Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Gearhead Delights > Repair / Camera Care

Repair / Camera Care This is a good place to discuss the care and repair of your photo gear. You can share Do-It-Yourself repair and maintenance, as well as your recommendations for pro repairs. This new forum was created 4/1/07. PLEASE title your thread wisely, so others searching for a certain make of camera or repair person can find your thread easily!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

My Jupiter-3 DIYs
Old 07-20-2016   #1
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
My Jupiter-3 DIYs

So here is the story ..
I was avoiding the J3 for years, knowing that problem with the non-standard focal length and often misaligned copies. Since I got my M9 I had a more immediate way of checking focus than doing that with matte screens, loupes and film. So I got one from a guy that said he adjusted close focus for his M8, well he was right, but it was pretty off in any other aspect.

I wanted to change close focus so I "went in"... the adjustment is fairly easy to be honest. The problematic part was that I marked the inner cam module with permanent marker but I cleaned everything with isopropanol so my marking was gone. With 2 or 3 tries I found the correct starting angle (I already thought I fu˘ked up).
I was lucky to get a copy where the whole focus module was done right, I haven't had to drill new holes like described in that manual by Brian Sweeney.

Important tip here is I guess, you do not have to unscrew the inner cam anyway. It's a three part assembly and after you remove the two guide screws and the stop screw, you can just get off the outer part and there is the bit that needs some filing. When putting it back together the thread (on my copy at least) catches approx. where the stop screw hole aligns with the 1m stop.

All I had to do now was to file down a good bit on the M39 mount thread at the RF roller position, so that the roller can actually follow that far.

Easy job actually all in all!!
Btw, if you want to figure out how much to file away on the close focus stop, there is an easy solution! I tried to calculate it and found out later that it's actually just that easy: Unscrew the stop screw but leave the assembly together, put it back in the mount, mount it on your camera, focus to the closest point you want to achieve, unscrew it from the mount part without changing the focus and then mark where the stop screw hole is, this is how much you need to remove.

So that other thing I'm struggling a bit with is the lens module. What I noticed was that the rear triplet was slightly unscrewed, the shim is pretty thick and the fine adjustment stand off was on its far out side. I though that can't be right! .. check:
http://ussrphoto.com/Wiki/Content/fi...adjustment.pdf
I screwed the rear triplet all the way back in and the stand off ring as far in as I could. I still can't reach infinity at f/1.5 (I couldn't before either) and the lens has some front focus that starts showing at 1.5m already and is quite heavy at around 3m (20 cm maybe). Well the closest focus seems to be okish (see pic --> 70cm f/1.5, focused at the butterfly wing)

I'm not sure if I have to reduce the shim thickness or if the focal length is still so much too long. I have the feeling that I have front focus all the way thru the focus range, so I guess i will start with thinner shims.

Also the aperture ring is stuck .. like glued on the lens module so I can't align it with the little red dot mark

MOST IMPORTANT TIP .. DO NOT LOSE THE LITTLE SCREWS (yes I'm yelling) - a magnet and a clean place is your friend
Attached Images
File Type: jpg L1013484.jpg (13.6 KB, 26 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2016   #2
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
ok .. same shot a bit bigger than that attachment .. who said bokeh??
Untitled by Kay K, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2016   #3
Wulfthari
Registered User
 
Wulfthari's Avatar
 
Wulfthari is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 611
I think you messed up your lens.

I never registered a Soviet lens, let alone my J-3, and they all worked fine with my Leicas and Japanese RF, these are some shots with my Canon L1:





__________________
Canon 7s, Canon 50 mm f1.2
Leica M3,M4-P,M5, Summaron 1:2.8/35,Summicron 1:2.0/50DR,Elmarit 1:2.8/90, Summitar 1:2.0/50
Contax IIA,IIIA, Sonnar 1:1.5/50
Zorki 4K,5,6, Leningrad,Industar 61LD 1:2.8/55,Orion 15 1:5,6/28,Jupiter 8 1:2.0/50,Jupiter 9 1:2.0/85,Jupiter 11 1:4/135,Jupiter 12 1:2.8/35
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2016   #4
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,366
That tripod shot doesn't look fine to me at all though wulfthari. It's a few centimeters close-focused, assuming you aimed for the screw head.

