prices averaged 20% less). This would have been on the cusp of Canon releasing their AE-1, which became the torpedo that finally sank the venerable Nikkormats. Rampant inflation throughout the 1970s put tremendous profit vs viable sale price pressure on Japanese camera mfrs (and drove the European Leica, Rollei, Zeiss, Alpa and Hasselblad to galactic unaffordability). Canon's answer to ever-increasing production costs was the AE-1, which exchanged traditional (expensive) bulletproof brass construction for whiz-bang automated features with more appeal to casual photographers, at a price that made everybody (except their competitors) happy. So 1976 was the final peak year for what we think of now as classic "unadulterated" cameras.

Its only fair to note while we're praising the underrated Nikkormats, they do have their quirks that not everyone can get onboard with. One issue it shares with the Nikon F and F2 is the accursed "carbon resistor ring", which often wears to the point of making the meter inoperable or jumpy. The implementation in the Nikkormat lends itself to easier "perking up" of long-dormant cameras just by spinning the aperture and shutter rings a few times, but really worn rings will render the meter useless (as will dead or dying CdS cells, another issue Nikkormats share with the Nikon F/F2). While very sturdily built, the Nikkormats are engineered like a Rubiks Cube of nested parts, meaning meter repair service nowadays is laughably expensive (you're better off rolling the dice with another second hand body instead). Being designed in the early 1960s, a large number of Nikkormat FT and early FTn employ the then-popular microprism focusing aid at center of the screen. Unfortunately this screen cannot be changed to a more modern split image aid: if you don't like microprism-only you're stuck with it. However, careful selection of body style can get you the later "Type K" screen (the typical modern split image circle surrounded by microprism donut ring). If you want a split image screen, look for the later "Apollo" variant of the FTn (with black plastic wind lever and self timer handles): most of these have a split image screen, as do all of the later FT2 and FT3. The AE Nikkormat EL doesn't have any external signs of what focus screen is inside: if it doesn't still have an obvious "K" sticker on the wind lever, you'll need to ask the seller. Perhaps the biggest gripe that puts off potential owners is the non-standard location of the shutter speed control. Instead of a knob on the top deck, you set shutter speeds on a ring surrounding the lens mount (a configuration shared only by the Olympus OM series in the annals of 35mm focal plane SLRs). This can be disconcerting for long-time shooters dependent on ability to see shutter speed by instantly glancing at the top deck. Olympus improved on the idea by having two ergonomic grip tabs around the shutter ring, and engraving the speeds at the top of the ring so you can still just glance down at the top deck to see both aperture and shutter setting. The older Nikkormat locates too many functions in the lens mount area, reducing ergonomic flexibility, so the controls feel designed by committee instead of by working photographers. Most Nikon enthusiasts learned to operate the Nikkormats easily enough to seamlessy use them as backups to their Nikon F or F2 (which indeed have their own issues with shutter dial being obscured when meter prism is attached). The Nikkormats have no less than four (4) major functions on the lens mount: meter coupling lens prong , meter coupling aperture confirmation scale, ASA/ISO film speed setting scale, the shutter speed setting scale, and one near-vestigial tiny handle to adjust the shutter speed. So to paraphrase Princess Diana, "its a bit crowded". The shutter setting handle is on the left, spanning an awkward range of movement, with the lens max aperture indicator scale below it. ASA/ISO film speeds are set at the bottom of the lens mount using a stiff sliding pointer. Shutter speed scale is on the right, facing the self timer lever. At any given time, use of the shutter setting handle can be impeded by the lens meter coupling shoe or the lens release button. And none of the scales can be viewed without turning the camera every which way. To compensate for that ergonomic nightmare, Nikkormat does at least give you a handy shutter speed display at the bottom of the viewfinder (which is what crops some of the view coverage vs F/F2). You clearly see the set shutter speed in the middle, with the next higher and lower speeds flanking it. With practice, it becomes easy to forget the clumsy body scale and just set shutter speeds directly in the viewfinder. Just for giggles, the electronic Nikkormat EL variants returned to a standard shutter speed knob in the conventional top deck location (the peculiarity with EL bodies is their battery compartment location under the mirror: you need to lock up the mirror to change the battery).

😊 Another info dump for Ricochetrider: There are some off the beaten path body alternatives you might contemplate as hosts for your Praktica M42 lenses. The most unique would be a peak-period Konica AutoReflex T3, gorgeous camera and super solid mechanically (unkillable Copal Square shutter). The Konicas were the "mirrorless" cameras of their day: shallow flange to film distance means they can focus M42 and Nikon lenses using simple adapters. You lose the AE feature and need to use stopped down manual metering, but thats the standard for most vintage M42 bodies anyway. Matching, AE-coupled Konica Hexar lenses other than 50mm have gotten scarce and expensive due to demand from video pros (like just about every other vintage lens line: aargh). But if you like Nifty Fifty, the Hexar f/1.4 and f/1.7 lenses are at least as good as SMC Takumars (the 1.4 on my camera is the best 1.4 I've ever owned). If you can find one, the Fujica ST801 and ST901 were as future-shock as it got in screw mount hardware (silicon blue meter cells, 7 LED manual meter in the 801, red digital readout of AE shutter speed in the 901). The proprietary coupled for open-aperture-metering Fuji lenses are excellent but scarce/collectible today, fortunately 801/901 work fine in stop down mode with most non-Fuji lenses. Now, back to your Nikon stuff: While the Nikon F is a legendary foundational film camera model, and common examples are still affordable enough that every film enthusiast should own one just for nostalgia kicks, they aren't much fun when not working well and aren't usually worth the cost of repairs. Your FTn Photomic looks pretty clean, but if the faster shutter speeds are faulty it isn't worth the spendy repair cost to fix unless its a collectible early F body (it isn't) or you have sentimental attachment to the particular camera (owned it for years already, or inherited from close friend/family member). Ditto the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S lens: if aperture or focus rings feel binding to the point of unusable, sell it off and buy a nicer example (along with the 50mm f/2, they're incredibly common and easy to find at cheap prices with a little patience and hunting skills). I own several Nikon F cameras mostly because I got them very cheap back in the days when people would list camera bags full of dusty gear on eBay for $100, and be thrilled if they actually got that much. But long before acquiring my first Nikon F, I had settled on the Nikon F2AS as my favorite 35mm SLR. The F2 is much sleeker and easier to handle than the F, and has far more modern reliable meter heads available for it. As a user camera, esp if you prefer TTL metering, the F2 beats the F hands down. Today, the advantages of the F over the F2 are somewhat subtle: it has a MUCH nicer shutter firing sound, and it looks much better sporting a plain prism than the F2 does. The F has a mechanically damped shutter, the F2 (rather surprisingly) employs a crap little internally-buried foam pad to quiet the mirror spring, which has rotted away to dust in 4 out of 5 surviving F2 cameras (hence the notorious cringe-y "PING!" most F2s emit when their mirror returns). The F was aesthetically designed around a plain prism and looks ungainly with a meter prism, the F2 was designed around the meter prism as default and looks odd with a plain prism. If you like the idea of owning a classic-era Nikon, there are other options you might find more appealing (as JDMvW posted above). Due to the legend status and cult following for anything that used to be a "pro" model, many today overlook the second-tier Nikons of the 70s, specifically the Nikkormat models. The exact reasons why are an interesting story in camera lore, but short version Nikon used the secondary "Nikkormat" name for almost 20 years because they wanted to distinctly separate their "pro" and "non-pro" cameras. The Nikkormats were actually very well made, almost to the level of the F/F2, and in some respects surpassed their "pro" brothers in features/reliability/convenience. Nikkormats all have built-in-body metering, so their (fixed) prisms have the compact "vintage" look of the F plain prism. Hinged back like F2, vs the clumsy pull-off back of the F. The rewind crank handles are huge vs the F and early F2: much nicer to use. Depth of field preview and mirror lock are much better implemented. And the Copal Square shutter module is almost indestructible: I've had dozens of Nikkormats pass thru my hands, and only one had a minor shutter issue (mind, it also looked like it fell off a high roof onto concrete). The shutter/mirror action is almost as nice-sounding as the F (way nicer than F2 or FM/FE). There are only three drawbacks of Nikkormat vs F/F2: no ability to change finders or screens or meters, no motor drive (who cares), and significantly less accurate viewfinder. The Nikon F series is known for its 100% viewfinder coverage of the actual film gate, vital for macro or copy work (esp in the era of slide film supremacy). Most other 35mm SLRs had roughly 92% coverage. The Nikkormats, unfortunately, are notorious for their measly 85% viewfinder coverage: a little annoying if you tend to compose out to the edges of the frame, but otherwise fine in practical use. In exchange for these limitations, you can often pick up a pristine fully functional Nikkormat (including a lens) for a C-note or less. The sturdy basic design was retained from 1965-1977, with minor improvements over the years. The FS has no meter and is a collectible: forget it. The FT has a head scratching meter setup, not worth the trouble. Sweet spot is the Nikkormat FTn: Nikon sold tons of these. Only drawback is it uses the discontinued 635 battery, but the compartment is very easy to shim allowing use of dirt cheap common hearing aid batteries. The ensuing FT2 adds a hot shoe for flash (which alas ruins the pretty prism profile) and switches to the newer still-current S76 battery. Final, uncommon FT3 is an FT2 revised with the then-new AI meter coupling (nice if you only have AI and AF lenses, otherwise stick to earlier cheaper models). An electronic offshoot was the Nikkormat EL/ELW/Nikon EL2: these were direct ancestor to the popular Nikon FE/FE2. They look more like a Nikon F2 than the mechanical Nikkormats, which closely copy the Nikon F body (see my pics below). The electronic EL variants require a 6v battery to power the shutter and AE/manual metering (modern garage door opener battery). Because of the antiquated electronics, you run a greater risk of defects, OTOH many ELs still work just fine and while cheap to buy today they were premium, very expensive models when new (slotting just below the F2).

