Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Lomography

Lomography Dedicated to discuss all Lomography Products

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 01-22-2016   #81
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,561
I just looked on ebay, they are still selling on average for $160, down from a peak a few years ago. They made thousands.
__________________
Garrett

My Flickr Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #82
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 865
Quote:
Originally Posted by gb hill View Post
Wow! I wonder what I can get for my 63 J-3 that Brian helped me calibrate?
200? If you are lucky. I wouldn't pay more for a lens that can't be properly calibrated in the whole range. Kiev mount J-3 + Amedeo adapter combo is a much better choice and costs about the same.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #83
aoresteen
Registered User
 
aoresteen's Avatar
 
aoresteen is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Newnan, GA USA
Posts: 452
Better yet would be to get a used Canon 50mm f/1.5 for around $300.
__________________
Tony
______________________________________
If RD, IIIf RD M3-Mot M4-P Contax IIa BD Nikon SP 2005
Cambo 23F 6x9, Olympus OM, Pentax M42, 6x6 & 6x7

De Oppresso Liber
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #84
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,561
All Sonnar types have focus shift, from any maker. And again, many people want a new lens, with a warranty. That's who they are marketing to, not antique rangefinder lens enthusiasts. People that don't surf Ebay or even know about an original, 60 year old unknown condition lens might be buyers for a new marketing campaign.
__________________
Garrett

My Flickr Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #85
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by valdas View Post
you are misinformed, it is not Belomo... it's former KMZ.
Wow. KMZ has not made a Jupiter 3 for close to 60 years.

D
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #86
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noserider View Post
Didn't Dante Stella point out that Russian LTM lenses have a slight difference in the helicoid which results in consistent focus errors because the helicoid is based on the Contax rather than the Leica? If they used the same tooling but just substituted brass for aluminum would the focus errors still remain?
Yes. The M39 lenses require anywhere from slight to major adjustment to work on Leicas (the actual focal lengths of older ones are sometimes "close enough"). This was a byproduct of the Soviets' needing to use the same optical modules for Leica clones as they did for Contax clones. That's not an issue today, and it's pretty unlikely the they are using 50 year old tooling to make a lens out of a totally different metal. The brass may even be CNC'ed now.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #87
bluesun267
Registered User
 
bluesun267's Avatar
 
bluesun267 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 81
Pardon the possibly dumb question, but where can one buy the new Amadeo adapter? I once used an Opton Sonnar years ago (on a Contax) and thought it was amazing. Now that I'm an LTM user I have a 1957 Nikkor S.C. 5cm/1.4 that I love dearly. Still have great memories of that Opton though...

I do like that someone is releasing a lens in LTM, though the Lomography brand leaves a slightly sour taste in my mouth. However I will always carry a major grudge against Voigtlander for phasing out LTM lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #88
Jason Sprenger
Registered User
 
Jason Sprenger is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 437
Amadeo is a site sponsor with an ad on the home page.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #89
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
Yes. The M39 lenses require anywhere from slight to major adjustment to work on Leicas (the actual focal lengths of older ones are sometimes "close enough"). This was a byproduct of the Soviets' needing to use the same optical modules for Leica clones as they did for Contax clones. That's not an issue today, and it's pretty unlikely the they are using 50 year old tooling to make a lens out of a totally different metal. The brass may even be CNC'ed now.

Dante
So in one important respect the new issue is unique: LTM with Leica calibration.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #90
DrMcCoy
Registered User
 
DrMcCoy is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 229
From the Lomo mini site:

Quote:
In addition to having a modified 0.7m closest focusing distance (an improvement from 1m on the original lens), the New Jupiter 3+ Art Lens is multi coated to reduce flare, ghosting and surface reflection. Constructed from chrome-plated solid brass, the New Jupiter 3+ Art Lens is much more durable than the original Jupiter 3 lens, which was made out of aluminum, so it will last for years to come. Additionally, as a rangefinder coupled lens, the New Jupiter 3+ Art Lens utilizes the Leica M’s rangefinder focus — which means perfectly precise focusing when paired with rangefinder cameras!
The close focus, coatings, and brass are certainly a nice addition. I'm a big fan of not needing to shim as well (I've yet to get brave enough to do my J8). But, this being said, is all that worth an extra $200 from one you could get from a reputable seller? At that point there are so many options to consider for LTM cameras and even more for mirrorless cameras. I am kind-of wondering why they didn't make the lens come with an M-Mount as standard? Licensing issues?