Per Brian Sweeney (who was here many moons ago), the J-3 when shot wide open at closest focus is front focusing several centimeters, and hardly any two lenses have a similar focus error to begin with.

Two reasons for that: the Jupiter 50mm lens effectively is a 52.4mm lens (Contax standard focal length, adapted to LTM lenses 1:1 by the Russians while using looted Contax factory machinery after WWII), Leica standard lenses are 51,6mm. This 0,8mm focal length difference also is conveyed in the focus travel, focus shifts throughout the focus range as you focus at different distances.
A second issue is the Sonnar design, even when the focus travel is perfectly Leica-linear, the lens shifts focus slightly. Later Sonnar designs greatly depend on increased coating quality to correct that shift, increased contrast masks the focus shift in modern Zeiss Sonnar lenses but it's still there. But the older J-3 and J-8 lenses didn't have that coating so they suffered from focus shift more.

These two factors (combined with bad quality control in the factories at later production dates) contributed to the bad rep of the Jupiter 50mm and 85mm lenses. While in fact they can be good lenses, and the design is sound to begin with. Zeiss made it work on the Contax bodies, right!?

At bigger distances, the increased DOF often makes up for the focus error. The J-3s and J-8s mostly were optimised for infinity focus only. Meaning that the focus shift got worse and worse towards the closer focused distances.

Brian did the math and found out that if the lens was optimised for close focus wide open (what Kay is working at here), the DOF would still cover any infinity focus error. Optimising the lens for close focus wide open is done easiest when you slightly increase shim thickness on the J-3. The optical block (I love that term ) needs to be screwed out, the shim thickness increased with ~0.3mm (aluminium tape that plumbers etc use is very good to use for that) and presto! a J-3 that is spot on close up, wide open and still covers its distance towards infinity.

But it requires a lens that is within certain tolerances to begin with and some lenses were really hacked together to meet required production quantities. In which case, more drastic measures are required...
Kay, good luck at getting the lens on the mark! Close focused at least it nails it now!
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2016   #5
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,392
I don't think anyone would file Summilux to get it focusing before 1M. So, I never did for Jupiters. Shimming for M of J-3 and J-8 wasn't something very complicated. But every time I did, those micro-screws ended up falling on the floor.

This is real world pictures at 1.5. Scans of darkroom prints:




  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2016   #6
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,475
Hi,

Fascinating but " ...the Russians while using looted Contax factory machinery after WWII" worries me. Where did you get that from?

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2016   #7
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

Fascinating but " ...the Russians while using looted Contax factory machinery after WWII" worries me. Where did you get that from?

Regards, David
Quote:
The Kiev rangefinder camera is a near carbon copy of the pre-war German Contax II camera. The Soviets seized The Zeiss Ikon plants in Dresden and Jena totally intact at the end of the war. Some of the Zeiss manufacturing equipment was shipped to the Soviet Union -- some was later returned to East Germany. Production of the Kiev II began in 1947. Many of the early Kievs contained a lot of "liberated" German parts.
Found on http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-1887505578.

It's common knowledge the Russians in 1945 relocated German plants and engineers to Kiev, to compensate for the Russian camera manufacture being destroyed by the Germans in 1942.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2016   #8
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,392
Looted is wrong word. Relocation was done officially.
But Arsenal in Kiev has nothing to do with KMZ in Moscow, where Jupiters were designed and some earlier copies were manufactured with German glass.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2016   #9
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Looted is wrong word. Relocation was done officially.
But Arsenal in Kiev has nothing to do with KMZ in Moscow, where Jupiters were designed and some earlier copies were manufactured with German glass.
The Jupiter 50's were not designed in Moscow.
They were designed in Dresden as Carl Zeiss Sonnar lenses, the exact same 2.0/50mm and 1.5/50mm lenses that later became Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-3. The original ones were being designed for the Contax rangefinder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_Sonnar tells you all about it.
At the beginning or WWII, the former Carl Zeiss employee who oversaw the production of cameras and lenses for the Nazi military forces made sure that the ordered Leicas were fitted with Carl Zeiss LTM lenses so his former employer would at least make a profit on the lenses.

The relocation was made official long time after it was carried out. The relocation was started before the negotiations with the German on repair payments were concluded and as such it was a war loot. The US got away with rocket science technology from Berlin (and Werner von Braun), also looted.

