Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Gearhead Delights > DIYS Modifications

DIYS Modifications DIYS aka Do It Yourself Projects - mostly gear modifications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Adjusting the Industar-61L/D for the Leica
Old 06-09-2010   #1
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,913
Adjusting the Industar-61L/D for the Leica

The I-61L/D is a Tessar formula lens made with low dispersion glass. Sharp and higher contrast. Also inexpensive.

The optical qualities are excellent, but it is not unusual to find one that requires adjustment. This one: we are going to adjust the focus to match the distance scale, and then build up the RF cam so that the RF of the camera agrees with the distance scale as well.

At start, the RF cam is off and the actual focus is off. The RF cam shows 7m for a 5m target, and the actual focus is just over 4.

The distance is off should be 5m for the test object that I was using,



The Shim is off for the Leica, needs to be built up.


Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 07-04-2010 at 20:19.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2010   #2
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,913
Remove the Light Baffle, just like on the I-50 that was the subject of another project.



The optics module is held in by this retaining ring and one set screw.



Remove the retaining ring with the spanner,



And remove the correct retaining screw. They kind of look alike, the one you want is usually in a little deeper.

It's the really long one! It's typically near the one nearest infinity mark. 1 of 3 screws that look a lot alike, and you have to pick the correct one. Just like Let's Make a Deal.

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2010   #3
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,913
With the retaining screw out, the optics module comes out easily. This one is going back into the LTM mount, and needs to be shimmed. This one needs about 0.1mm so that the distance scale lines up with the actual focus.



I started with some Shimming material, cut some rough shapes. Because of the retaining screw, I use split shims. Pieces lined up on each side of the optics module. Press the metal into position to get an imprint, and then cut it so it fits into the ledge.

When re-assembling, you need to make sure the shims are in position, and the optics module holds them in place as you tighten the retaining ring. On this one, I put the retaining screw in first to hold it down. Then, tightened the retaining ring. After that, I took the set screw out, finished tightening the ring, tapped a new hole for the set screw, and put it back in.



Focus is now close to the actual measured distance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2010   #4
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,913
I could have shimmed the optics to match the RF cam, and let the distance scale error stay. BUT- that meant not being able to focus to infinity. The RF cam also needs to be "shimmed". I used copper tape. Again, cut a rough shape and press it onto the Cam to get an imprint. Cut a strip of tape. On this one, I used a very small amount of super-glue on the Cam and pressed the copper tape onto it. I used a metal pin to place the glue. Holds better than the copper tape alone.



With the strip of copper tape in place, very close agreement with the distance scale and actual focus. A little room for infinity focus on this one. At F2.8, plenty close.

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2010   #5
MartinP
Registered User
 
MartinP is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,031
This is interesting, as I happen to have a few unused I61's ! I suppose one could try producing a focus-test tube at the local craft workshop, but a possible alternative would be a carefully measured scrap ltm body, with some sort of screen bodged on to the film guide-rails - or the lens could be set up for one particular body, so without such accurate measuring of the mount-to-film distance. My main question is what do you find the best sort of image for checking this sort of thing ? Is it formed on a ground-glass, or is it an aerial image, like in a grain-focusser ?

(And of course, please keep us informed with your interesting posts!)
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2010   #6
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,913
The viewer I use is ground glass. An SLR focus screen is a good choice for a homemade TTL viewer. I also have a Canon 7 with "T" setting to leave the shutter open. I use it with an exposed film strip and tape over it. Kim Coxon uses a Pentax SLR focus screen at the film gate for focus.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2010   #7
KenD
Film Shooter
 
KenD's Avatar
 
KenD is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: on the Bay of Fundy, Canada
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinP View Post
... but a possible alternative would be a carefully measured scrap ltm body, with some sort of screen bodged on to the film guide-rails
or maybe an FSU body with flange to film plane accurately shimmed...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2010   #8
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,913
Using a non-functional FSU camera could take the place of my TTL viewer. The "Finger" used for the RF pickup will hang up on some lenses with thin RF cams, such as the 5cm F1.5 Summarit. It could be taken off. I picked up some parts Fed 2's for $5 each, the RF trim works perfectly on a Canon RF. Removable back, tripod mount, take out the shutter and put ground glass in the film gate. Shim the mount using a known-good, fast lens.

