|
Post by conan on Dec 8, 2016 3:46:28 GMT -5
Despite some considerable research I still cannot find an answer to this – possibly someone on here has an easy answer that I have missed. Please see the picture of the Topcon RE Super (Super D in USA?) the aperture read lever is at the top of the lens mount and as the aperture read out from the lens get smaller it turns clockwise. You can see this on the standard 58/1.8 Topcor. However, the 35/28 Topcor goes in the opposite direction ie opening the lens to a wider aperture (not smaller) also turns the lever clockwise which means the meter reading is incorrect. Anybody know why? This is a standard Exakta bayonet with Topcon’s internal aperture open/close lever. Obviously there were some changes between the introduction of RII, RIII and C models (which have the same double ring as the WA lens) and the RE models but why a different direction for the meter coupling pin. The WA is obviously a slightly earlier lens but still has the distinctive Topcon rubber grips. One site suggests that some of the lens were in fact not made by Topcon although why would somebody make a lens that was not fully compatible? Any suggestions or answers – anybody?
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 8, 2016 3:40:15 GMT -5
I'll take the chance on being arrested... been in low to mid 40s here for over a week.. cant even turn on a fan as the afternoon storms usually take out the power for at least a few hours.. I rarely get dressed in the mornings (but who's going to see me out here, more importantly, who in their right mind would want to) Bob Bob, confirming what we in NSW have always believed – “Queensland, beautiful one day - bloody awful the next”. By taking out the power do you mean the storms blow out the candles?
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 8, 2016 3:38:21 GMT -5
This is what i have found on the Schacht Travenar 2.8 50 Its a page in the 1960 sales catalogue. the page is damaged so i can't be really sure about the price but from what i can make up it was 1830 belgium francs the lens was still present in later catalogues but by 1962 the price has risen to 3280 Bef ! The travenar was the second "cheapest" 50mm 2.8 available for the Edixa the cheapest being the Steinhell cassar S at 980 Bef (half the price of the travenar in 1960) I don't know if the travenar dates back to before 1960 as my references stop there. The ad says : "the bigger part of these lenses are equiped with an automatic pre-selector" Since your travenar is in black i suppose it's from a later date, i'll check on that... BR, thanks for the Edixa advertising. In terms of average incomes what were the Edixa prices like and how did they compare with their Japanese competition.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 8, 2016 3:37:30 GMT -5
Hello again Conan. I have the 90mm version of this lens. A semi-automatic type I think. To use first push the auto aperture pin on the back of the lens so that it is in working aperture mode. Then set the required aperture with the projecting lugs on the aperture ring. Then open the aperture for focussing/viewing with the chrome/black aperture ring (clockwise from the front). The aperture should then be locked open until the auto-pin is depressed. Does that make sense to you? The cable release should work to stop down the lens from open aperture. It does on mine. Rachel thanks for the response. I had already tried what you suggested and it does not work – thought there might be an unknown to me method of locking it open - so I am presuming the interlock or whatever between the aperture pin and the front ring is not working properly or is broken. Thanks for your very fast and the first “Sherlock Holmes” reply because Holmes new assistant is a woman. Have you seen the television series ‘Elementary’ set in modern America where Holmes new assistant is Dr Joan Watson played by Lucy Liu.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 7, 2016 4:06:31 GMT -5
Can anyone help with this Edixa Lens please. Details are Edixa-Travenar 2.8/50 made by Schacht Ulm. Details/Vintage etc ? Plenty of pictures online but no operational details. The lens has a pre-set ring which spring loads to the closed position – so to use and focus you have try to keep the aperture ring open and focus at the same time, one hand to open the aperture, one hand to focus and the third hand to hold the camera. There is what looks like a cable release hole near the actual lens mount – this does nothing – broken? what am I missing? or did someone reassemble this lens incorrectly?
