Xícara de Café

Yes

Dear forum, My F2 consistently shows a hair-like object at the bottom of images towards the left. It appears in a Loch Ness monster-style series of ringlets. I'm unable to see any dust or fluff when I look through the back or the front, or when I lock up the mirror. I've used a blower on various occasions to try and clear it out and the hair appears no matter what lens i use. From this typical image, can anyone say where in the camera I'm likely to find this hair? Thanks! :

Beautiful colours and landscape!

In the town of Pirenópolis, about 2 hours drive from Brasilia. Leica IIIf, Summicron 5cm 1:2 collapsible and Summaron 3.5 1:3.5. Ilford Delta 100 and Kodak D-76 1+1. The photo of the church had the perspective corrected in Darktable and was patched up in Gimp. The man in the first photo is Sr. Jonas who is a motor mechanic and probably responsible for keeping all of the town's VW beetles on the road:

Photos taken in São Paulo with a Contax IIa, Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm 1:2 collapsible, Ilford Delta 100. Developed in Kodak D-76 1+1:

Photos taken on a walk on Tuesday evening by the lake in Brasilia. All photos: Leica IIIf, Summicron 5cm 1:2 collapsible, yellow filter, Ilford Delta 100, Kodak D-76 1+1. The photo of the chevrolet is without the filter:

Leica IIIf, Summicron 5cm 1:2 collapsible, Kodak ProImage 100. As above with Summaron 3.5cm 1:3.5:

Well, there's always fake news :-)

For serial numbers see: Leica Screw Mount Serial #'s Sorted by Number

Leica IIIf, Summaron 3.5cm 1:3.5 (except the building), Ilford Delta 100, Kodak D-76 1+1. Building taken with Summicron 5cm 1:2 collapsible.

Kiev IV, Jupiter 12 (1958), Ilford Delta 100, Kodak D-76 1+1. By googling, the car seems to be a 1959 Opel Rekord Caravan. In another thread in this forum I complained about a focus problem with the lens. It turned out, in part, to be due to the fact that the lab used a badly configured scanner (these photos are re-scanned on a different machine), but there seems to be a problems still when focusing on infinity. I need to test more. : As above but with a 1957 Jupiter 8:

Thanks. I'm going to order one of those 2-prong tools to remove the frontal rings. The focus mechanism needs lubricant too.

I removed the rear group from the Jupiter 12 (there's one screw on the side that needs to be loosened on the contax mount version) and there were no shims there at all. So perhaps that's the problem. I tried opening the Jupiter 8M but wasn't successful. I research this.

Thanks a lot Brian. When you say "take some shots", are you referring to a digital camera? I have only film cameras to test, a Kiev IV and a broken Conatx III. Someone told me once that an SLR focus screen can be placed on the film plane to test/adjust focus. Should this work? I have a screen from a Nikon F2. A question here about this: is it correct that the etched side of the screen should face downwards, ie. so that the etched side is placed on the focal plane? That must be right... My Jupiter 12 is from 1958 and I've heard that these have a wider rear-group than later models. I also have a spare scratched Jupiter 8M from the seventies from which I can take shims if needed. Hopefully these are the same, but otherwise I can try cutting rings from tin as you suggest. Should I also tests the focus at infinity or is it better to adjust for minimum focus and at 5m? All the best!

Hello all, I recently purchased a perfect looking contax-mount Jupiter 12 to use on a Kiev 4. Thumbnails of the lens follow: I took some photos with it and was disappointed with the results. It seems to perform best at about 1 metre's distance and when focused on infinity the image is very soft. I'll put here 3 photos unprocessed scans, the first with focus on an object about 1 metre away, the second, with the focal point on a tree in the foreground and the third, on the buildings at infinity: All three photos were at f/8 and the depth of field on this 35mm lens is (or should be) pretty generous. What might be going wrong here with the focus? I'm pretty certain that i mounted the lens correctly (body locked at infinity and lens focused at infinity before mounting. The camera also performs well with other Jupiter 8 5cm lenses that I have. Thanks,

I really like the tones in the truck photo Rick! Has everyone else already noticed that photo.net is allowing larger file uploads? I uploaded my last pair of shots (3 or 4Mb) forgetting to reduce to my usual 900x900 pixels

Leic IIIf, Summicron 3.5cm 1:2, Ilford Delta 100, Kodak D-76 1+1: :

Yes, I'll do a test with the hood, with and without a filter! That's a good idea about removing the back. I have a removable focus screen from a nikon F2, i can try placing that over the negative window (whatever it's called) too, to get a better view. Still in defence of filters, a professional photographer friend gave me an old Nikkor 35-70mm AF lens recently. She never used filters and the front element is covered with small chips and scratches.... All the best

Thanks. Yes, UV or skylight. Given that I am a very clumsy person and that it gets very dusty in this region for half the year, I prefer to use a filter. Also, using 35mm film exclusively, i don't think I'm going to notice any critical difference. I have several Chinese vented 40.5mm hoods, that I use on 50mm lenses. These fit the Jupiter 12, however do you know if they will cause vignetting on this 35mm lens? This type here: 40.5mm Black Metal Vented Lens Hood for Canon Nikon | eBay I bought a HN-1 copy recently for a Nikkor-N.C Auto 24mm f/2.8 and that vignetted very badly... Those blog posts you mentioned can be found here: Lens Rentals | Blog

This Kiev IV with a newly acquired 1958 Jupiter 12 3.5cm 1:2.8 and KMZ turret finder. This lens is from the Arsenal plant in Kiev and according to my good Russian-Ukrainian Flickr friend Yuri (who once worked as a optical technician in the Arsenal complex, but not for Kiev cameras), 1957-58 lenses have the best quality glass, having the quartz sand mined from the Odessa region. This particular lens looks unused so I'm looking forward to seeing the results. I also like the turret finder, though perhaps it sits too high on the Kiev IV (with light meter) for the close-range parallax correction to work well. Will use it on other rangefinders too.

Hi everyone, I usually use a hood and UV filter on all my lenses with the exception of a Micro-Nikkor 55mm 1:2.8 and a newly arrived Contax-mount Jupiter 12, both of which have recessed frontal elements. I would like to use filters on both, however I've been concerned that doing so will increase the risk of flare given that the filter is positioned at the front of the recess. And that the addition of a hood may cause vignetting. Does anyone here have experience with using filters on such lenses? What are your thoughts? Thanks,

Hi, I read somewhere that not cutting a 10cm tail can potentially damage the shutter curtain. Is that not correct?

Hi Don, What is that hinged apparatus in the photo?

A Leica IIIf with Summicron 5cm 1:2:

Leica IIIf, Summaron 3.5cm f/3.5, Ilford Delta 100, Kodak D-76: