truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on May 23, 2014 3:25:55 GMT -5
It's been a while since my last post... Things happen in life, our house have been somewhat refurbished, I have scanned 6000 old negatives from 30 years ago. We got a new dog (Alaskan Husky) through an animal protection center, mistreated and underfed, he has been taking a lot of time. I have been working on my new darkroom, I got a nice complete enlarger equipment for free, both for 6x6 and 24x36. My camera collection somewhat did go down the toilet - many cameras went to the Salvation Army during a heavy cleanup... However, I got a new old camera to play with, Leica IIIc:   From an ebay seller who has worked many years at Leitz camera service department. The camera had a CLA, working as new. It is more a user camera because of the flaw at the top housing - someone tried to scratch off the Leica logo. It works as new, and I like this camera very much. For the time being I only have russian m39 lenses, but will get a real Elmar soon. |
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on May 23, 2014 6:34:11 GMT -5
Leica's Hundredth Birthday today...... That Leica top is most unusual, most alterations are to hide USSR or Japanese markings, and then conversion to Leica! It could be cleaned up and nickel plated to repair the damage, or a new top sourced, but the main thing is it all works and was serviced.
Not so much with yours, but only a general comment, when you get a standard Leica lens, check the infinity settings, it is tempting for some repair men to match the body to the Russian lens by altering the focusing arm roller tip, rather than adjust the collar on the lens.
You are safer in buying a body only that has been serviced, than a Leica/ USSR combo, but from your posting I assume that the lens is your, and merely added to the Leica body.
The focus scale engraved on the Russian lens will be correct, but the rangefinder may not quite match. The adjustment is to slacken the collar around the lens back and adjust, but the three tiny grub screws the Russian's used are often slightly damaged or over painted, so don't bother unless way out of adjustment.
If the Russian lens is clean and clear it may well rival the older Elmar at medium apertures, but they do vary a lot.
Stephen
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2014 11:29:11 GMT -5
Best Elmar copy I ever had was on a Leotax. In fact I think it was better than the original. I suppose that's why I sold the camera and lens for a pittance 45 years ago.
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on May 26, 2014 6:04:42 GMT -5
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on May 26, 2014 6:51:54 GMT -5
The first early Industar-22 may well have German glass, huge quantities of Zeiss glass blocks and blanks were transferred to the USSR as reparations after the war, and continued to be used up over the years. The glass was better than locally made pre-war Russian glass, but the Russian took with them Zeiss expertise to improve their own production, which was good enough to widely export to other lens makers in the West.
However it is no "Guarantee of Lens Quality", the glass in those days was not better than modern glass, and indeed they allowed more bubbles and imperfections, even in Zeiss stock, than now allowed. Zeiss graded the glass carefully, the best for the better lenses. The Russians did the same, they made both Export and home market standards, plus military specification lenses.
The quality of the lens comes from the basic grinding, finishing and degree of polish, which the USSR were very good at, and the assembly, which could be very patchy.
A well assembled Industar should rival an Elmar, except full open, where the Leica design scored due to re-arrangement of the formula, and a different iris diaphragm position. The Tessar is better at each stop, but only just better at full open compared to an Industar.
Neither the Industar, or the Elmar are Tessar type formula exactly, but all three would be almost impossible to tell apart on a test shot at about F6.3 to F8.
At full open all are soft, but the Industar would not be as even, sharp at centre, then a fall to the edge.
The colour balance will be different, the Industar usually has lower contrast, mainly due to more light reflecting insides on the lens barrel, and simpler coatings. The balance is "warm".
The Elmar and a Zeiss made Tessar both have slightly higher contrast, and a "cool" balance on the Zeiss assembled Tessars, slightly warmer with the Leica Elmar.
Frankly Leica never bothered much with the Elmar, it was the introductory lens to the system, well made, but not developed as there was little point in making it better, where it might take sales from faster and more expensive lenses.
Tessars were a type, and fitted in various forms to most western makers, they therefore vary quite a bit, but taking say a Practika Standard lens or an Altix, both made by Zeiss themselves, they are as good as an Elmar.
I would say that both the advertised lenses are more in the collectors class, there's no way that they are provably a good lens, apart from the seller allowing return after a suitable test film is run through.
It is a difficult area to predict how well a lens works without a test, but with more complex Leica copies the performance can be taken as good, as long as clean and not messed about with.