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 6, 2016 6:35:00 GMT -5
Conan, don't take my lens tests to serious, i'm just messing around and there's little scientific basis for my tests. it is just i've got so much lenses that mainly come from my collection (apart from those i've bought for daily use) it would be a shame not to use them and have them sitting on the shelve for the rest of their (my?) life. Down under is definatly on the bucket list especially Coober Peby, but first i head east now. BTW. UV in NZ was burning through my skin the day i arrived there didn't know then i could use it to cure those thorium lenses... Ice is the solid frozen form of water, in small amounts mostly in cubes it comes in handy to cool coctails and such. In larger amounts, say in a frozen lake or so it can be difficult to stay upright and the intense cold can be very unconfortable. I think there is a little too much ‘scientific’ analysis of lenses on web sites – the ultimate test is probably subjective – does it do what the user wants in terms of resolution and colour – is it in the right price bracket and how does it handle Cooper Pedy will give you nice days of 40-45C and buckets of UV. Intense cold can be uncomfortable – but try the opposite – parts of Australia in the middle of summer at >40C and humidity in the mid-seventies. At least when its cold you can put more clothes on! when it’s that hot there is a limit to what you can take off without being arrested.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 6, 2016 6:32:31 GMT -5
I've just added the F with exactly the same prism to my collection. Bought it from a old school friend wich i haven't seen in 50 years, turned out he was a avid nikon collector as well, how much coincidence is there? Well the saying goes “Great minds think alike”
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 6, 2016 6:31:47 GMT -5
Just chequed,my F is actually a 1967 Fv(T?) the one you've got is a late F wich is 1967 as well the confusing part is there's an early F as well wich dates from 1963 and started the F and G series. The fact both of our cameras date back to 1967 could explain the metering prism wich might have been an option then. In my 1966-67 sales catalogue the F is mentionned and shown with said metering prism, but here they state the F has a highest shutter speed of 1/1000sec while the miranda model information site states the F is lmited at 1/500th In the 1968 catalogue the F isn't mentionned anymore, only the Fv is and the Fv with metering prism is called the FvT... my Fv The 1966/1967 catalogue The 1968 catalogue PS in those days you needed 50 Belgium francs for one US dollar There appears to be slight differences in the way they marketed slightly different models ie the same as Pentax Et Al – a 1/500 on some models in different markets. My F has a top shutter speed of 1/1000
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 4, 2016 4:44:09 GMT -5
According to some sources on the net the pentacon 1.8 50 is an incredible lens for use on digital. As i happen to have one i thought to give it a go on the D3 and while i was at it i tryed the nikkor 45/2.8 GN as well. I wanted to know how that tessar design with a nine bladed apperture would behave. I had some trouble focussing the pentacon, but i guess the examples shown here will give a general idea. The pentacon's bokeh gave nice light blobs when used wide open, stopped down a bit the light spots became hexagonal due to the six bladed apperture. Maybe a question of taste but i'm not that fond of that hexagonal look. The nikkor did produce nice rounded light spots but they are smaller because of the smaller apperture ( 2.8 against the 1.8 of the pentacon) more testing will be neccesary at diffrent background distances (probably will have to go outside for that) BR I have been following your lens tests particularly on the Nikon glass and doing my own. My tests on the standard primes is slightly different to yours and will post in a few weeks. Its interesting you are now comparing East German with Nikon. You seem to like going North to South – your NZ trip was interesting when you were testing Nikons by rolling them downhill. Come to the land down under and pay the excess baggage for those ‘yellow’ lenses – we have enough UV in Summer to cure them permanently with a 10 minute sunbathe. Ice – what’s that? This is our first week of Summer and we are already having mid thirty days in Sydney.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 4, 2016 4:28:38 GMT -5
So this is my third Bessamatic and this one is a real beauty and is pristine – probably 98-99% cosmetically. The meter works and the screen is very clean. The Bessamatic is interesting because it appeared in 1958 after the Kodak Retina Reflex and at the same time as the Braun Paxette Reflex. (In 1956 Schering sold its interest in Voigtlander to Zeiss and in 1965 it became a Zeiss division) Zeiss were fully aware that Voigtlander were working on a leaf shutter SLR and this camera and its successors fitted into Zeiss plans to dominate the leaf shutter SLR market. Unlike the Contaflex the Bessamatic had a true interchangeable lens design rather than the Contaflex front element lens changes. (Some lenses could also be used on some of the Kodak Retina Reflex’s – albeit with a small modification) Voigtlander also did something Zeiss were never able to do with the Contaflex – produce an instant return mirror design in 1962 – Zeiss engineers might have been surprised that Voigtlander could design something even more complex than they could. In some ways the Bessamatic is a nicer camera to use than a Contaflex – it has a far longer winder stroke which makes it far smoother than the heavier and stubby Contaflex winder. This one was $40 - about 28 euros