The CdS-based needle-readout meter prisms for the F2 are now inexorably following in the faltering footsteps of the earlier Nikon F meter prisms. The carbon resistor rings get worn past the point of cleaning/repair, and one or both CdS eyes fail. Really long-lasting repairs using quality newly-made parts will cost more than most casual F2 shooters would want to pay. My solution was to opt for the later silicon blue, gold resistor DP3 (F2SB) and DP12 (F2AS) meter prisms and never look back. I have very rarely seen one of these fail, and I prefer them for their available darkness meter range and LED display visible in any light. But if you vastly prefer a needle readout, you'll either need to pay for repairs or look for a newer improved example of the needle-display prisms. Comb the second hand marketplace in search of the later version DP1 (pre-AI) Photomic prism, which has slightly newer CdS cells and significantly improved "wire clad resistor" vs the original F/F2 "carbon resistor". The wire clad resistor is more durable and less prone to be jumpy. The same improvements are found in all examples of the (AI-updated) DP11/F2A prism, many of which still work well. If you prefer using pre-AI lenses, you can easily identify the later upgraded DP-1 version by its meter display. The display is slightly smaller and narrower than the older DP1, and has a tell-tale notch area added on the right hand side of the readout. This notch appears on both the external and viewfinder displays. You can also identify the newer DP1 prisms by serial number, which begins with 6, but checking for the display notch is easier. Some old/original DP1 prisms were retrofitted with the wire-clad resistor when sent to Nikon for repair back in the day: these may or may not include the telltale right hand display notch. Present day Nikon repair specialists like Sover Wong can also do this upgrade: if a seller cites the upgrade being done to an old-style prism, get contact info for the repair tech and request verification of the serial number.

Unless you're a collector in search of a shelf display piece, be aware the era of the "user condition plain prism Nikon F" is effectively over. Aside from the astronomical collector-driven and hipster-driven pricing, you have the prism rot issue to contend with. At this point, the overwhelming majority of plain unmetered Nikon F prisms (that haven't already been hoarded) are in poor optical condition. These things were never expected to see a service life approaching six decades: they were designed with some materials that could only endure 10-20 years. Sadly, one of these materials is the ubiquitous foam one often finds decayed to a tarry substance in camera door seal areas and reflex mirror bumpers. This same material, a particularly nasty version of it, was used as cushioning between the prism glass and outer shell of Nikon F plain prisms. Over the years, as it decays to tar and shrinks, it pulls away from the prism glass (taking bits of the precious reflective silvering with it). This results in varying degrees of black or shadowy lines down the center of your view, and/or floating dark blobs hovering over the focus screen. Once detected, the problem will grow steadily worse and there is no cure (opening the prism will destroy whatevers left of the silvering, and no spare glass replacement prisms are available). Some users are not unduly bothered by this flaw, which is by no means limited to Nikon F (ask Olympus OM-1 and Leicaflex SL2 owners if you want another earful). Its subjective: some photographers can ignore the viewing interference, others cannot, and it depends on the exact severity/location of the damage. But it is very very hard nowadays to find a Nikon F plain prism with fully intact (or even minimally degraded) optics. If you do, be prepared to pay in the vicinity of $200 (US), and also be prepared to be shocked and disappointed when the thing starts rotting away a couple months or years after purchase: the decay is almost inevitable. See the view thru my two plain F prisms below: these were absolutely pristine when bought in 2020, but started slowly decaying almost immediately. The final model Photomic FTN meter prisms for the F (the most common F prism by far, which you have on your camera) is much much less afflicted by this issue. Nikon had more room in the meter housing to install somewhat better shielding between the foam and the actual glass prism. The Photomic FTN can still develop desilvering spots, but the progress is substantially slower, less intrusive, and often localized to the eyepiece area (which can be successfully repaired in many case). Since the Photomic FTN is so common and not nearly as collectible, if yours develops an issue it is easy and cheap to just buy another FTN prism. Esp if you don't care if the meter is dead, people practically give those away (silver versions, anyway: the black is harder to find). The meter system in most Nikon F meter prisms is either erratic/dying or already dead. It isn't simply the old "carbon resistor issue": they're often worn to hell altogether, with dead/dying CdS "eyes". This can be repaired with beefed-up modern replacement parts, but the cost is high and the number of techs with the specialized parts/skills is small. Better to pretend the Photomic meter prism is just a jumbo-sized plain prism, and use it as such. The F meter prism battery compartment is a PITA to adapt to small cheap modern hearing aid batteries: you can test if it works using alkaline PX625 equivalents, but the readings will be off. If the meter seems to work reasonably well and isn't jerky, buy the pricey Wein cells (hearing aid batteries remounted into F-friendly shells). See pics below for size comparison of my metered and unmetered Nikon F cameras. Note the round eyepiece on my plain prism F, as mentioned earlier by Matthew_Currie: if you're going to pursue a plain F prism, this is the version to get because it can accept the same common diopters, eyecups and angle finders as the F2, Nikkormats, and FM/FE/FA. Most of the Nikon F plain prisms in available circulation are the older rectangular eyepiece version: avoid these unless you are offered an incredible bargain on a super-clean example. Even then, be sure you'll never want to use an eyepiece accessory before you buy. Nikon did later offer a plastic adapter bracket to mount round accessories on the older prisms, but its rarer than rare: I've only seen two on eBay in the last five years. Realistically, for the price of a clean plain F prism you can get a super nice example of metered F2 Photomic (non-AI) or the AI-updated F2A. Its a more ergonomic camera overall, with meter prism not much larger than a plain prism (that uses modern S76 batteries). Meter more likely to be in operating condition, or easier to get repaired if necessary. F2 prisms are much less prone to desilvering rot: I don't think I've ever seen an F2 prism with the issues common to F plain prisms.