Finding a Canon with hinged back would be nice, get RF and TTL all at once. Just have to find one with a bad shutter for cheap.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2010   #9
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,369
It goes against the grain to do this because a lot of dealers sell these off cheaply as they've no idea what they are...

Periflex made a camera that was focused with a little push-down periscope. For macro work they sold a gadget that was used behind the extension tubes or bellows as a substitute for the camera and which had a ground glass screen on it. Only it was plastic & not ground glass imo.

It looked like this; with the obligatory FED lens.

As you can see the mount was offset and there's a screw to allow rotation. Here it is upside down to show the flat for the tripod bush and the lens in place:


And here it is on a tripod:

This next one is not the best photograph I've taken but ought to show the rear of it and the screen etc:

Lastly I've shown the box it came in.

What's interesting - apart from the price - is that the word "Periflex" has been added with a separate stamp and suggests it was made for other cameras and lenses.

The price was 2-8-2d or 2-41 when decimalised. Purchase tax was 6/8d or 0-33 and may or may not have been included but was paid on the wholesale price and was probably 25% or 27% depending on what financial crisis was gripping the Govt of the day. And "N/X" was probably a code for the seller's staff about the cost price or discounts allowed.

Anyway, back to the plot, these gadgets are very useful with a magnifier for checking lenses. The target I use for nearby is one of those low energy bulbs with a "U" shaped tube. Rotate the bulb to double check the focus...

Regards, David

PS As people manufacture light seal kits, I'm surprised no one makes shim kits for these lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2010   #10
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,913
Thankyou for posting!

And this reminds me that I need to do a "Tools Thread". Summer is my "busy doing other stuff" time. But I will start this one soon, and would be a great place for this item.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-18-2012   #11
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
I presume the first 3 or 4 posts in this thread would originally have had images in?

Does Mr Sweeney have his own site now or something where the images might be located?

I should have an I-61 arriving next week to use on my R-D1s and I'm a a bit worried about getting it to work right.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-18-2012   #12
newspaperguy
Registered User
 
newspaperguy's Avatar
 
newspaperguy is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Southern Maryland US of A
Age: 87
Posts: 1,525
Sorry to say, but Brian has apparently left the list.

Hopefully, it's just a sabbatical... many of us really miss

his wisdom and his always entertaining projects.
__________________
Rick Beckrich

My five -star rated children's book,

"The Little Crow Who Could Not CAW"

is now available for Kindle and other readers.

This semi-animated version of the hardbound edition
may be just perfect for your favorite 4-to-8 year old,

Available from Amazon.com, of course.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-18-2012   #13
ray*j*gun
Registered User
 
ray*j*gun's Avatar
 
ray*j*gun is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 2,317
I hope he returns to this forum as well......as I looked over my lenses the other day I was surprised to realize how many of them were touched by him either adjusted or purchased.
__________________
Raymond
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-18-2012   #14
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Just been reading another FSU related thread and I'm starting to think I shouldn't have bothered with this I-61 before I even get it!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2012   #15
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Got my I-61 today and the focus actually seems alright. Not tested it at the long end yet really but it certainly seems accurate enough at the sort 1-3 metre distances.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2012   #16
Crazy Fedya
Registered User
 
Crazy Fedya's Avatar
 
Crazy Fedya is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Lon Gisland
Posts: 987
What body are you using it with?
__________________
Regards,
Sam.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2012   #17
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,321
I've had focus issues w/ J-8 lenses (except for the one Brian shimmed and sold to me), but none on an LD 61. Every one I've bought worked perfectly on any camera I put them on, including Leicas, Canons and Bessas. They're really good lenses w/ a definite Leica-like way of imaging.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2012   #18
Crazy Fedya
Registered User
 
Crazy Fedya's Avatar
 
Crazy Fedya is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Lon Gisland
Posts: 987
Most focusing issues are with f/2 and faster lenses. Similar issues are with using Nikon S lenses on Contax bodies and vice versa.
__________________
Regards,
Sam.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2012   #19
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
I'm using it on an R-D1s.

