I finally got my hands on one!

[gollum]

My M4-P arrived this morning with which I am rathered pleased, it will be the basis of my film work for this year and tell me at the end if its a style of camera I can live with I hope.

Sadly the two lenses I ordered didn't so it dosen't look like I'll be playing this weekend

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22119200@N08/page1/

[zx9]

Very nice, I bet you can't wait to get out with that. Which lenses did you order?

[Zou]

Beautiful. I'd love one with a full set of Summiluxes, but I've more chance of becoming pope than that happening.

[gollum]

At this stage I can't afford the leica glass and even if I could would be reluctant until I am sure I am totally happy with this style of camera, but TimF kindly pointed me in the direction of;

http://robertwhite.co.uk/product.asp?P_ID=940&PT_ID=706

so I have a Voigtlander 50mm f2.5 Colour Skopar and a Voigtlander 21mm f4 VM Color Skopar P, to get me started and will see how I go over the next few months.

[zx9]

I hope that your 50mm f/2.5 is as good as my 35mm f/2.5 which is far sharper and flare free than a lens so unimpressive looking has any right to be.
However my 75mm f/2.5 Colour Heliar has been a disappointment. I guess that I need to get it set up correctly as it front focuses significantly, and has that 'tessar' look, sharp in the centre with rapid fall off

[Benchista]

I've got 15mm, 25mm, 35mm f2.5, 50mm f1.5 and 90mm Voigtlanders, and I'm impressed with all of them - they're absolute stars for the money.

[Mark_Norton]

I'd start with a classic 50mm Summicron or the Mark iV version of the pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron. the Summiluxes are fine if you're prepared to go ASPH; I have a pre-ASPG 50mm Summilux and although the IQ is quite pleasing, the 50mm Summicron wipes the floor with it. After that, think of a 90mm Elmarit-M for portraits. Just lovely.

[Kamepa]

http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptltm.htm

M to LTM adaptor should bring some really cheap high quality glass to your camera. Russian glass is dirt cheap and in some cases better than period Leitz equivalents. Russian made Zeiss Sonnar 50mm in f2 and f1.5 flavours are great lenses especially if they come from early production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_Sonnar

[Benchista]

I would say the Russian lenses are in almost all cases better than the same-period Leitz lenses (as long as you get a good one) - problem is that that period is really the 30s, when these lenses were designed. Any mid 50s or later Leitz lens will do better - but cost more. I'm very fond of those old Zeiss deigns, but the Voigtlanders are quite a bit better and a better match for an M4 IMHO.

[Kamepa]

I would say the Russian lenses are in almost all cases better than the same-period Leitz lenses (as long as you get a good one) - problem is that that period is really the 30s, when these lenses were designed. Any mid 50s or later Leitz lens will do better - but cost more. I'm very fond of those old Zeiss deigns, but the Voigtlanders are quite a bit better and a better match for an M4 IMHO.

The Russian lenses made in the late 1940's onwards are coated. There is also the Tessar based Industar-26m and later very similar Industar-61 which was rumoured to be very slightly radioactive

These are my thoughts and I am not trying to start a flame war as Voightlander, Leitz and Zeiss glass are all of superb quality albeit very expensive. The big problem with Soviet glass is the cold war anti Russian paranoia that still exists to this day. Also a possible snob attitude exists with some Leica owners that anything this cheap cannot possibly be any good and therefore is certainly not fit to put on a Leica.

I acknowledge that the M series cameras really needs to have the correct bayonet mount lenses. However a cheap bayonet to LTM adapter and a car boot sale £5-£10 Zorki 4K with a Jupiter-8 lens is still a good way to get your hands on cheap quality glass.

For any Leica owner unaware of the Russian lens options here is a brief list:

50mm f2.8 Industar-26m f2.8 50mm(52.4mm) lens.

52mm f2.8 Industar-61 f2.8 52mm(52.4mm) lens with rare earth slightly radioactive Lanthane elements.
Industar-61L\D.

20mm f5.9 Russar

28mm f6 Orion

35mm f2.8 Jupiter-12

50mm f1.5 Jupiter-3

50mm f2 Jupiter-8

85mm f2 Jupiter-9

135mm f4 Jupiter-11

There is also a load of Fed lenses available albeit some are very expensive and rare. Also early uncoated Fed lenses have none standard film to lens registration. However if you step down a tad this is not an issue from my experience albeit I only print up to A4 size.

[TimF]

Dunno about Cold War paranoia - if that exists I'd say it'd be more likely in the US than over here. Isn't the real problem one of quality control. Some Soviet made equipment is first rate, but others of the same design are just as likely to be dogs. I seem to remember that the importer of one Soviet make routinely disassembled all the bodies that came in and rebuilt them to a proper standard!

Screw mount Leica glass (and similar from many other makes, perhaps Nikon above most others) is still a viable option on an M body. As AP's esteemed former editor found when researching the subject, many of those lenses were just waiting for the much better emulsions of modern times as compared to when they were current. There are a few turkeys in the stable of course!