Based on the serial number, your 55mm Micro Nikkor is the earlier compensating-aperture design cited above. Depending on your priorities, it is considered superior to the later (far more common) non-compensating versions. The original compensating version has an optical design optimized specifically for macro and closeup distances, when Nikon dropped the compensating aperture feature they also decided to make the 55mm more marketable by slightly degrading the closeup performance in favor of improved infinity performance. Both versions are excellent, but hard core macro enthusiasts seek out the earlier compensating-aperture version for that last nth degree of performance. Drawback of the compensating design is its incompatibility with TTL metering in open-aperture mode (using either the rabbit ears or AI if the lens was updated for AI). The lens was designed to couple with an external non-TTL accessory meter on the older Nikon F variants: since the meter was not TTL the lens mechanically compensates for the light loss at macro distances by opening the aperture wider as you focus closer. The actual aperture will deviate from the aperture ring setting by varying amounts depending on aperture set + distance. This was a great gimmick in the early '60s non-TTL era, today not so much. For accurate TTL metering you must set your modern camera to stop down meter mode, and meter the light thru the actual distance-compensated aperture the lens is setting. Of course none of this applies if the lens is used on a mirrorless digital body: these always employ stopped down TTL metering with adapted manual lenses.

The Mamiya 7 is much much more sought after than the Mamiya 6. Factors behind this trend: the uncropped 6x7 rectangular format is so much larger within a similar camera size (vs the ergonomic but film-wasting horizontal implementation of 645 in the 6MF), the 7 has a more extensive lens lineup, and the larger 7 format (vs the 6 when used for rectangular) exploits those lenses to greater impact. Arguably the most significant advantage of the Mamiya 7 over the Mamiya 6 is availability of the incredibly good 43mm super wide angle for the 7. That lens is considered perhaps the worlds best-performing medium format wide angle, at least when the context is common "modern" cameras. Its optical formula is similar to the superb 75mm Biogon beloved by 4x5 view camera enthusiasts, but with newer coatings and repackaged for the far more portable 6x7 rangefinder format. It gives the venerable 38mm Biogon of Hasselblads's dedicated SWC camera a run for its money: larger 6x7 format, rangefinder focusing accuracy, and superior add-on viewfinder. Short of using a view camera, the Mamiya 7 + 43mm or the Hasselblad SWC are the only ultra high quality medium format super wide options for film shooters. (There was also an excellent late-model 50mm super wide lens for the 6x9 format Mamiya Press rangefinder cameras, but those are enormous heavy laborious antiquated beasts in a different class from the Mamiya 6/7 or Hassy SWC). The Mamiya 6 has its own advantages, of course. Some vastly prefer 6x6 square compositions, tho this is uncommon in the modern post-1970s era when the most popular 120/220 rangefinder formats were/are rectangular (6x6 square enthusiasts typically prefer reflex cameras to rangefinders). Averaging meter pattern is arguably more logical/usable in an AE-centric camera than the spot meter in the Mamiya 7 (tho neither is particularly foolproof at exposure readings: metering was always an afterthought at Mamiya). The controversial collapsible lens mount feature is considered a huge advantage by some Mamiya 6 users, tho the majority don't seem to care much about it. Finally there is the "Mamiya 6 MF" variant with its ability to shoot panoramas on 35mm film. This feature has a surprisingly strong cult following: if you want it, you need the 6MF. The MF also has the somewhat odd and wasteful horizontal 645 film masking option for 120/220, but the multi-format options penalize you with a rather cluttered viewfinder. If you exclusively shoot 6x6, the non-MF version of Mamiya 6 is more pleasant, and if you prefer rectangular medium format the peculiar 645 implementation of the 6MF is vastly inferior to the straightforward 6x7 of Mamiya 7.

Hope my post above did not dissuade you from pursuing a Mamiya 6 kit if you feel the itch to get back into MF RF: only meant to answer your curiosity about "why the conflicting reliability rep". I should have been more clear that the Mamiya 6/7 RF systems aren't statistically more or less reliable than any other 90s-era MF gear. But they can seem more trouble prone due to the number of owner reports mentioning the same couple of issues (rangefinder calibration, film transport). This can be misinterpreted as more widespread and frequent than it is in practice, because the griping centers around just two camera models that were mfd mostly unchanged for 15 years. Yes, to a certain extent the camera bodies tend toward a couple of common failure points. But in the larger scheme, ALL medium format film systems have vulnerabilities and failure points. One could argue the Mamiya 6/7 are actually less problematic than others, since they only have those two issues of any significance vs other systems with multiple failure modes. If necessary, the Mamiya 6/7 foibles can be repaired, and once fixed are unlikely to re-occur unless the cameras are handled roughly. The Mamiya 6/7 have held their value for a reason, and it isn't collectability: they are highly prized for their unique combination of frame size, portability, usability, and optical quality. The reliability quirks are taken in stride by their owners, who just have them repaired (if necessary) and get on with shooting. The warnings and caveats found in forum discussions should be interpreted as a heads up to potential buyers re specific issues may arise that need to be addressed. You'll find similar warnings and caveats (endlessly) about vintage Hasselblad failure points, but that doesn't slow down interest in Hasselblad in the slightest: they're always in demand and prices keep trending up. The Mamiya 6 RF calibration isn't an issue for most buyers unless the camera was grossly abused. Most bodies are reasonably close in calibration to most examples of the 50mm and 75mm lenses. If a little off, you can learn to compensate pretty quickly. The 150mm lens is fantastic, but harder to focus accurately (and the tiny viewfinder frame is a poor thing to compose thru). But its still an improvement over my older Mamiya Press handling of 150mm (with its funky smaller circular rangefinder patch). Deciding whether you would really enjoy using a medium format rangefinder vs a reflex system is the overriding issue. Some love the Mamiya 6 so much they ditch their SLR or TLR altogether. Others find the rangefinder viewing/focusing experience too different. Of course if you can afford to keep multiple systems, you can switch between them as seems appropriate. I prefer the reflex viewing of my Hasselblad amd my Mamiya C220F TLR by nature, but also use a Mamiya Press Universal rangefinder system occasionally. The Press has the weight, size and ergonomics of a sack of potatoes, but is a fun change when I want to shake things up. The Mamiya 6 is far sleeker but a far more substantial investment than the Press: I couldn't justify it for occasional use, but if I preferred rangefinder to reflex handling I would not hesitate to jump on the 6 as my daily driver.