I would hope for the J12 to be remade (possibly as a f2?) but my heart shrinks in fear when I think of the possible cost.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #91
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoresteen View Post
Better yet would be to get a used Canon 50mm f/1.5 for around $300.
Those lenses were prone to get hazy etc etc. I did a search on ebay and the first 10 I looked at had a combination of the following - scratches/cleaning marks/ haze/ fungus. Given the age of that lens and the uncertainty of these sales I would definitely spring for a new Jupiter with full warranty.

Funny thing is that judgement has been passed down on this Lomo lens before anyone has even used it! It will not be the same as the old version as the mfg process/materials are not the same.

It is by far the cheapest new fast 50mm lens in ltm/m mount available.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #92
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMcCoy View Post
I am kind-of wondering why they didn't make the lens come with an M-Mount as standard? Licensing issues?

.
Nope. The Lomo 32mm 2.8 is an M mount lens. I wish they made this one Ltm w/ m adapter as it makes the lens far more versatile like the new J3. I would be able to use it on my Leica 1f as well as my M mount cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #93
Nikos72
Registered User
 
Nikos72's Avatar
 
Nikos72 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Athens, Greece
Age: 44
Posts: 999
Has anyone experience of their LTM lenses on M to LTM adapters on M bodies? Do they need any adjustment for correct focusing?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #94
mcfingon
Western Australia
 
mcfingon is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
Has anyone experience of their LTM lenses on M to LTM adapters on M bodies? Do they need any adjustment for correct focusing?
My experience is that they focus correctly on an M.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #95
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,561
Just the manufacturing of an all metal and glass lens is a very expensive proposition today. A Sonnar is 6 elements of different refractive indices glass, all aligned and cemented. It's coated, and mounted in a precision brass fixture. As an example there is a US manufacturer trying to replicate an 1800s Petzval portrait lens for Large Format. They discovered they couldn't make the barrel in traditional brass for the target price, so had to use aluminum. (like LOMO did on their Petzval I believe). That lens is going to cost $1000.

Its also the economy of scale. Fuji can make 20,000 X-mount 35/1.4 lenses and their prices have gone down from about $700 when first out, to about $350 now. The new J-3 will not attract that many buyers, it's a niche lens, so it's expensive. But it will go down in price over time. Just wait a year if you want the price more in line with Voigtlander 50mm lenses.
__________________
Garrett

My Flickr Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #96
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
Wow. KMZ has not made a Jupiter 3 for close to 60 years.

D
Perhaps, but the last Jupiter 3s were made in the Soviet union in 1988, not that long ago. And the current KMZ/Zenit plant has continued making optical devices all these years. The Zenit camera with Helios lens was made at least up until the late 1990s. It's like when Nikon reissues a classic lens, or Smith and Wesson an old style revolver - they're in a better position to do it than these flash in the pan Kickstarter projects that are run by a kid with no experience and a marketing glimmer in his eye.

They made some cool spy cameras fairly recently too: http://www.cryptomuseum.com/covert/camera/f21/index.htm http://www.cryptomuseum.com/covert/c...khod/index.htm
__________________
Garrett

My Flickr Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #97
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
haha, yes how dare those Russians steal anything from the country which invaded them! Twice!

Funny I don't hear the same critique of the American Space program, also "stolen" from Germany!
hmm. nothing was stolen so far as the Zeiss Contax and lenses.
They were awarded as prizes of war to Russia.