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 4, 2016 4:22:44 GMT -5
This came from one of my regular sellers A mint Miranda F 50/1.8 and with a 35mm Miranda WA. Waist level finder and the swivelling magnifying waist level finder together with a genuine 44mm to 42 screw adaptor and a bayonet reversing ring. Camera condition is superb probably >95% cosmetics and all operates. Cost $60 or about 42 euros (This is my second version of this camera – with the same accessories so I wonder if a dealer was putting together some form of package deal in the early sixties) For non-old timers on here the Miranda were the first product of Orion who had made a great reputation for unusual adaptors for mounting Zeiss, Leica and Nikon lenses on other cameras. Miranda SLR cameras had a 44mm internal thread plus an external bayonet – where most everyone was on 42mm screw (Canon used a similar idea on their Model 7 Rangefinder - internal screw and an external bayonet for heavier lenses) Miranda were eventually owned by the American AIC (Allied Impex Corporation) who also owned the Soligor trade mark. The first batch of 1955 Miranda’s came with Zunow lenses and these are really expensive in the market. Miranda were often referred to as the poor man’s Nikon due to their basic styling and interchangeable finders. Miranda were renowned in the States for their advertising with the famous bikini girl (there is a thread somewhere on this site about her) Miranda eventually followed the same fate as Topcon – they could not keep up with the bigger boys and very late cameras were rebadged Cosina’s. (Stephen might know – didn’t Dixons buy the UK name rights to Miranda and Soligor?)
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 2, 2016 15:35:13 GMT -5
Conan wrote: Obviously feet and metre markings would have been for the intended market but can you tell me why some Contaflex models focus clockwise to infinity and other focus anti clockwise? Well, the Contaflex I and II focus to inf clockwise (by looking from the front:-) and all others focus anti-clockwise. The I and II use front-cell focusing, while the others use focusing by total lens movement via a helical. Both focusing types have advantages and disadvantages. Contemporaneous literature are filled with this controverse! Just find yourself a book of Optics and you will be bored soon! Hans Hans, the B and Super B have total lens movement but focus in opposite directions- go figure. Tongue in Cheek - Perhaps these were intended for Australia on the assumption that things go in the opposite direction? Or another Zeiss joke – ‘Pro’ on a consumer camera and interchangeable backs that a magician couldn’t change properly.
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 2, 2016 15:25:11 GMT -5
I think all will agree that sellers descriptions vary widely in their accuracy, their creativity and often on what is not written. How about this ad on EBay Australia for a brutally honest description? Nikon Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 Ai Lens really awful condition!
Nikon Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 manual focus lens This was nearly wrecked when I first bought it thirty years ago but now it's really a disaster! The focus ring feels like twisting a pepper grinder, really rough. The outside of the lens looks like it was used in Vietnam! Even the lens hood is at a funny angle. The real problem though is the fungus or mould deep inside the lens, please see the photos which I have tried to show how bad it is, frankly I've never seen a lens this bad.Please don't buy this lens thinking it'll be a cheap way of getting a fast 35mm lens, it's really hazy until about f/4 and even then it's not brilliant. Comes with rear cap and dodgy hood, front cap, all correct Nikon items. www.ebay.com.au/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-35mm-f-1-4-Ai-Lens-really-awful-condition-/182371681483?hash=item2a763304cb:g:ZqEAAOSwA3dYPoYT
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 1, 2016 21:15:42 GMT -5
linkFrom Hans
About the 527/24 Contina II: most postwar viewfinder models had their production number stamped in the leatherette on the back. You have to look closely to see it (and beware of the O vs Q possibility). As most cameras were sold with an everready case, this number can be obliterated by the push-marks of the closure.
Thanks for that and you are right. Barely distinguishable on the right hand rear near the actual hinge is H9991
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 1, 2016 21:06:38 GMT -5
Rachel, thanks for the link but a friend actually let me read an original Zeiss instruction sheet. I was more interested hearing from someone that actually had any experience trying to use these backs. In general, they seem to have a poor user experience reputation. The guy with the Instructions sheet tells me he actually has a couple of backs and rather than “swear by them” he “swears at them”
|
|