The griping on gear forums re Mamiya 6/7 build foibles (esp while they were still sold new) got amplified by their inflated pricing paradox. It obscured the reality that all medium format systems have "gotchas", even mechanical legends. The Seiko shutters in many Mamiya TLR lenses is about as reliable as a weather prediction, the (inevitable) service costs to overhaul a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex can leave your jaw permanently on the floor. Every vice has a price. Like most any "vintage" electronic medium format film camera system: Mamiya 6/7 are a crapshoot after twenty+ years. Some have owned a Mamiya 6 kit since the day of release, dropped them on concrete multiple times, slammed then in the door of a pickup truck, shot them in a rainstorm at the beach, and thirty years later swear they never had a moments trouble from them. Others have not been so lucky, especially second-third-fourth owners. Do a casual search thru the usual camera user groups/forums, and you'll find common refrains of funky rangefinder performance and/or the film advance self-destructing two rolls after the package arrives from eBay. The scarcity of proprietary repair parts means you need to be extra-careful when shopping a second-hand Mamiya 6 kit. The film advance is the Achilles Heel: at minimum you want assurances from the seller this has been tested good pre-sale (and you'll have 30 days trial period to do your own tests). There are a handful of Mamiya 6/7 repair specialists, i.e. Precision Camera Works in Chicago, who stock leftover original or custom-made film transport parts. But you could be in for a long repair wait depending on customer queue and parts availability. Better to lay hands on the best condition example you can get to begin with, and treat it gingerly (esp the film advance). The lenses are phenomenally good, but acquiring a full set of all three with reasonably similar RF calibration to a given body can be difficult. It was assumed any interested photographers would purchase new from a full-service Mamiya dealer (who would allow evaluation of several lens examples for a perfect match to a given body). Today, you're on your own at the mercy of the used market. It is certainly possible to memorize any mild focus variations of the 50mm or 75mm against a given body, and make a habit of on-the-fly compensation. The superb 150mm can be very challenging even in the best of circumstances at anything less than infinity: those with an interest in portraiture may want to dedicate a custom-calibrated body to their 150mm. The nifty Mamiya 6/7 were uniquely burdened by the disconnect between their original design brief and eventual global marketing strategy. Mamiya's original intent was to siphon off some buyers of the popular Fuji "Texas Leica" series of fixed-lens medium format rangefinders, via more contemporary AE metering and interchangeable lenses at Fuji-competitive pricing. That last point ended up a confused mess by the time the 6/7 actually debuted: they were engineered with compromises to achieve a certain price point, which Mamiya then arbitrarily inflated in most markets outside the Japanese domestic arena. "Good enough" body construction was acceptable at Fuji "Texas Leica" pricing: at Mamiya's 11th-hour "Wetzlar Leica" price point owners got more than a little offended by build quality glitches. The gouging left a bitter taste that (fairly and unfairly) still haunts the Mamiya 6/7.

Congrats on snagging a bargain! Assuming you found a 35/2 AFD: be sure to thoroughly (and I do mean thoroughly) examine and test the lens before using it for anything critical. Japanese eBay sellers are usually honest and upfront, but even the best have a tendency to overlook or minimize issues extremely common in their climate (like fungus). What they consider "a small fungus" in Tokyo can arrive as a "WTH?!?" dealbreaker in Chicago. Also keep an eye on those aperture blades: this is a lens famous for "sudden stuck blades syndrome" (esp when changing environments). A major headache in the film era, but easier to manage with this lens mounted on a digital camera (check the rear screen after any super critical shot to be sure you got proper exposure, while you still have a chance at a re-take if anything seems off).

The "focusing while stopped down" issue is a bit of a red herring: unless a Nikon photographer has some particular need to do so (say, achieving critical focus with a lens known for focus point shift when stopped down), they are very unlikely to make it a frequent habit. In most cases, the workflow with an uncoupled lens is "focus wide open, stop down to meter, then open up again". The Nikon-specific situation being discussed here, pre-AI lens mounted on AI-centric camera body, semi-automates this workflow to the extent the aperture mechanism in pre-AI Nikkors is still automatic (despite the lack of meter coupling to the host AI body). So the lens by default is wide open for typical compose/focus operations: you press the DOF button/lever momentarily to take a meter reading, and upon letting go of the DOF button/lever the lens springs back to wide open. In other non-Nikon camera systems, the older-generation lens series often has uncoupled (non-auto) diaphragm as well as lack of meter coupling:. Since the lens does not automatically re-open after stopping down to meter, the tendency toward a full-time stopped down workflow is greater when using such systems. Another bit of "quasi-pre-AI-automation" comes in if using a Nikon or Nikkormat AI-centric camera with electronic shutter AE feature: the exposure lock. With experience and muscle memory, a pre-AI lens mounted on i.e. the F3 can be almost as quick to use as an AI lens. In AE mode, compose/focus wide open as usual, press the DOF button with index or middle finger to engage stopped down metering, aim the meter circle at your point of interest, press and hold the AE exposure lock button with your middle or ring finger, let go of the unpleasant DOF button, recompose, and take the shot. Same applies with Nikkormat EL/EL2 or Nikon/FE/FE2, but you activate AE lock by pushing the self timer lever toward the lens instead of having an electronic soft button like the F3/F4. Of course this isn't ideal for fast-moving action scenarios: there you would certainly prefer using pre-AI lens on a matched, meter-coupled pre-AI body, or AI lens coupled to an AI body.