Why Russia got the Contax instead of the Leica,
I have no idea.

But imagine what the photography world would have been like,
if Russia was awarded Leica after the war.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #98
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
But imagine what the photography world would have been like,
if Russia was awarded Leica after the war.
They would have a red star instead of the red dot Komrad!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #99
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
hmm. nothing was stolen so far as the Zeiss Contax and lenses.
They were awarded as prizes of war to Russia.

Why Russia got the Contax instead of the Leica,
I have no idea.

But imagine what the photography world would have been like,
if Russia was awarded Leica after the war.
Contax and the Zeiss lenses were considered top of the pops, or "Pro" cameras at that time, akin to the Nikon SP versus the Canon VIL in the USA in the late 1950s.

Also, rumour was that the Contax II and III shutter preformed better in the freezing cold.


Another thing is Jena and Dresden are located in East Germany, Wetzlar was in West Germany.
The Soviets got to Zeiss territory first and the other Allies, the British in this case, got hold of the Leitz works.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #100
santino
eXpect me
 
santino's Avatar
 
santino is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Autriche
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post
Another thing is Jena and Dresden are located in East Germany, Wetzlar was in West Germany.
The Soviets got to Zeiss territory first and the other Allies, the British in this case, got hold of the Leitz works.
that's the main reason.
__________________
Vivent les télémétriques ! -
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #101
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
Why Russia got the Contax instead of the Leica, I have no idea.
The USSR got the German industries which were located in the USSR-controlled part of Germany, which became the GDR some years later.

That's why they didn't get the Zeiss Ikon plant located in Stuttgart and the Carl Zeiss plant located in Oberkochen.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #102
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post

Another thing is Jena and Dresden are located in East Germany, Wetzlar was in West Germany.
The Soviets got to Zeiss territory first and the other Allies, the British in this case, got hold of the Leitz works.
.. not 100% true tho - the americans held south east germany up to the river Elbe (remember Capa's famous picture of a dead soldier in Leipzig)
It was then traded for West Berlin or so (I have to check that part again tho), but yes then the Zeiss factories in Jena were in Russian territory
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #103
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by k__43 View Post
.. not 100% true tho - the americans held south east germany up to the river Elbe (remember Capa's famous picture of a dead soldier in Leipzig)
It was then traded for West Berlin or so (I have to check that part again tho), but yes then the Zeiss factories in Jena were in Russian territory
There was a lot of wheeling and dealing going on amongst the allies on dividing the spoils.

Other stories and theories from that time are that General Patton was thwarted by General Eisenhower in Patton's attempt to get to Berlin before the Soviets.
In order to placate Stalin, the 3rd Army was also supposedly ordered to a halt as it reached the German border and thus was prevented from seizing either Berlin or Prague, moves that could have prevented Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after the war, so the story goes.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #104
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by goamules View Post
Perhaps, but the last Jupiter 3s were made in the Soviet union in 1988, not that long ago. And the current KMZ/Zenit plant has continued making optical devices all these years. The Zenit camera with Helios lens was made at least up until the late 1990s. It's like when Nikon reissues a classic lens, or Smith and Wesson an old style revolver - they're in a better position to do it than these flash in the pan Kickstarter projects that are run by a kid with no experience and a marketing glimmer in his eye.
That's actually not true - Nikon's S3 project actually required a ton of reconstruction and reengineering because the tooling was gone and almost everyone who had worked on it was dead. Nikon's records were incomplete enough that it had to reverse-engineer the S3 and SP from examples it bought at camera stores:

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-s3/
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-sp/

Nikon's attention to detail was obsessive. More so than Leica's when it was making the Null Series.

