Indeed I am! I love the idea of buying cheap process lenses, copier lenses, other interesting optical devices, and seeing what kind of pictures can be made of them. One can always get out the duct-tape and eyeball the flange-to-film distance, (easier with an SLR, granted), but I love the idea of a semi-permanent or permanent modification that allows one to keep 'good ideas' that work out well.

Take a look at www.bigcameras.com for an example of what I'm talking about, or Robert Monaghan's delightful website on Bronica hacking at http://medfmt.8k.com/bronica.html (look for the subsection on 'Lens Hacking').

I guess I'm just a tinkerer at heart - the idea of putting, for example, an obsolete Zeiss lens from a orphan camera marque onto a more modern rangefinder appeals to me. Yes, you can go out and buy all kinds of things like this - for example, Russian glass on Cosina/Voigtlander RF bodies, but the idea of doing a one-off appeals to me.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

My bad, it's just http://bigcamera.com so there is no 'www'.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Question for the group

I've just started using the 65mm lens on a deluxe and I am having a big problem with lens flare, is the norm for this lens.
I shot the exact same shot with a 28mm lens on my 35mm and had no problems with lens flare, is the problem due to a lack of mutliple lens coatings or just poor technique, or both?

Any suggestions are welcome

Thanks

That should be a multicoated lens. Can you see the coatings on the lens? Have you checked the inside of the camera for places that may have the flocking rubbed off and are therefor creating reflections? How about the back? Is the flare present on all negatives regardless of where the camera is pointed relative to the sun? Then it might be a light leak in the back from old foam that has begun to disintegrate. Of course if you have other lenses and you aren't having the same problem with them, that does make is seem more like the 65mm. I haven't used my 65mm in a long time, but I don't remember it being any more flare prone that any other good lens for my 35mm.

Is there anything else you can tell us?

I've heard that the 65mm is only singly coated. It's a pretty simple design- like the russian 28mm Orion-15, it's a double-Gauss 4 element-4 group lens. It is normally not known for flare, and I get comments from the boys at the lab about it's "punch," very contrasty.

We'd need to see a picture to see what's what.

That 65 is pretty old- can you open it to 6.3 and look through it and just make sure that there isn't any haze/mold on the lens?

Now I've find the Mamiya Universal/Super 23 thread. Great! I bought my Universal in the early 90s. Great camera. I have some links on the terrible things I'm doing with my Mamiyas.

http://www.electricedge.com/greymatt...s/00000877.htm
http://www.electricedge.com/greymatt...s/00000964.htm
http://www.electricedge.com/greymatt...s/00001012.htm
http://www.electricedge.com/gordon.c...nkencamera.htm

I've even built a pinhole for it that I'm still working on. I used the lens mount from a old 100mm lens that was damaged...

http://www.electricedge.com/greymatt...s/00005333.htm
http://www.electricedge.com/greymatt...s/00005360.htm

The pinhole still needs tweaking. The big Mamiya sure is a flexible camera.

jdos2 -- I see you have a Kiev, too. You already are infected.

And a Moskva...
And a Contax G2...
And not one but TWO Voigtlander Prominents,
And not just one Kiev, but several, but only two work...
And so on, and so on.

Ug.

And the worst bit of the broken FSU cameras is that I can't seem to bring myself to throw them away. They are BROKEN for crying out loud!

:-)

What's yer favorite Mamiya Universal lens?

Right now I'm using the 65mm a lot. It depends on the picture but I do really like the 65mm. Some day I would like the 50mm but I can't afford that. I got the 65mm for $78 on Ebay. It was like new. No finder.

A Moskva! http://www.certo6.com/ got me interested in folders. Some day.

Can the Kievs be fixed? What's wrong with them?

Kievs?

Mostly shutter tapes, but the ones that aren't working are all also suffering badly for the workmanship on their particular bodies. I just want ONE that works well- I'm thinking of sending them ALL (the broken ones!) off to Henry and having him squish 'em together to make one good one, keeping all the other parts, if he desires.

I've found that the full viewfinder (including moving my eye from one side of it to the other to check on the edges) on the Universal can be used for the 65, and though it's not exact, it's pretty close

I bought a KMZ Universal Finder and am using the 28mm viewfinder for the 65mm lens on the Mamiya. That's what got me sucked into the Russian rangefinders. I started researching the KMZ and started finding all sorts of interesting FSU cameras. I've been looking for a street shooter and then one thing led to another and now I have two cameras and a lens on it's way (I hope!).

So I have been reading up on these guys. Perhaps I still know less about them than this seller,
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...852149150&rd=1
but, am I right in saying that the 127mm lens is supposed to be for the Polaroid 600SE and not the Mamiya Universal? It is a little confusing as I haven't really found a good clean source for info on these yet. The Medium Format Mega Site is a little choppy when it comes to the Universal Press.

Mamiya indeed made a 127mm in Universal/Super mount as well, further complicating situation with the viewfinder and the multi-format backs... It's probably the tied for the common lens you'll see on the newer cameras, the 100 being the other, as the 100 doesn't *quite* cover full frame Polaroid, whereas the 5" lens does (127mm!)

I've one, which I mostly use on Polaroid. The 600 and Universal lenses are very close in design (the 75 and 127 practically copies), but the 150mm for the Universal does clip corners on Polaroid with a filter mounted- the 150 on the 600 doesn't.

Know that the 127mm, along with the 100mm/f3.5, 90mm, and 150mm are all Tessar copies, and might not have a look you like (the circular "target" bokeh is evident in the 127mm wide open- even on Polaroid, hardly noticeable on the 150 wide open, even on negatives, and the 100mm is even worse for that, which is why I knuckled down to buy a 100mm f/2.8)

Gordon, I like your site, and reading back through the posts, I can't imagine why I was so single mindedly talking about the Kievs.

I like the 65mm. I also like the 75mm and the 50, the last one the only one that didn't have to be rebuilt. The finders for the latter two lenses are big and bright, but they aren't terribly robust, mine for the 50 fell to pieces in my hand one day. I lost a piece, and I can't figure which one (though after putting it back together, it seems to work OK.)