The F3 is my least favorite Nikon by far for many usability reasons, but to be fair its clumsy DOF setup was inherited from its otherwise-glorious predecessors F and F2 Photomics. Those mechanical marvels were both designed for the pre-AI lenses, pretty much all of which were meter coupled via the rabbit ears. The only occasions anyone would ever need stop down metering in the pre-AI era was when using the ancient non-coupled extension tubes or bellows for macro work, or a tiny handful of specialized non-coupled super teles. Which for most people translated to "never", so the hard-to-hold down, non-locking DOF button was mostly just used for a quick DOF check. When Nikon set out to build the first electronic F, the initial prototypes were based on the F2 body. As the F3 got closer to actual production, it was decided to update the body but keep some familiar control locations. Unfortunately this legacy DOF setup proved far more awkward and clumsy when older unmodified Nikkors were mounted on the AI-centric F3 for stop down metering. The same issue was even carried over again to the F4. At least with the F3 and F4 you have the option of AE: the manual-only F2A and F2AS meters are almost unusable with pre-AI glass unless sitting on a tripod. The smaller FM/FE bodies are somewhat more friendly for pre-AI metering: the DOF is a much more ergonomic lever that is easily pressed and held in. By the time of the upgraded FM2/FE2, Nikon dispensed with any pretense of supporting pre-AI glass: they seemed to feel anyone who didn't take advantage of their OEM AI modification service to make pre-AI lenses compatible with newer cameras was a luddite they could ignore. So if you have a collection of unmodified pre-AI Nikkors you want to use with a classic film camera, the optimal solution is to buy a matching pre-AI camera to mount them on. Fortunately those models are very affordable nowadays. For manual metering, the Nikkormat FT2 or F2 Photomic are excellent choices. They are very well built, and natively compatible with modern S76 batteries. Only major "gotcha" to look out for: these 40 year old beasts use CdS "eyes" and a famously wretched resistor ring, both of which tend to wear out. Many are still in good working order, at least 50% of the second hand market: but the other 50% are in various states of dysfunction. They can be repaired, but of course that adds to the cost. If you want the same AE as your F3, look for its pre-AI ancestor the Nikkormat EL. These arguably have the most popular AE meter display in the viewfinder of any Nikon, which was later carried over to the FE, FE2, FM3a. The potential CdS and resistor ring issues remain, but seem to be notably less common in surviving EL cameras vs FTn, FT2, FT3 and F2/F2A. Beautiful build quality, and compatible with modern 6v batteries used in garage door remotes. Avoid the later identical-looking EL2: this was updated to be AI-centric, with an awkward DOF button ala the F3. Depending on your subjective handling reaction, a couple of the early AI-centric film bodies offer a decent compromise of usability with both AI and pre-AI lenses. The Nikkormat FT3 is essentially the same camera as FT2 but swaps the rabbit ear meter coupling for AI. Like the pre-AI FT2 and FTn, the FT3 has a very conveniently located DOF button (on top, right next to the shutter button). This is very easy to press down and hold while performing stop down metering. while also offering complete compatibility with any AI or AI-s lenses you may have. The original FM/FE have a slightly less ergonomic soft-press DOF lever next to the lens mount, which is still much more usable than the stiff button of the F/F2/F3. The FM/FE are also smaller, lighter and employ more modern/reliable Silicon or Gallium "eyes". If you prefer manual metering over AE, and have money to burn, the finest camera Nikon ever dedicated to pre-AI lenses was the short-lived F2SB. This is essentially identical to the legendary F2AS but has the rabbit ear pre-AI coupling instead of the AI of the F2AS. Same modern wide-range Silicon meter of the F2AS, with an even better info display in the finder (always-illuminated shutter speed, aperture and LED meter readout, all in the same row at the same viewing distance under the focus screen where your eye naturally looks for it). Sells for about the same as a clean F2AS or F3 today.

Congrats on acquiring one of the most recent 35/1.4 AI-s with SIC, in the 48xxx serial # range! I'd really like one of those, but prices are still a bit high for my budget (I picked up my current two 44xxx and 45xxx AI-s for less than the cost of a single 48xxxx). What I call "schneideritis" (for lack of a better term) is the issue you described in the 35/1.4 AI-s that just came into your store. I've spent the past hour trying to get a clear distinct photo of it in my own two examples, but its one of those elusive issues thats obvious to the naked eye yet incredibly difficult to photograph. My backup 45xxx AI-s came to me with the issue already in progress, which is why I probably got it for just $250. I was, however, surprised and alarmed when my original 44xxx developed the same issue all of a sudden. Disturbed enough to buy and resell another three examples, only to discover they all had the same "speckling" to about the same degree. Inspection of other examples at stores with used gear depts revealed it was pretty common, at least in the mid-4xxxxx serial range. Perhaps by the time Nikon got to the final SIC coated runs they changed to a different edge paint or adhesive, or those SIC lenses are still too "young" to manifest the issue. I think it appears more drastic and scary in the 35/1.4 AI-s because of the steeply curved front element, which reflects and distorts the paint speckles from the element edges so they seem to be separation or fungus behind the inner elements located a third of the way in from the edges. It took some obsessive inspection and time before I realized its an optical illusion: the white specs really are localized to harmless paint loss on the element edges (or, the element edges pulling minutely away from their retainers due to environmental variations). I guess my point being, don't be scared off by the seeming large quantity of white speckles when examining the front of a potential 35/1.4 AI-s lens purchase. In all likelihood it is harmless, and may net you a bargain price. Check the glass with a flashlight, hold it up to the sky at multiple angles, and if you don't see anything on the actual functional element surfaces you can probably rest easy assuming its just a cosmetic element edge issue. Theoretically, I suppose the reflected white spots could interject a small amount of stray flare into the light path, but I haven't seen any obvious evidence of that in real-world photos with either of my examples. Just to clarify what I posted earlier about difficulty focusing the 35/1.4 AI-s when mounted on SLR: I didn't mean to imply the feel was heavy. In my experience, the lube on many examples evaporates away until you're left with a barely damped, far too light focus feel. Which is then exacerbated by the ridiculously short travel range of the AI-s focus helical (why Nikon inflicted this dubious "upgrade" on every AI-s lens barrel, we may never understand). I've handled some examples of 35/1.4 AI-s (not mine) that still have nice helical damping: these are much easier/quicker to nail focus when mounted to both SLR or mirrorless bodies. The vulnerability of the 35/1.4 focus ring to hidden impact damage is a different issue: that can indeed lead to stiff or rough focus feel. An undamaged 35/1.4 will either feel smoothly damped or very light and dry: if it feels rough or resistant to turn, it fell to the floor or got hit by another camera at some point. Evaporated lube and dry overly-light focus damping is unfortunately a very common issue with manual-focus Nikkors. Theres no real pattern to it: I've got 60 year old pre-AI Nikkors that feel smooth as a Leica Summilux, and final-run AI-s Nikkors that feel less damped than an AF-D. Perhaps it depends on the specific lens run, and the climate it spent most of its life enduring. At least the pre-AI and original AI have a reasonable amount of travel in their focus helical, so the failed damping isn't too much of a drawback, but with AI-s lenses you really have no margin for error. I ended up trading my mint 35/2 AI-s and 20/3.5 AI-s for earlier less-pristine AI versions, just to get back the more expanded focus ring travel range. Getting back on track to the 35/2: my favorites are an AI-converted Nikkor-O (single amber coating) and a first generation AI. These are a hair sharper overall than the three 35/2 AI-s I tried, and have slightly better bokeh. My spare AI-converted 35/2 Nikkor-OC (multicoated) falls somewhere in the middle. There is a lot of sample to sample and type to type variation in the manual-focus 35/2, hence the many conflicting reviews over the years. The 35/2 AF-D is much more consistent, if not as beloved.