That will not be the case with the J-3+. I think you'll see when it comes out (if it's not already apparent in the pictures) that the lens will be a facsimile of the old one but pretty much designed from the ground up. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a stretch to say that KMZ would be any better placed than a complete stranger to build a Jupiter-3. That said, there is a very good chance it could be better than the original.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #105
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,561
Perhaps. But here's the point. An optics company, that has made optics since WWII, knows how to make more optics. That's their business, to make lenses. Also, their city has has generations of managers, workers, sub-vendors all living there. They can call up old timers if they have questions about something. They have the same buildings, the same file cabinets full of engineering drawings. The company is literally and figuratively geared to make the Jupiter-3. Lomo isn't. Kodak isn't. Microsoft isn't. If you want a rocket engine, you go to to Rocketdyne. You want a Jupiter 3, you go to the company that used to build them, and still builds optics.

America once had a big optical town, Rochester NY. Dozens of companies were formed, split, spawned as workers and inventors moved around making their life's work. The entire town was about film photography for almost a century. Now it's a rust belt. But you'd still be better off making a new film there, rather than St. Louis, or Dallas.

Nikon was trying to rebuild a metal bodied rangefinder last made in what, 1958? They had moved on to digital, plastic cameras. They weren't even making film cameras at at point where they? Focal plane shutters were long gone. Machines to stamp the metal parts were long gone. Of course it was difficult. KMZ is simply making another lens, with cemented glass elements, just like any lens they made in the past couple of years. Nothing is different except the design, of which I'm sure they've made dozens. They have optical engineers and manufacturing equipment. They machine a mount, just like all the other metal mounts. The last J-3s were built in 1988 or 1990. Making another lens is a big, big difference compared to Nikon's attempt to make a 1958 retro film camera.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
That's actually not true ...it's a stretch to say that KMZ would be any better placed than a complete stranger to build a Jupiter-3. ...
Do me a favor, pray tell who you think would be better positioned to re-initiate production of a Jupiter 3 lens? (warning, you're talking to a person who worked in manufacturing engineering for a while!)
__________________
Garrett

My Flickr Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2016   #106
Austerby
Registered User
 
Austerby's Avatar
 
Austerby is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Fircombe
Posts: 1,056
Years ago I was arguing that Leica should resurrect its old formulas and start producing new editions of Hectors, Summars, Summarits etc, flaws and all but with character as a separate line from the uber-digital flawless masterpieces.

Lomo are doing just this concept but with non-Leica lenses. I have the Petzval and love it, and will definitely get this new J-3.
__________________
Austerby
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #107
David Hughes
Registered User
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,538
Hi,

I never knew that the British got Leica...

Many people here were unable to get their hands on new Leicas from about 1940/41 until 1952 or perhaps 1951. The USA got most of them and we went without. And I vaguely recall reading that the USA got/took their pick of Carl Zeiss machinery and staff days before their Allies the USSR went to collect them but I could be wrong. It was an article somewhere on the www linked into a Kiev thread somewhere here.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #108
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,944
This thread finally made me remove from the closet 5cm RF lenses that are Zeiss or FSU clones. I have at least twenty such lenses, and I do not believe that I will miss out somehow by not ordering a new 5cm lens. They are fun to use.

The original J-3 is not "better" than a vintage Zeiss 5cm/1.5 in any aspect except maybe having lenses in ltm without having to use an adapter Contax to ltm. Is there any other reason for using a J-3 over a Zeiss 5cm lens if you own both lenses?
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #109
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

I never knew that the British got Leica...

Many people here were unable to get their hands on new Leicas from about 1940/41 until 1952 or perhaps 1951. The USA got most of them and we went without. And I vaguely recall reading that the USA got/took their pick of Carl Zeiss machinery and staff days before their Allies the USSR went to collect them but I could be wrong. It was an article somewhere on the www linked into a Kiev thread somewhere here.