Most Japanese copies and developed designs like Zunow were excellent, as were the best of the lot, the Taylor Hobson for the Reid....but these may fetch fabulous prices!
The high prices are why the Russian lenses are still so attractive, but it may be a minefield trying to find a good one. I have found the best date from 1960's production, coming with the middle series Feds etc., I have two that are as good as Leica, and a foul one that simply is foggy, despite clear glass.
My advice is not to spend a fortune, but get a cheap S/hand complete Fed or Zorki, and take pot luck it is a good lens, of course refusing fungus or dusty examples.
Stephen.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on May 26, 2014 7:27:02 GMT -5
And by the way, how is the performance of the Industar collapsible that is on the camera? Try a Black and white film, slow ASA, and a series of test shots of a well light view, all on the tripod, from full open to full closed.
Or repeat on a Digital mirrorless camera via an adaptor.
If the lens is clean etc and in adjustment to it's own focusing scale, then it should return good sharp results, and the final test is actual use.
Points not to trust!!!!
That things are slightly out of adjustment, the focus lever to rangefinder is out, or the flange to film might be out, difficult to test on the older Leica with no opening back.
So assume the body is right, then try to borrow a known good standard lens, and take a test shot. This confirms the body is 100%.
This eases all the issues and allows the Russian lenses to be assessed.
I know it does not help you directly but one camera bypasses the issue for tests, and that it the Periflex, Ken Corfield's part 35mm reflex Leica lens thread camera from the 1950's.
Corfield was fanatical on the bodies being accurate, and they are very solid indeed, and have a periscope finder for focusing etc.
They can take all known Leica lens to test, as long as collapsible are not pushed back into the periscope!!! The body contributes absolutely nothing to the shots, which is what we are after in testing lenses.
Even Leicas own bodies were not as accurately assembled, as they relied on individual shimming and checking of the body, whereas Corfield milled the solid chassis in jigs and put in the lens mount by a completely different method, he claimed to a tenth of a thou accuracy. Leica also got this, but by a girl in the factory adjusting everything to get a good final figure.
This is why I do not trust older Leicas, especially a camera that has been serviced several times and CLA.... a lot could have happened to destroy all of the careful Leitz assembly. I have seen examples where the film to flange was correct, and tested by a repair technician, but then I requested him to test both edges, and they were out, indicating the lens plane out of parallel.
I was suspicious as the assembly was done in about 4 hours, far too quick for assembly and the constant checking that should have been done. When his boss examined the work, he ordered it to be completely stripped and a re-start! He was a Leica expert, but never trained by them, having worked on the Reid project cameras.
But after all of this, as long as tested OK, then the one you have will work fine and remain so, and be able to show with ease whether a particular lens is good or a duff one.
Stephen.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on May 26, 2014 8:08:25 GMT -5
Being the 100th Birthday of Leica, a small example of why they were a top maker.....after hostilities died out in Germany, Wetzlar was under UK control, and a team of British Camera and Lens experts were sent to the Factory to assess damage and practicality of a return to production.
I knew one of the officers involved, and the plan was to try and find the equipment that was special to the production, and find out if it was usable by the UK optical makers like Taylor Hobson, and Reid who were still working on Leica copies.
They found the factory complete, but searched carefully for special hidden equipment, but did not find any. It had been known that Zeiss employed very advance lathe equipment in Dresden, and they expected to find the same.
Curious now as to how Leica achieved good assembly, they got translators and found staff who would demonstrate the machining and assembly.
Of particular note was the lens assembly and the body to mount assembly.
The girls who did the mount machining explained that the turnings were done to nominal standards, nothing very special, on relatively standard Lorch lathes. The Officers asked how they were made accurate enough to fit the body.
It was explained that each mount was tested and measured very accurately, and marked as such, before being put on the parts rack. Then for assembly, the staff would pick a body, with its measurements and pick a mount that matched the body!! On assembly this brought the standard to near perfection, as the tolerance was zero to start with, note the tolerance was to the parts, not to the design parameters.
The same method was applied to lens assembly, each part was hand picked to make up the whole. This meant even parts that were on the extremes of acceptable machining where transformed to zero tolerance when assembled.
In other words, hand assembly and adjustment at each stage, no special machining or secret production machines.
There was a full report prepared and sent to various British Optical companies, who would have been aware of such methods, but did not realize to what extent Leica used and relied on them.
Reid in particular were struggling with making close tolerance parts, all had to meet the design +/- nothing, making in their opinion the assembly easier, but they lumbered themselves with large amounts of rejected parts that Leica would have used!