Apologies for triggering the flare up of GAS! Misery loves company, my friend: gotta keep you involved in the chase along with the rest of us! 😉 In my post above I mis-named the early thorium pre-AI 35mm f/1.4: like its immediate predecessor (24mm f/2.8) in Nikon's groundbreaking floating element series, the filter ring reads "Auto-Nikkor-N" (single coated) or "Auo-Nikkor-N-C" (multicoated). Having started my post with a description of the 35mm Nikkor-O and -OC, it slipped my mind that the f/1.4 was -N/-NC. D'oh! The first version 35/1.4 N/NC is an even more imposing hunk of optics than the later, more common AI/AI-s. Instead of the somewhat clumsily retrofitted thinner AI-s focus ring with rubber grip, the N/NC has the thickest deepest "scalloped" solid-metal focus barrel of any pre-AI lens I've owned, even larger than the already-impressive scalloped barrel of the pre-AI 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor-P/PC. The thorium-element 35/1.4 is a big, fat, heavy lens on par with the 55mm f/1.2 pre-AI. I found the handling and weight balance rather ridiculous on my petite Nikon FM: between that and the stubborn yellowing I decided to return it pretty quickly and stick to my trusty 35/2 Nikkor-O. Six or so years ago, during a similar 35mm Nikkor discussion here on P-Net, "chulkin" convinced me to try the newer 35/1.4 AI-s. He explained in great detail how the performance curve and bokeh varies with subject distance, aperture and lighting environment. This variation seems random at first, but with experience becomes almost predictable. The pattern is much easier to learn (and exploit) with a digital camera than film: once I got the hang of it I was iamazed at some of the unique images it helped me create. Not an easy lens for a beginner, and certainly the utter wrong lens for someone like mike_halliwell who needs an optically "perfect" lens for hi-res textile photography. But 50 years on, it remains one of Nikon's most interesting designs and I return to it often. The 35/2 Nikkor-O stays glued to my F2AS, but the 35/1.4 AI-s regularly jumps between my several digital bodies. Some last points about the 35/1.4 AI-s version: while this is the newest most compact iteration with the most modern coatings, it entails some compromises and "gotchas" to be aware of. The focus ring is of thin metal that is easily deformed by impact: this may not be externally visible but you'll feel it for sure (bargain-price examples sometimes have this hidden damage). Achieving precise focus with the AI-s is hampered by the extremely short turning range and tendency for lube to evaporate away: a headache with DSLR but tolerable with mirrorless EV (same applies to the AI-s 35/2: AI or earlier are easier to nail focus). Every sample of 35/1.4 AI-s thats passed thru my hands (five so far) has suffered badly from "schneideritis" (white speckles throughout the inner barrel where black paint has flaked away from element edges). This looks ghastly but doesn't seem to have any effect on PQ All the second-hand 35/1.4 AI-s examples I've owned or examined had a faint greasy film on one of the interior rear elements: presumably this is where all the lube that leaves the focus helical threads migrates. This may exacerbate the performance issues at f/1.4: it doesn't seem to degrade performance at f/2 or smaller settings but if you need the best possible f/1.4 from this design (which isn't stellar to begin with) you'll want one from the very last, newest production run of a few years ago. These also have the updated SIC Super Integrated Coating found on premium AF-D lenses. BTW, during the 'limbo' period between the classic scalloped-barrel pre-AI Nikkors and the native AI/AIs era, there was an interim "K" series pre-AI 35/1.4. This had the same front-facing name ring (inside the filter threads) and uniformly thick focus ring of the first pre-AI version, but with rubber grip surface instead of sculpted scallops. Not sure if that version still had thorium glass: roland vink would know, and may have the specs on his invaluable website. Later native AI/AI-s version was recomputed to omit thorium.

Prices on vintage "FX" (film-era) lenses were once bargain-level, but that was quite awhile ago. The arrival of FX mirrorless Sony A7 breathed new life (and high demand) into the old glass, and prices have been on a steady incline since. Even lenses with controversial reputations, like the Nikkor 35/2 AF-D, went up significantly with the arrival of Nikon's own FX mirrorless Z series bodies. So it is unrealistic to expect circa-$100 pricing nowadays for anything but common plentiful 50mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 standard lenses. The initial spate of mirrorless demand for older manual Nikkors came from experimental photographers and those who were waiting for an FX mirrorless format before seeking out their "dream" manual-focus lenses. Blending in to these groups was another group who prized the much smaller size/weight and nicer build quality of manual focus Nikkors. Currently most of the demand for older manual glass comes from videographers, who are snapping up every vintage lens they can lay hands on (often inflating prices way above normal). Forums like this are ablaze with photographers who prioritize sharpness and aberration correction above all else: they happily tolerate spending $1500 and carrying a three pound lens the size of a coffee can that dwarfs their digital camera body. Others are more willing to consider trade-offs in size-weight-price vs performance. Choosing the "best" F-mount 35mm lens for your Nikon requires you think carefully about how you intend to use it before factoring things like price, size, AF vs manual focus, maximum aperture, etc. Do you exclusively want the 35mm lens for your Nikon F4 film body, and don't forsee using it on a digital body for at least a few years? Then the f/2.0 AFD might be your best compromise, offering reasonable film performance combined with full F4 feature compatibility (AE + AF). But its crucial to buy from a legit dealer with a return policy: the AF/AFD has a stubbborn widespread recurring problem with greasy sticky aperture blades. Do you already have other manual focus Nikkors for your F4, and don't mind manual focus? Then the 35mm f/2 AI or AIs can be a really nice choice. Compact, built like a tank, and better overall rendering than the AFD. OTOH, there can be wide sample variation with this lens: some of us love the MF 35/2, some can't stand them. Older Nikkor-O (single coated) and Nikkor-OC (multicoated) versions are as good (sometimes better than) the later AI or AIS version, but for use on modern film or digital bodies (like your F4) make sure any O or OC you buy has been converted to the AI aperture ring. If unsure, ask the seller to verify. What types of subject do you typically shoot? Sports? Candid portraits? Posed portraits? Street grab shots? Landscape? Very planned out "artsy" projects? Night scenes? Indoor social or stage events? Narrow these down to your two most frequent uses. If either or both require quick response with little or no time to adjust the lens, go with the AFD for full AE and AF. If you usually have a bit more time to focus, the manual 35/2 AI/AIS will do nicely. Outdoor night time streetscapes and grab shots can be very disappointing with the manual focus 35/2 Nikkors: they have dreadfully strong ghosting of streetlights, possibly the worst most persistent ghosting issue of any lens ever made by Nikon. If you do a lot of night time street shooting, or indoor events with small pinpoint decorative lights, the AFD is the more suitable choice. Its simpler optical design with smaller front element is far less prone to internal ghosting. You also mentioned the 35mm f/1.4 manual-focus Nikkor: this is a very interesting lens with unique properties, but more challenging to use effectively than the f/2.0 variants. You need to use it for a few months before you really get a feel for its quirks and how to exploit them. It performs extremely well at f/4.0 and f/5.6, but at f/2.0 is no better than the f/2.0 Nikkors and it loses contrast/resolution when stopped down to f/8 or smaller. Depending on your purposes and artistic vision, performance wide open at f/1.4 is either "dismal" or "dreamy-painterly". This visual effect of this aberration varies with subject distance and overall lighting: if you learn to exploit it, it can be amazing, but if you expect/need knife-sharp f/1.4 forget manual focus glass and jump up to the latest AF lenses. Aside from a couple horribly expensive low volume collector lenses, f/1.4 vintage glass cannot meet current digital standards. Also, beware the earliest metal scallopped barrel 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor-O and -OC versions: these are often unconverted pre-AI (incompatible with F4 and DSLR bodies), and they employ radioactive thorium glass that yellows with age. It can be cleared with sunlight, but its a PITA to deal with. Asking prices for newer AI and AIS versions are typically the same or not much more than for O or OC: go with the newer versions. You already have the 35mm f/1.8 AFS DX lens, presumably for a Nikon DX DSLR: note the equivalent focal length for your F4 film camera would be 50mm. The Nikkor 50s are much more common and affordable than 35mm focal length. You might consider one of those for your F4, which would maintain the same view between your two cameras (35mm on the F4 would be wide angle vs 50mm). If your plan is to share a 35mm lens between DX digital and F4, things become tricky unless you have a high-end DX body in the three-digit model range or the D7000 series. The 3000 and 5000 series bodies do not have the focus motor required to autofocus the 35mm AFD, while your F4 may have use issues with some of the newer AFS lenses required for AF with some DX bodies.