Regards, David
The British forces had Leitz in Wetzlar under their jurisdiction right after the second world war and so a good while later they requisitioned the design to the Leica IIIb and shipped it off to Reid & Sigrist in Leicester to make a replica.




http://www.l39sm.co.uk/about_reid.php

The Reid 35mm camera has always been considered to be one of the better copies of the Leica Barnack type cameras, they even out did Nicca and Leotax.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #110
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by goamules View Post
Do me a favor, pray tell who you think would be better positioned to re-initiate production of a Jupiter 3 lens? (warning, you're talking to a person who worked in manufacturing engineering for a while!)
Garrett -

As a production engineer, surely you can appreciate that a lens designed to reach 30 lp/mm, finished crudely, and cranked out in command-economy factories in as large numbers as humanly possible is going to embody very little long-term know-how that you would want to put in a new product built in the low-thousands quantity, even if it were a revival of the old one. Even by the mid-70s, the quality of the Jupiter-3 had dropped off precipitously. Has there ever been a good Valdai (post-1975)? Ask Sweeney.

Having taken a Jupiter-3 down to its component parts once (don't start this at night), I observed that the mechanics (aside from the iris) are about 40 parts (give or take - this was 10 years ago), almost all of which are threaded and/or slotted tubes and rings that would pose no challenge in an era of CAD and CNC. If you consider that Chinese LTM adapter manufacturers can hold to a 0.005mm consistency across copies of the same model adapter, even after plating (I've measured this), there is nothing in a Jupiter's metal parts that should pose a challenge.

The Jupiter-for-Zorki barrel (the original one) is also built around accommodating the optical unit that screws into a Contax style barrel. There is little or no point to that today. So your design might come back even cleaner.

The optics? They would have to be redone today. The focal length change would be a slight redesign, but unless you have access to blanks in all of the right original refractive indices (these are actually laid out in patent 1,975,678 for the 1933 Sonnar - which was more than enough for Canon, Nikon and Zunow to go on to design their own versions), you're going be redesigning the thing anyway. And not shockingly, there have been advances in coatings and glass types that have obviated a slavish devotion to the original, labor-intensive design and yet resulted in higher performance. You can see this in the ZM and Sonnetar versions, which cut the element count and reduce the cementing.

So maybe you can convince me otherwise, but I think this is going to be a ground-up facsimile, not something that relies on old timey knowledge. KMZ is a natural fit as a low-cost producer in approximately the right geographic location to make it "historical," (particularly if ZOMZ doesn't make lenses anymore) but other than perhaps owning the trade name, it's hard to say what makes KMZ compelling.

D
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #111
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
This thread finally made me remove from the closet 5cm RF lenses that are Zeiss or FSU clones. I have at least twenty such lenses, and I do not believe that I will miss out somehow by not ordering a new 5cm lens. They are fun to use.

The original J-3 is not "better" than a vintage Zeiss 5cm/1.5 in any aspect except maybe having lenses in ltm without having to use an adapter Contax to ltm. Is there any other reason for using a J-3 over a Zeiss 5cm lens if you own both lenses?
Agreed. The quality of an Amedeo adapter is higher than any mechanical part in an older Jupiter LTM, and the fit, finish, and quality of postwar Zeiss Contax lenses is miraculous compared to Zorki lenses. What's more amazing is that your chances of getting a random Zeiss lens to work with an Amadeo adapter and a digital M (three parts that have never seen each other before) are astronomically higher than finding an old Jupiter-3 that works on a Leica the first try.

The new one should change that equation a bit.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #112
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,944
I started a while ago to slowly add modern lenses to what I already own and use, as I want options and new tools. I added a Zeiss 35/2 ZM and a CV 50/1.1 to what I had as "modern", such as a CV 50/1.5. There is nothing wrong with using old and new. My camera bag is currently housing M8 with ZK 5cm/1.5 ltm, while the M9 has a CV 50/1.1.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #113
David Hughes
Registered User
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post
The British forces had Leitz in Wetzlar under their jurisdiction right after the second world war and so a good while later they requisitioned the design to the Leica IIIb and shipped it off to Reid & Sigrist in Leicester to make a replica.