Don't have any other lenses to know whether the rangefinder is alright or not but going by the good condition of the body I presume it will be.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2012   #20
Crazy Fedya
Registered User
 
Crazy Fedya's Avatar
 
Crazy Fedya is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Lon Gisland
Posts: 987
Assuming the rangefinder is set correctly, if there is focusing error, it should be visible wide open at around 3-3.5 feet.
__________________
Regards,
Sam.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2012   #21
Brian Legge
Registered User
 
Brian Legge is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,684
And a digital body is a great way to test a lens if you do end up trying to adjust it. I do it with a loupe and a piece of tape across the film gate. No where near as accurate but its been workable for me.
__________________
Shooting whatever I can get my hands on.
Recent Work
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2012   #22
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Was looking at the screen on the camera before, just downloaded to the computer.

The focus seems pretty good but there is maybe a bit of a lack of contrast. The aperture ring is pretty loose so maybe some work needed after all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-20-2012   #23
Ron (Netherlands)
Registered User
 
Ron (Netherlands)'s Avatar
 
Ron (Netherlands) is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,914
I had different Industars and some 61 L/Ds, they actually never misfocussed on my Leica's nor on my FSU cams. So I guess Brian must have got one that had been mingled with. Also from other members here I never heard about any misfocussing, contrary to the old FED lenses that had been factory adjusted to work on one particular camera - like in the old Leica days.
__________________
__________________
When day is done......

Leica: IIa synch conversion, IIIb, M6 TTL Millenium, 2x Rolleicord Vb, 2x Rolleiflex 3.5F white face, Rolleiflex 2.8A, 5x ICA Tropica

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2012   #24
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
After further testing the lens seems to focus pretty well if I start from infinity but going the other way it's a bit off. Guess I can live with that for a 20.

From what I've read I understand this is quite normal for rf lenses so if I replaced the I-61 with something better like a Canon 50mm f1.8 it would be quite likely to do the same?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-21-2012   #25
Coldkennels
Registered User
 
Coldkennels's Avatar
 
Coldkennels is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Tunbridge Wells, England.
Age: 31
Posts: 311
I've heard about it happening, but I don't know how serious of a problem it really is. I think some examples of some lenses might be worse than others; I know a couple of my Soviet lenses seem a bit sloppy on the focusing, and you can feel a distinct jump as you change direction. Most of the time it seems to be down to wear, loosely fitting parts or bad grease. I know my I61L/D felt particularly sloppy until I stripped it down, cleaned it and re-greased it, but even now it feels like the lens mount is slightly loose due to enlarged holes in the mounting plate.

How does your I61 L/D feel? Any wobble? Any unusual jerks as you move through the focusing range?
__________________
Once upon a time, I was part of a podcast about photography. Now I just destroy some Fomapan occasionally.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2012   #26
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Yeah the entire lens seems to wobble on the mount a bit. There's also a lot of play in the aperture ring and a little less in the focus ring. Like you can rattle it back an forth without actually changing the focus.

Once you get it moving proper though it seems smooth enough.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-22-2012   #27
Coldkennels
Registered User
 
Coldkennels's Avatar
 
Coldkennels is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Tunbridge Wells, England.
Age: 31
Posts: 311
Sounds fairly standard. It could be wear on what I call the mounting plate, or it could simply be that the holes the screws go through are simply too large (the plate for the actual mounting mechanism isn't threaded, it's merely "pinched" between the back plate and the main body of the lens). unfortunately it's not fixable without machining a whole new part.