Re the missed focus in some of your most recent test shots: most likely your assumption is correct (that you need a bit more practice nailing critical focus technique when using your Rollei). However, there's a slight chance you might have your new focus screen installed incorrectly. Normally this would lead to gross focus errors on film, far worse than what you've posted, but its worth double checking with Rick Oleson to make sure you have your new Britescreen installed as Rick recommends. There is a peculiar counter-intuitive orientation requirement when the current Oleson replacement screens are used in certain models of vintage medium format camera: they need to go in upside down (rough fresnel side facing up) vs the original camera screens (which are always smooth glass side up). I don't remember if the interchangeable screens for the Rolleiflex F series are just simple squares or include a handling/orientation tab. If it has a tab, of course it would only fit in the proper way, so your new screen is probably set up perfectly. But if its just a simple square, check with Rick to be completely sure which side he recommends should be face up with his Rolleiflex implementation. This point isn't entirely clear on his website, but several purchasers have reported back here that it can be confusing.

You may need to just live with the very stiff focus feel. My experience with four examples over the past decade suggests the helical Mamiya employed in the short 65mm Press lens barrels tends to be extremely stiff and hard to turn. Several very respected camera techs advised me that such incredibly stiff helicals (including the notorious older Hasselblads) are often very difficult to smooth out for a nicer feel. You either learn to work around it, search for an elusive smoother example, or opt for a different / newer lens design. The last is not available for the Press cameras in 65mm focal length: Mamiya unfortunately decided to replace the 65mm with a 50mm and 75mm (both very well regarded, with modern helicals and coatings, but shorter/longer than the ideal compromise 65mm). Of the four 65mm f/6.3 Sekor examples I've owned, two were extremely stiff to focus (almost immobile), one was annoyingly firm but usable, and one was perfectly smooth and damped. The one with best focus feel had scratched elements and a bad shutter, so I kept looking for a replacement. In retrospect, I should have just bought one donor to harvest glass from and have my tech replace the glass and repair the shutter of that smooth-feel example. But at the time I did not know this lens design tends toward really stiff operation. After importing three replacements from Japanese eBay dealers over a period of five years, I settled on one pristine-looking example with perfect glass. Unfortunately it seems to use gorilla glue as lubricant, so not the most pleasant lens to shoot with. I just stop down as much as possible and use hyperfocal distance settings for most shots, using the the rangefinder only when absolutely necessary. If you decide to let a tech try to loosen the focus, you might want to ask them to also remove the lens aperture limiter when they take the lens apart. The 65mm f/6.3 Press lens can actually open up to approx f/4.5: Mamiya mechanically prevents this by gluing an easily removed pin on the internal aperture setting ring. They factory-limit the lens to f6.3 to ensure consistent performance wide open, but overriding the limiter gives the option to let in more light for the reflex viewing adapter and/or exploit "dreamy" visual effects (aberrations increase dramatically if the 65mm is opened wider than f/6.3).

AFAIK, the bare screen itself can be swapped from Kiev 60 to Pentacon Six (the ARAX/Arsenal screen marketed as upgrade for Pentacon Six is really just the Kiev 60 upgrade screen). So if you can find a broken Kiev 60 with intact screen for less cost than a new screen alone, you should be able to reuse the screen in your Pentacon Six. Unfortunately, you will still have an issue with tricky installation in your Pentacon due to incompatible retainer parts. While the screens are the same size, the screen mounting method and associated hardware (frames, screws, clips) is completely different. You cannot recycle the screen mounting parts from Kiev 60 to Pentacon Six: they simply won't fit or work. The only solution is custom work from a camera repair technician, or DIY modify the original Pentacon Six mounting parts to hold the Kiev screen securely. This incompatibility is due to the "generation gap" between the time Pentacon debuted and the Soviets decided to copy it. When Pentacon Six (actually its forerunner Praktisix) was introduced, many 6x6 cameras were still using the old-style ground glass screen with thick glass condenser. By the time USSR created the Kiev 6, flat plastic focus screens with integrated fresnel were the standard: USSR did not copy Pentacon's screen mount since Kiev would not be using the thick glass condenser part. Instead of a wire frame and various sized vertical clips, the Kiev uses a removable combination screen well/retainer frame, plus a couple horizontal screw-in clips. Pentacon did eventually make flat brighter plastic fresnel screens available as an option, but these were supplied with a special replacement set of modified wire frame and screw clips that securely hold the thin screen in the original thicker mounting space where the condenser was removed. It is very hard to find these special updated mounting parts today, unless you happen to stumble across a new old stock Pentacon Six replacement "fresnel screen" kit. You or your repair tech will most likely need make your own parts or modify the original Pentacon parts. Some vague notes on how to do this modification can be found here, instructions on how to remove the original Pentacon screen are here. Some scattered posts on how to adapt Kiev prisms to Pentacon bodies can be found on various websites, most of these were written about the defunct Beier adapter but I've seen several mentions of a recent 3D printed plastic copy of the Beier adapter, and a couple photographers mention modifying the bottom of a Pentacon waist level finder to make a mount for Kiev finders.

Its a shame Beier went out of business without passing their adapter design rights on to another vendor willing to continue selling then. Most probably, there just weren't enough sales to make production of more adapters viable for any vendors. I would really like to get my hands on the adapter Beier sold for attaching Hasselblad viewfinders to Mamiya C220/330 6x6 TLRs. The common, plentiful, affordable Hass NC2 45 degree prism made by Novoflex is smaller, lighter, brighter, and more ergonomic than nearly any other medium format prism finder. Re using Kiev 60 meter prism on a Pentacon Six: it may be similar to using Kiev meter prisms on Hasselblad bodies. Instead of changing to a brighter screen, you can compensate the meter by re=calibrating its ASA film speed dial to match the dimmer Pentacon screen. The Kiev meter prisms are notorious for needing calibration even on Kiev bodies, so the ASA dial on the prism is fairly easy to fine tune. Typically you set your film speed on the Kiev prism, then loosen a screw or two allowing the ASA dial to spin freely without changing the ASA number. Rotate the free-spinning dial until the Kiev meter reading matches your reference meter (or another camera meter) set to the same ASA/ISO. Tighten the screws on the Kiev dial, and it is now reset to measure your Pentacon screen accurately. Modern Pentacon Six sized brighter plastic screens with integrated fresnel and split image focus aid are available from Kiev specialty dealers like AraxFoto (or "grizzly33bear" on eBay). It is not difficult to remove the original Pentacon screen, but installing the modern replacement can be tricky (the new screens are much thinner, requiring a different size of retaining clips and different wire frame). It is possible to modify the original parts to fit newer screens, but thats a funky solution and you'd lose backwards compatibility with the older screen. Full line Kiev vendors like AraxFoto might be able supply a set of new style screen retaining parts at extra cost if you purchase a screen thru them, but independent screen-only vendors usually cannot supply any frames or clips. Having a professional repair tech do the installation with their own custom retainer bits is another alternative: perhaps more precise, and you can ask that they return the original parts in case you ever want to revert to the original ground glass screen

Very beautiful shots: as chuck_foreman1 notes above "impressionistic" in the best way. It would be interesting to experiment further and perhaps discover whether this painterly rendering is due to the triplet design of the lens itself, or caused/enhanced by the added optic in the adapter. I'm intrigued enough that I'll keep an eye out for one of these old teles in future.