On the extensive Soviet operation to relocate materials and people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim and on the Allied operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsos_Mission
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2016   #10
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
History session is ON
LOL


Wulfthari .. I don't know where your focus was aimed there but I agree with Johan, it seems your lens is front focusing a good bit at close focus. If it catches up till infinity chances are you focal length is too long and the lens is shimmed towards infinity. It would be nice to see if you can hit an eye at closest focus or if you get the nose tip instead. My lens gets somewhere between the eyebrows and the eye. Well it is more visible on a sensor shot than on film anyway.
Just read that pdf I linked to. My lens did not reach infinity when i got it so I messed up nothing, also what I did to the lens cell so far is reversible.

Kostja, nice examples - your J3 is definitely less blurry than mine. I can't believe that power pole base is shot at f/1.5.
The difference between a Summilux and a Jupiter-3 is the price! If a v2 summilux would cost as much as the J3 I wouldn't bother with that crappy aluminum piece of garbage. AND I would still try to change close focus if it would be as easy! Trust me, there are many other nice lenses out there I'd love to own but the 1m often is a deal breaker to me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2016   #11
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
OK .. just checked again .. I am almost spot on at 0,7m and have ca. 1cm front focus at a 1m. I'd love someone to comment on my initial thought.
Is this just because the shim is a bit too thick (I mean the front focus error seems to be linearly growing with the distance) or is the focal length too long?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2016   #12
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,475
Hmmm, so I guess the Yalta conference was an internet myth and FDR and Churchill and Stalin never got together, and so on. History is fascinating isn't it? especially after the event.

But I often wonder if the Zeiss stuff and staff taken to the US zone was 'looted' or what? Probably 'rescued' knowing politics...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #13
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 1,014
I have five J-8s and one J-3. The two black J-8s I have behave the same on both Zorki-6 and Canon LTM mount bodies, spot on focus 1m f/2, never needed shimming.

My J-3 is another story, it didn't even focus to infinity on either soviet nor Leica standard bodies, I had to reassemble and adjust a lot of things to fix that, for instance there are two holes to fit the focus restriction bolt inside the lens! Apparently some factory worker or previews owner had fun with this lens. I had to move it to the other hole to make it focus properly, together with some other fiddling. But in the end I made it have spot on focus at 1m f/2, on both my Zorki-6 and Canon LTM bodies.

It will be interesting to test these "problematic lenses" on calibrated Soviet bodies before shim them for Leica standard bodies. I bet they would more or less have focus problem on Soviet bodies too.
__________________
tumblr

flickr(abandoned)

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #14
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
Oh, right. I guess I'm lucky that will never get a Russian LTM camera ever again
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #15
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hmmm, so I guess the Yalta conference was an internet myth and FDR and Churchill and Stalin never got together, and so on. History is fascinating isn't it? especially after the event.

But I often wonder if the Zeiss stuff and staff taken to the US zone was 'looted' or what? Probably 'rescued' knowing politics...

Regards, David
David,

Yalta was a conference on how to govern Europe after the war. Reparation payments were not discussed in full.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations briefly tells about the war reparations discussed at Potsdam Conference, which concluded August 2nd 1945.

By that time, the US, UK, France and Soviets had already seized many assets, technology, machinery, etc. Which technically makes it looting from all allied forces. Anything taken after the Potsdam Conference that also was agreed upon during the conference is reparation payments, anything taken before is simple war loot.


/History mode OFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #16
Wulfthari
Registered User
 
Wulfthari's Avatar
 
Wulfthari is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

Fascinating but " ...the Russians while using looted Contax factory machinery after WWII" worries me. Where did you get that from?

Regards, David
It is well known as all these lenses were taken from Carl Zeiss Jena.

However the difference is negligible, Leica 50mm are in reality 51.9 (at least my Summicron DR is engraved as such) and the difference is negligible.