That said, the play in the focusing ring could probably be fixed via a relube. If you've got some jeweller's screwdrivers, some solvent, some relatively standard (and dense) lithium grease and a couple of hours, it's an easy enough job to do. I've done a few now, and you'd be amazed at how much better the lens handles afterwards. There's some instructions here or, if you're in the UK, I could do it for you.
__________________
Once upon a time, I was part of a podcast about photography. Now I just destroy some Fomapan occasionally.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2012   #28
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
I saw an I-61 L/D in the country and going quite cheap last week so I bought it, the other one I had was the plain I61, not L/D so I thought this would be an upgrade.

The L/D is in better nick than my original I61 but it's focusing closer than it should. Ie, I line up a row of film canisters and focus half way down them and the most focused point in the image is closer to me than the middle.

Now, the lens moves away from the camera as you turn the focus ring towards close focus so I figure that the optics in my lens need to be closer to the camera than they are right now (in relation to the part of the lens that moved the bit in the camera that then moves the rf patch, sorry I don't know the right terminology) does that seem right?

I'm pretty sure that's the way things need to go but most of the chat seems to be about adding shims to move the optics away rather than bringing them closer.

I've had my lenses apart and there's the split ring inside, I could machine that down but then I figure I could also just machine down (or even sand down with some wet and dry) the bit of the lens that moves the rf actuating arm?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2012   #29
alexandru_voicu
Registered User
 
alexandru_voicu is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 111
If your lens front focuses, the lens is too "close" to the film. Therefore, you need to add shims. Think the other way. If you lens front focuses, you have to manually back focus a bit, right?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2012   #30
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Ok, so adding shims under the split ring that the optics block sits against makes things worse, what am I doing wrong?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2012   #31
randomm
Registered User
 
randomm's Avatar
 
randomm is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by andephotographic View Post
Ok, so adding shims under the split ring that the optics block sits against makes things worse, what am I doing wrong?
I have not worked on this particular FSU lens, but in general if you're thickening the shim and that makes things worse then you need to make the shim thinner.
__________________
flickr
www.janiturunen.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2012   #32
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomm View Post
I have not worked on this particular FSU lens, but in general if you're thickening the shim and that makes things worse then you need to make the shim thinner.
One would think so, but according to Alexander Voicu, front focusing should be corrected by adding shims not removing them.

My lens front focuses with no additional shims so to "go the other way" I'm going to have to remove material somewhere.

I have 2 of these lenses anyway and whichever one I don't use will be passed along to my father to use on a GF2 so rf coupling doesn't matter so I might just go for it and take some off.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2012   #33
alexandru_voicu
Registered User
 
alexandru_voicu is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 111
Hi everyone,

Please excuse me for my false piece of advice. I haven't shimmed FSU lenses recently and my memory played a trick on me. You are right, it's the other way around. Front focus = decrease shim, back focus = increase shim. My apologies if my "piece of advice" gave you headaches.

All FSU lenses that I put my hands on had a slight tendency towards back focusing. In my experience, front focusing is quite unusual.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2012   #34
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexandru_voicu View Post
Hi everyone,

Please excuse me for my false piece of advice. I haven't shimmed FSU lenses recently and my memory played a trick on me. You are right, it's the other way around. Front focus = decrease shim, back focus = increase shim. My apologies if my "piece of advice" gave you headaches.

All FSU lenses that I put my hands on had a slight tendency towards back focusing. In my experience, front focusing is quite unusual.
No problem! At least you said to add when I needed to remove than the other way around!

I thought I had it right in my head but then the more I thought about it the more confused I got!

Just about to look at some test shots and see where I am now.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2012   #35
andephotographic
Registered User
 
andephotographic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Reduced the split ring from 2.89mm to 2.5 and just back focusing slightly now so a wee shim in there should do the trick I think.

I still have a bit of discrepancy between focusing from close and focusing from infinity but I'm resigned to the fact thse cheap lenses will do this.
  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 20:15.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.