Kardon, in the States had the same issues, they tried to hard to copy or improve parts for their Leica copy, but had measured Leica spares stored in the States, not realising the slack tolerances that Leica employed in their mix and match assembly. Kardon parts were accurate, but made to slightly wrong sizes! This made assembly near impossible at first, with parts having to be re-machined etc., to fit. Kardon had expected easy assembly like a US factory line, but it turned into a technician having to hand assemble each one, at very great cost.
If a part did not fit they re-machined, in Leica's case if the part finally did not fit, they had another on the rack that did, speeding production.
The assemblers at Wetzlar also used shims to correct problems, and these must be re-done when a camera is serviced.
This all means that most screw thread Leica's are one offs, they may vary within the band of tolerances, work fine, but if disturbed, need a very careful re-assembly.
As time went on Leitz changed the methods a lot, they went for even tighter tolerances and nowadays rely on CNC made parts that fit!, but I suspect the old hand methods still are in use to some extent to get the best performance.
Stephen.
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on May 27, 2014 8:09:48 GMT -5
Wayne: The Leotax are more expensive than many Leicas, it must be a very good camera. I was surprised when I did a quick bay-search! Stephen: Thanks for all valuable info, most I did not know about. My Fed 50 (mounted on the Leica) is somewhat a dog... The lens Works very vell, butter smooth Controls etc, but image quality is disappointing. Here a quick test from today:  Source image, at f 16.  Left image 100% Crop from center at f3.5. Right image 100% Crop from center at f. 16.  Left image 100% Crop from corner at f3.5. Right image 100% Crop from corner at f. 16. I saw a lens disassembly guide at Fedka, should it help to improve the lens?? |
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on May 27, 2014 11:39:15 GMT -5
I think I saw the same strip details, but be careful, it may not improve that much, it will only help clean and get it free of dust. The samples show more troubles than come from dust or dirt, and might be improved on re-assembly, but and it is a big but, it may already be as good as you will get.
However things can be improved on the collapsible lenses, by painting matt black on the mounts of each lens element, and also on any shiny surface at the back of the lens. Also always use a lens hood to improve contrast.
So hold the lens up to the light, and have a good look for clean glass and dirt, and dust, free.
Also get a Magnifying glass or Loupe, and have a look at the front surface, it may seem clear at first glance by eye, but under magnification it may have a maze of micro scratches, which means it cannot be improved.
But as always there is a use for a poor lens, portraits, where the softness is treasured, and you might pay a fortune for a Leica soft focus,(Yes, I know the effects differ on proper soft focus lenses), but the differences are slight. An Industar at full open or one stop down, and a metal, or cloth, gauze over the lens would really suit wedding portraits. If you want the full effect, then make the metal gauze with a hole in the middle,( about half diameter of the lens), it keeps the centre more sharp than the extra soft edges.
The metal gauge can be from a tea strainer etc, or bought on Ebay for making water filters for steam models!
The micro 4/3 makes such use easy, you can assess the effect through the lens or pre-view, and the 58 becomes approx 116mm as well, again in line with what is needed for portraits.
Stephen
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2014 16:16:07 GMT -5
Truls: Yes, the Leotax is highly valued now. The one I had back in the late '60s was made in the late '40s or early '50s. It was engraved "Made in Occupied Japan." I think I only paid about $50 for it used (although that was a pretty good sum in those days). The lens had the earlier f/stops. The film advance and shutter was every bit as smooth as a Leica. Wayne: The Leotax are more expensive than many Leicas, it must be a very good camera. I was surprised when I did a quick bay-search! Stephen: Thanks for all valuable info, most I did not know about. My Fed 50 (mounted on the Leica) is somewhat a dog... The lens Works very vell, butter smooth Controls etc, but image quality is disappointing. Here a quick test from today: Source image, at f 16. Left image 100% Crop from center at f3.5. Right image 100% Crop from center at f. 16. Left image 100% Crop from corner at f3.5. Right image 100% Crop from corner at f. 16. I saw a lens disassembly guide at Fedka, should it help to improve the lens?? |
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Jun 7, 2014 16:36:10 GMT -5
10 or 15 deneer pure silk black stocking stretched over a cokin filter holder does the job for me. I stretch it first and burn a small hole using a heated up nail head. That's my excuse for having an odd stocking in my sock drawer |
|