Focus shift is another story and it's inherent to the Sonnar design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Looted is wrong word. Relocation was done officially.
But Arsenal in Kiev has nothing to do with KMZ in Moscow, where Jupiters were designed and some earlier copies were manufactured with German glass.
Ko.Fe is right on this the J-3 was recalculated by GOI probably to compensate the different material and the coating.

http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-1123596578

Original Sonnar:



Jupiter 3:



Note the slightly concave fifth element of the J3.
__________________
Canon 7s, Canon 50 mm f1.2
Leica M3,M4-P,M5, Summaron 1:2.8/35,Summicron 1:2.0/50DR,Elmarit 1:2.8/90, Summitar 1:2.0/50
Contax IIA,IIIA, Sonnar 1:1.5/50
Zorki 4K,5,6, Leningrad,Industar 61LD 1:2.8/55,Orion 15 1:5,6/28,Jupiter 8 1:2.0/50,Jupiter 9 1:2.0/85,Jupiter 11 1:4/135,Jupiter 12 1:2.8/35
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #17
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,475
Hi,

Well, I can't argue with the internet but, FWIW, I was objecting to the word "looted" and the way it is only applied to the USSR forces.

I often wonder what the USSR would have done in the optics line if they had been left alone in 1941 and gone on to develop things their way but that's a big "what if?" isn't it? And that would have led to them not being cold shouldered later and, perhaps, having access to the latest technology...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #18
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfthari View Post
It is well known as all these lenses were taken from Carl Zeiss Jena.

However the difference is negligible, Leica 50mm are in reality 51.9 (at least my Summicron DR is engraved as such) and the difference is negligible.

Focus shift is another story and it's inherent to the Sonnar design.



Ko.Fe is right on this the J-3 was recalculated by GOI probably to compensate the different material and the coating.

http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-1123596578

Original Sonnar:



Jupiter 3:



Note the slightly concave fifth element of the J3.
Interesting, thanks but I thought at one time all Leica lenses were code marked to show the deviation from the nominal focal length.

Anyway, thanks for the detail about the J-3 I seem to have a decent version of it, although a little new lubricant would improve it.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #19
Wulfthari
Registered User
 
Wulfthari's Avatar
 
Wulfthari is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

Well, I can't argue with the internet but, FWIW, I was objecting to the word "looted" and the way it is only applied to the USSR forces.
Everybody looted Germany after the war, and the countries that were looted by them during the occupation (France,Benelux, USSR, Italy, Poland) had more right to do so.

It is very well known that CZJ was looted by the Americans and when the Soviets arrived they found very little, they had to order the German engineers to remake the drawings of the Contax because the originals were "lost".

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Interesting, thanks but I thought at one time all Leica lenses were code marked to show the deviation from the nominal focal length.

Anyway, thanks for the detail about the J-3 I seem to have a decent version of it, although a little new lubricant would improve it.

Regards, David
I can't speak for other lenses, but DR Summicrons are easy to be disassembled and they are engraved because if you mix the upper part of a lens with the base of another with different focal length the focusing error will of course be pretty big.

Mine is engraved as such and it appears 51.9 was the most common focal lenght for DRs:



Regarding the pic of the tripod, I don't know if it was a focusing error on my side or perhaps a little misalignment in the rangefinder of the L1, the camera had just arrived and that's a test pic. The Vespa shot however seems ok.

This is another wild bokeh test:

[IMG][/IMG]

That's the lens at f8 or so:

__________________
Canon 7s, Canon 50 mm f1.2
Leica M3,M4-P,M5, Summaron 1:2.8/35,Summicron 1:2.0/50DR,Elmarit 1:2.8/90, Summitar 1:2.0/50
Contax IIA,IIIA, Sonnar 1:1.5/50
Zorki 4K,5,6, Leningrad,Industar 61LD 1:2.8/55,Orion 15 1:5,6/28,Jupiter 8 1:2.0/50,Jupiter 9 1:2.0/85,Jupiter 11 1:4/135,Jupiter 12 1:2.8/35
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #20
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,366
FWIW, the Jupiter-3, Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-9 models that were made until about 1954 often had remaining Carl Zeiss stock used where possible.

I used to have a Jupiter-9 with a 1.8mtr minimal focus distance and its paperwork with it that stated the lens was 83.4mm, which is what it should be to function correctly on a Leica.
The 85mm Sonnar had a 1.8mtr minimal focus and also was 83.4mm effectively. I sold the lens to Dirk in China and wonder why I ever did that...

Currently I still own a 1954 Jupiter-8 that has blue coatings (Russian) on some elements and honey coating (Zeiss) on others. Pretty sharp lens considering the condition it's in.