Just to clarify, when people speak of the different "handling" or "build quality" of the GX/FX vs vintage Rolleiflex, they aren't talking about plastic parts or cheapened materials. The GX/FX don't have more plastic parts or use cheaper materials: they are very well made machines intended for the wealthy user/collector market. They are built about as well as their 35mm contemporaries made for the same market, the Leica M6 series. But when compared directly to ancestors like your 3.5F, there are compromises in design made necessary by the passage of time, drastically reduced sales volume, modern meter grafted on, and supply chain variables for critical assemblies like the leaf shutter. And of course the overall appearance screams "1980s commemorative collectible" vs the more timeless art deco look of the vintage models. The GX/FX body chassis is based on the simplified classic "midrange" Rolleiflex T model, which was an attempt to bridge the perceived market gap between the bare-bones Rolleicord and professional Rolleflex F series. Thats arguably a good mfrg choice: the simpler the mechanics, the more durable the camera, and by 1989 there was far less buyer demand for a faster-loading Rolleiflex (since news pros had long ago abandoned TLRs). Sacrificing the not-strictly-necessary automat loading feature made rebooting the Rolleiflex more practical for Rollei (and potentially more reliable for owners down the road). But dedicated Rollei enthusiasts tend to perceive the GX body as a "downgrade" from the esteemed F series. Aside from appearance and loading, the biggest gripe hard-core Rolleiflex fans have with the GX/FX is shutter button responsiveness, shutter speed control feel, and shutter sound. The Compur shutter of the late 1980s isn't as butter-smooth or silent as older iterations, and when it was discontinued Rollei replaced it with Seiko and Copal alternatives in later versions of GX/FX. Given the very small sales volumes, the GX/FX were effectively "bespoke" cameras so there can be variations in operational feel from one example to another (even the earliest Compur shuttered GX version has sample variation). This led to the confusing conflicting owner reports on forums: some feel their GX/FX handles about as well as their vintage E or F, while others cannot stand them. It depends how hyper-sensitive you are to things like shutter control smoothness, shutter firing sound, and shutter button feel/response. The GX/FX shutters, including the Compur, are a bit noisier and the Copal/Seiko variants can emit a "twang" totally alien to the classic-Rolleiflex-tuned ear. The shutter button response is not as precise or smooth: it incorporates the telltale two-stage meter switch detent common to most cameras of its era (if you're accustomed to using a Nikon FE/FM for 35mm you won't notice much difference in the GX/FX, if you've exclusively used a vintage Rolleiflex for all your photography you may actively loathe the GX/FX). One could argue these are important elements of the vintage Rollei experience, but secondary to the practical shooting advantages of the GX/FX (newer HFT lens, integrated electronic meter, brighter screen, lower chance of it needing an expensive rebuild or pricey screen upgrade before you can use it). Different Rolleiflex photographers will have different priorities: its really just the Leica M3 vs M6 debate scaled up to 6x6 TLRs. One other point that may impact your decision is future service/repair options. Being newer (and typically unused shelf queens) means the GX/FX are far less likely to need an overhaul upon purchase. But going forward, you may have difficulty finding a competent tech capable of servicing a GX/FX without damaging it. Service for classic film cameras is becoming ever more niche and specialized as the venerable factory-trained techs die off without leaving a skilled protege behind, and as surviving techs age they tend to refuse service on newer models with quirky reboot designs, electronic meters and unpleasant surprises like epoxied screws in tight spots. Of course, theres no guarantee competent service for older masterpieces like 3.5F will still be available 20 years from now, either. Thats one reason I dramatically reduced my beloved Hasselblad kit: its not a question of "if" but "when" a 'blad piece will need skilled service, and I was unnerved by my excessive risk exposure with multiple lenses, backs and bodies. For 6x6 I now mostly use a late-model Mamiya C220F TLR with fantastic stock focus screen, 65mm, 105mm and 180mm lenses. As mechanically simple and robust as a TLR can be. Ditto the interchangeable lenses: no complex interlocking mechanisms, they're even simpler than view camera shutters, so any idiot with a screwdriver can repair the body film transport or lens shutters. But I do sometimes miss the undefinable buzz of shooting my Hassablad or Rolleiflex (and sometimes you just gotta use a Zeiss lens).

The lens in the GX has one less element than your white face 3.5F, and modern (circa 1989 anyway) HFT multicoating, so yes it would be somewhat comparable to your circa-1997 Hasselblad 80mm CB version in terms of flare resistance. It isn't a direct apples-to-apples comparison, however: the 'blad CB Planar has six elements vs five in the GX, has retrofocal optical modifications to clear the moving mirror, and performance is slightly less even across the frame vs the GX Planar (CB sharpness peaks more in the center and it has a hair more distortion vs other 'blad Planars and the TLR Planars). Its also more deeply recessed in its barrel vs the totally exposed TLR lens, which makes the larger deeper 'blad lens hood that much more effective. Subtle differences for most photographers, but they come up in forum discussions and may affect your use case. There are other aspects to consider. Depending on the condition of your 3.5F, trading it in for a GX could cost from £400 to £1600. This is a substantial amount of money to risk unless you know for certain the GX lens will solve your exact problem: it might be as flare resistant to backlight as your Hasselblad CB Planar, or it may be only marginally better than your 3.5F. I would suggest you not trade in your 3.5F right away: if you want to try a GX, buy one from a specialty dealer that allows an trial/return period. If you like it, sell your 3.5F later to pay for it. If you don't feel the lens update is worth it, return the GX and enjoy the peace of mind that you tried the alternative. Also be aware the "modern" GX, FX, etc have quite polarizing reputations among Rolleiflex enthusiasts. While the price is commensurate with what classic Rolleiflex sold for back in the day, build quality is not exactly the same. Compromises in handling "feel" arose due the integral electronic meter couplings, variations across several possible leaf shutter implementations, strap hook location, and simplified body mechanics (no "automat" film loading feature: you manually line up arrows as with most other 120/220 cameras). None of this is noticeable to the Rolleiflex newcomer who just wants a practical new-ish TLR with Planar lens and metering, but those who enjoy the mystique and operating feel of vintage Rolleiflex models often find the GX a bit disappointing to handle. Assuming you took the trouble to specifically seek out your rather scarce 3.5F IV, and didn't just stumble across it randomly, I'd hazard a guess you would miss those classic qualities if you switched to a GX. Whether the potential flare resistance of the newer HFT lens would be worth the possible tradeoffs is something you'd need to personally evaluate by testing a GX yourself: you have very specific backlit shooting requirements. Opinions of other photographers who shoot the GX can provide some data points, but your own experience with GX lens performance may differ significantly. Only way to know for certain is to test drive a GX.

Alls well that ends well, then! Glad to hear the lens checked out OK with several good techs: should be fine to use normally until it eventually needs the inevitable 'blad shutter rebuild (at which point any of those techs should be able to locate and fix the source of spurious rattling). My dealings over the years with late lamented Hasselblad guru David Odess made me hyper vigilant to get any unusual lens symptom checked out ASAP: the CF lenses can go quite awhile between overhauls, but from the moment they start acting up in the slightest way the odds of mechanical failure increase exponentially. "If any doubt, have it checked out" should be engraved next to the T* logo (under Leica's red dot, under the Rolleiflex script plate, etc, etc). 😊