http://www.l39sm.co.uk/about_reid.php

The Reid 35mm camera has always been considered to be one of the better copies of the Leica Barnack type cameras, they even out did Nicca and Leotax.
Hi,

Yes, I agree about the drawings but we didn't get many cameras and I reckon they were more important. One or two in my collection are pre-war and repaired with whatever we could get our hands on. Not that I was that interested in Leica cameras in 1951.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #114
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post
The British forces had Leitz in Wetzlar under their jurisdiction right after the second world war .
No. Wetzlar was first reached by US troops, who then were temporarily (until the end of the war) replaced by French rearguard units as the front moved eastwards. The British never got there, and did not get under French jurisdiction either, but permanently remained in the US occupied zone.

The British simply got access to the Leica thanks to the Wannsee conference, which granted all allies access to German inventions and secrets captured by any other ally.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #115
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

Yes, I agree about the drawings but we didn't get many cameras and I reckon they were more important. One or two in my collection are pre-war and repaired with whatever we could get our hands on. Not that I was that interested in Leica cameras in 1951.

Regards, David
I think that the British government was concerned about money leaving the land and going to foreign lands for non essential goods.

They had a large outstanding monetary debt to the USA after the WW 2 for war materiel and British exports were highly encouraged to obtain foreign currency, mainly to the USA

So it was a case of import as little as possible, but export as much as possible.

It was the same thing in the 1950s in Britain for importing the desirable American guitars, they only became widely available in around 1960/61 in the UK.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #116
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevo View Post
No. Wetzlar was first reached by US troops, who then were temporarily (until the end of the war) replaced by French rearguard units as the front moved eastwards. The British never got there, and did not get under French jurisdiction either, but permanently remained in the US occupied zone.

The British simply got access to the Leica thanks to the Wannsee conference, which granted all allies access to German inventions and secrets captured by any other ally.
That is not what I have read, but anything is possible, as I was not there in person to verify it. There was a lot of wheeling and dealing and horse trading amongst the allies for the spoils of war, as I mentioned in my previous post above.

Here are a few lines from that Reid camera article that I posted a hyper-link to in my previous post:





"The Leitz factory in Wetzlar had fallen into British hands in 1945 and was investigated and its manufacturing facilities and techniques researched. A late 1946 British Intelligence Report summarises that that "The Team left England on the 15th November, 1946 and returned on the 28th November, 1946. "



* Regarding the Wannsee conference, maybe that explains the unusual time lag from the end of the war to the British getting the Leica drawings to Reid & Sigrest.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #117
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,269
cant comment who got where first or second, but fascinating reading

Petzval was good and original idea from Lomo and I thank them for making it. this new Jupiter not as much. sure they could have dug little deeper into historical lenses and find something more interesting.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #118
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarski View Post
cant comment who got where first or second, but fascinating reading

Petzval was good and original idea from Lomo and I thank them for making it. this new Jupiter not as much. sure they could have dug little deeper into historical lenses and find something more interesting.
The J-3 is a nice lens to re-manufacture, especially if it is better constructed than the original specimen and without the shimming caveat.

I am waiting for Lomo to sub contract a clone of the Leitz Thambar 90mm f2.2 if that is possible from a technical, production cost to number of sales ratio and patent infringement perspective.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #119
Peter Wijninga
Registered User
 
Peter Wijninga's Avatar
 
Peter Wijninga is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 2,862
Lomo are marketeers and hype sellers. This lens at the advertised price is a joke.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2016   #120
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wijninga View Post
Lomo are marketeers and hype sellers. This lens at the advertised price is a joke.
Why?

It is about $150 cheaper than the next available NEW 50mm 1.5 lens, and is the only new fast 50mm lens made in the LTM mount.

Every company has a hype/marketing dept. It's how we know what is available whether it is from an innocuous press release to a worldwide campaign.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 15:28.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.