There are a lot of fakes for early serial numbers on the internet by now, quite regularly I see early numbered Jupiter lenses or even Zeiss Sonnar lenses with blue coating. Must have had parts swapped out.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #21
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfthari View Post
Everybody looted Germany after the war, and the countries that were looted by them during the occupation (France,Benelux, USSR, Italy, Poland) had more right to do so...

I can't speak for other lenses, but DR Summicrons are easy to be disassembled and they are engraved because if you mix the upper part of a lens with the base of another with different focal length the focusing error will of course be pretty big.

Mine is engraved as such and it appears 51.9 was the most common focal lenght for DRs...
Hi,

One or two countries were not looted but were bombed rather a lot, as I well remember over 70 years later, and I feel we were owed a lot. What worries me is that Google will now produce your list of countries so I'll add Britain to the post... Our contribution to the war is often forgotten.

Back to Leica lenses, my 90mm is marked sideways on the focussing scale with "00" which means it was exactly 90mm. Alas it's too hot to start searching for others and references and photographing. I don't know about the innards of lenses, in my old area of specialisation I know what customers can do to wreck things and so I leave lenses well alone. It's a matter of practicing what I've preached about it.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #22
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
The relocation was made official long time after it was carried out. ....
The relocation was done in 1946. By this time this territory and factories were officially under USSR control by SMAD, Soviet Military Administration of Germany.

Russian rangefinder forum member did some research and significant part of it is based on German books. It is written in Russian.
http://rangefinder.ru/club/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15284

Less detailed info in English is available here:
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/zconrfKiev.htm

Was relocation done with some force? Yes. But if you compare to what Russia did with Germans and in opposite planns of Germans to submerge Moscow under water and eliminate all of the residents, you might realize why I'm thankful for my grandfathers to win.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #23
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by k__43 View Post
Kostja, nice examples - your J3 is definitely less blurry than mine. I can't believe that power pole base is shot at f/1.5.
The difference between a Summilux and a Jupiter-3 is the price! If a v2 summilux would cost as much as the J3 I wouldn't bother with that crappy aluminum piece of garbage. AND I would still try to change close focus if it would be as easy! Trust me, there are many other nice lenses out there I'd love to own but the 1m often is a deal breaker to me.
Thanks. It was taken with #4 contrast filter and printed with contrast filter as well. I took about four rolls at 1.5 earlier this year for contest "Jupiter-3 at 1.5" on russian rangefinder forum.

J-3 description of yours is hard to justify. It is one of them most elegant and compact, light and fast fifty available on the market. And comparison to the Lux v2 is wrong as well, it is much more modern lens.
If you want to compere J-3 to something, do it against of Summarit 50 1.5 which was designed around same time and also common in LTM mount. In fact, I used same filter size on J-3 and Summarit. At the end I kept J-3.
Because it is smaller, significantly lighter and has working 1.5, while Summarit 50 1.5 has none of it, but have something worse.

I have tried many old German LTM 50mm lenses. Unacceptably soft glass, prone to fungus and some of them were unreasonably heavy and large.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #24
Wulfthari
Registered User
 
Wulfthari's Avatar
 
Wulfthari is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 611
The Summarit is a relatively bad lens, and at that time CZ glass was better than Leitz, that was generally accepted.
__________________
Canon 7s, Canon 50 mm f1.2
Leica M3,M4-P,M5, Summaron 1:2.8/35,Summicron 1:2.0/50DR,Elmarit 1:2.8/90, Summitar 1:2.0/50
Contax IIA,IIIA, Sonnar 1:1.5/50
Zorki 4K,5,6, Leningrad,Industar 61LD 1:2.8/55,Orion 15 1:5,6/28,Jupiter 8 1:2.0/50,Jupiter 9 1:2.0/85,Jupiter 11 1:4/135,Jupiter 12 1:2.8/35
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #25
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
Maybe all true about that summarit but I've seen and handled a V1 Summilux and I'd swap my Jupiters for one without hesitation
I really wish they'd have used brass for that lens not aluminium. I don't care much for the weight advantage - I think that brass bends less so the cams just stay smoother over time

Meanwhile another one at 70cm:

Untitled by Kay K, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #26
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,392
Summilix type 1 (1959-61) is slightly updated Summarit with same weak performance wide open.
Also most if not all pre-ASPH Summilux are 1 meter MFD.


Here is one note which was given to Jupiter DIYers by one repair enthusiast who is famous in russian cycles. If you want to have smooth focus on Jupiters, the focusing threads must be cleaned completely before re-lubing. You have to look very closely for each thread and clean it not with just cloth wetted in the gasoline.
I also followed his advice and applied enough grease to dump aperture ring. Now it stays where I want it to be.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2016   #27
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Summilix type 1 (1959-61) is slightly updated Summarit with same weak performance wide open.
Also most if not all pre-ASPH Summilux are 1 meter MFD.


Here is one note which was given to Jupiter DIYers by one repair enthusiast who is famous in russian cycles. If you want to have smooth focus on Jupiters, the focusing threads must be cleaned completely before re-lubing. You have to look very closely for each thread and clean it not with just cloth wetted in the gasoline.
I also followed his advice and applied enough grease to dump aperture ring. Now it stays where I want it to be.
Yeah .. the all except the last pre-asph.
As I stated earlier if the price point would be as low as the russian lenses I would still attempt to change that. It's easier to throw 100€ in the garbage than 1000+

I did that - I cleaned it very well. The threats were super smooth until I put all three pieces back together, they are working against each other - my guess on of them is slightly elliptic. It's ok tho, not that bad really I can live with it for now - but not Leica smooth like my DR Summicron used to be.

The aperture ring on mine is super stuck. Can't get it off
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2016   #28
Wulfthari
Registered User
 
Wulfthari's Avatar
 
Wulfthari is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by k__43 View Post
Yeah .. the all except the last pre-asph.
As I stated earlier if the price point would be as low as the russian lenses I would still attempt to change that. It's easier to throw 100€ in the garbage than 1000+

I did that - I cleaned it very well. The threats were super smooth until I put all three pieces back together, they are working against each other - my guess on of them is slightly elliptic. It's ok tho, not that bad really I can live with it for now - but not Leica smooth like my DR Summicron used to be.

The aperture ring on mine is super stuck. Can't get it off
The lens needs a CLA, not to be thrown away.

As the J3 is a good performer it is worth of IMO, of course if you want a brass lens Lomo sells the J3+ that is new and built with good quality control...it's expensive though, almost like a Nokton, but if I hadn't the Nokton perhaps I would get it.
__________________
Canon 7s, Canon 50 mm f1.2
Leica M3,M4-P,M5, Summaron 1:2.8/35,Summicron 1:2.0/50DR,Elmarit 1:2.8/90, Summitar 1:2.0/50
Contax IIA,IIIA, Sonnar 1:1.5/50
Zorki 4K,5,6, Leningrad,Industar 61LD 1:2.8/55,Orion 15 1:5,6/28,Jupiter 8 1:2.0/50,Jupiter 9 1:2.0/85,Jupiter 11 1:4/135,Jupiter 12 1:2.8/35
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2016   #29
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfthari View Post
The lens needs a CLA, not to be thrown away.

As the J3 is a good performer it is worth of IMO, of course if you want a brass lens Lomo sells the J3+ that is new and built with good quality control...it's expensive though, almost like a Nokton, but if I hadn't the Nokton perhaps I would get it.
No man, that was hypothetical .. lens is fine and I just gave it a CLA. Get of my back! If I had 700€ to spend I would get a V3 summicron. The J3+ is interesting but no one sells it used and I'm not buying my gear new - ever! I'm not rich - I'm not loosing money on camera stuff.

I only need to reset the aperture collar, which seems to be glued on the lens and solve that front focus problem.
BUT INSTEAD OF SOME INSIGHT TO MY QUESTION I GET HISTORY LESSONS AND SMART ASS COMMENTS - well this is the internet what did i expect ??
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2016   #30
Wulfthari
Registered User
 
Wulfthari's Avatar
 
Wulfthari is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by k__43 View Post
No man, that was hypothetical .. lens is fine and I just gave it a CLA. Get of my back! If I had 700€ to spend I would get a V3 summicron. The J3+ is interesting but no one sells it used and I'm not buying my gear new - ever! I'm not rich - I'm not loosing money on camera stuff.

I only need to reset the aperture collar, which seems to be glued on the lens and solve that front focus problem.
BUT INSTEAD OF SOME INSIGHT TO MY QUESTION I GET HISTORY LESSONS AND SMART ASS COMMENTS - well this is the internet what did i expect ??
The answer to your question for me it's simple: stop messing up with the lens and have it CLA by somebody who know what he's doing.

It's clear that you little understanding of what to do properly, on the other side you complain about the aluminium barrel, the 0.5 difference in scale distance etc...camera repairers exist for that.
__________________
Canon 7s, Canon 50 mm f1.2
Leica M3,M4-P,M5, Summaron 1:2.8/35,Summicron 1:2.0/50DR,Elmarit 1:2.8/90, Summitar 1:2.0/50
Contax IIA,IIIA, Sonnar 1:1.5/50
Zorki 4K,5,6, Leningrad,Industar 61LD 1:2.8/55,Orion 15 1:5,6/28,Jupiter 8 1:2.0/50,Jupiter 9 1:2.0/85,Jupiter 11 1:4/135,Jupiter 12 1:2.8/35
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2016   #31
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
sometimes I wish there would be an ignore button around here!
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2016   #32
nhchen
Nathan
 
nhchen is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 285
Have you tried warming up the lens to try and free up the aperture ring? The grease in there may have dried up.

Nathan
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2016   #33
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhchen View Post
Have you tried warming up the lens to try and free up the aperture ring? The grease in there may have dried up.

Nathan
Not really, besides hand warming. What would you suggest as a heat source ? a hair dryer?

I mean the ring in the moment is about half a centimeter away from where it should be. but that could change if I put in a thinner shim like I think I need.
It might even be that when I'm done adjusting the shim the aperture collar ends up where it needs to be.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2016   #34
nhchen
Nathan
 
nhchen is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by k__43 View Post
Not really, besides hand warming. What would you suggest as a heat source ? a hair dryer?

I mean the ring in the moment is about half a centimeter away from where it should be. but that could change if I put in a thinner shim like I think I need.
It might even be that when I'm done adjusting the shim the aperture collar ends up where it needs to be.
Oh I understand what you mean now, the aperture dial is not lining up to the dot after adjusting the lens.. To move it you'll have to unscrew the little grub screws holding it down, and because you're moving the ring, you will need to drill new holes at the new position so that the screws can sit flush after you tighten them down again.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2016   #35
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
Screws are out, the ring sits tight. I believe it's glued in. The aperture itself goes nicely from f1.5 to f8 and then gets a bit stiffer but I like that: since I have no clickstops it's a way of knowing you stop down a too far when not watchin.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2016   #36
nhchen
Nathan
 
nhchen is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 285
the ring is threaded so you should be able to unscrew it. Look up the servicing instructions online to see how it's taken apart.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2016   #37
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,366
Hey Kay,

tried this yet? http://www.pentax-manuals.com/repairs/j3service.pdf It's Brians write-up of the J-3 servicing.

Or, reach out here and ask some of the prior to 2012 members for Brian Sweeney's mail address, he's a friendly fellow and I'm expecting he might help you out.
This old thread might help too: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=78083

Good luck, and I won't rake up any more history, I promise
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2016   #38
lukitas
second hand noob
 
lukitas's Avatar
 
lukitas is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Brussels, belgium
Posts: 759
Quote:
Originally Posted by k__43 View Post
I really wish they'd have used brass for that lens not aluminium. I don't care much for the weight advantage - I think that brass bends less so the cams just stay smoother over time
Machinists know, one of the best combinations for moving parts is brass on steel; if the parts are well machined, with minimal surface roughness, a very fine film of oil remains between the moving parts : as long as there is no metal to metal contact, such a bearing will work forever.
Inferior metalwork leaves highs and lows in the surface, when the pieces are first fit together, they can fit well, but as soon as the thing is used, the highs polish each other off, both surfaces loose a few or more microns, leaving a sloppy fit.
__________________
lukitas

Gallery

photos by lukitas
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2016   #39
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
Hey Kay,

tried this yet? http://www.pentax-manuals.com/repairs/j3service.pdf It's Brians write-up of the J-3 servicing.

Or, reach out here and ask some of the prior to 2012 members for Brian Sweeney's mail address, he's a friendly fellow and I'm expecting he might help you out.
This old thread might help too: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=78083

Good luck, and I won't rake up any more history, I promise
Yeah, that was what I used for working on my lens. well written piece.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2016   #40
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,366
Kay,

seen this then?
http://www.lomography.nl/magazine/31...-brian-sweeney

in it I found a link to Brians Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  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 03:33.


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.