[gollum]

I was given an old Cryrillic script Zorki 4 yesterday by my mother’s neighbour which came with a juniper 50mm on it, so it will make an interesting comparison with the Voigtlander 50mm.

As regarding the disassemble of the camera's, I was told by one shop on Carnaby Street selling'Lomo' that thats what they do to the Sovient cameras they had on display, at £250 for a lubital I still wasen't impressed, the beer was good in the pub oposite though

[Kamepa]

Dunno about Cold War paranoia - if that exists I'd say it'd be more likely in the US than over here. Isn't the real problem one of quality control. Some Soviet made equipment is first rate, but others of the same design are just as likely to be dogs. I seem to remember that the importer of one Soviet make routinely disassembled all the bodies that came in and rebuilt them to a proper standard!

In the US importers even went so far as to have no name or details marking some cameras so the origin was hidden from the consumer. I think a lot of cameras had labels stuck on them as Dixon did do with the Zenit albeit in that case it was still obviously Russian.

Screw mount Leica glass (and similar from many other makes, perhaps Nikon above most others) is still a viable option on an M body. As AP's esteemed former editor found when researching the subject, many of those lenses were just waiting for the much better emulsions of modern times as compared to when they were current. There are a few turkeys in the stable of course!

Quality control was a bit patchy especially when they ramped production up from the mid 1960's onwards. Kiev cameras in the 1981 period went from factory to dump. It is rumoured that the plant manager was summoned to Moskva and shot.

Was the UK importers called TOE ?

[ASTROVANMAN]

TOE, I remember them back in the 70's, something like Technical and Optical.

To be honest I've never seen any good Soviet made optical kit, not so say it does not exist, they were/are much better engineers than a lot of people in the west gave them credit for.

[TimF]

Quality control was a bit patchy especially when they ramped production up from the mid 1960's onwards.

I guess that must have been when they realised the socialist planned economy didn't work, so needed to get western currency in at any cost (even selling cameras below manufacturing cost!). Still, there were a heck of a lot of people started out using Russian cameras, so it wasn't all bad, eh!

[Brian]

In the US importers even went so far as to have no name or details marking some cameras

Not quite true they still had serial numbers. A few were sold in the Ukraine in 1963/64. They were actually produced to use up a stock of Zeiss standard lenses which went to America, there was a very small over-run on production these were supplied with Jupitar lenses and sold/ bartered in Kiev. Several sources suggest that these Zeiss lenses were liberated from the Zeiss factory by a Swedish businessman who then sold them to a Russian contactI have both in my collection. But a lot of what you say is true.. TOE, yes I seem to remember it stood for Technical and Optical something or other. Most of my fascination with the Arsenal production is trying to piece together the history. Very very difficult as I believe you mention.

Click to view - 800 pixels

This is a 1964 Ukraine version. These are quite rare certainly in this condition but have been copied. Funnily enough the ERC is extremely difficult to reproduce so when buying ensure that the case isn't marked as usual.



I love pre 1955 Kievs, and have pretty much a complete collection including some prototypes and strange variations.



A few of em

Mods Note: Pic bigger than 600px

[Kamepa]

Not quite true they still had serial numbers. A few were sold in the Ukraine in 1963/64. They were actually produced to use up a stock of Zeiss standard lenses which went to America, there was a very small over-run on production these were supplied with Jupitar lenses and sold/ bartered in Kiev. Several sources suggest that these Zeiss lenses were liberated from the Zeiss factory by a Swedish businessman who then sold them to a Russian contactI have both in my collection. But a lot of what you say is true.. TOE, yes I seem to remember it stood for Technical and Optical something or other. Most of my fascination with the Arsenal production is trying to piece together the history. Very very difficult as I believe you mention.

I was aware that the no name cameras had serial numbers. The story/tale I read was that this was in reaction to the Cuban Missile crisis and an anti Russian backlash.

This is a 1964 Ukraine version. These are quite rare certainly in this condition but have been copied. Funnily enough the ERC is extremely difficult to reproduce so when buying ensure that the case isn't marked as usual.

I love pre 1955 Kievs, and have pretty much a complete collection including some prototypes and strange variations.

A few of em

That is a fantastic collection of Kneb cameras. I have a few in my collection including some boxed examples. Do you use any of them?



I have a few interesting Russian cameras

[Brian]

click to view - 800px

This is how I like to collect them. Interestingly the instruction book is very well thumbed, and the rest as new and some accessories still unwrapped, perhaps the proud owner couldn't afford film and spent his time reading it. I didn't include the box, unphotogenic.

The receipt says 2340 roubles just wonder what that was in those days. 54 years old and as smooth as the day it was made. Fully up to Contax, smoother and quieter than a Leica.

And no I don't use them, not now in fact not ever, I just like them. After the camera illustrated they did go down hill.

See, I've mentioned Leica............Moderators please note.


Noted... But please keep the images to 600 pixels

[gollum]

Well I did get to go out today with the leica for first time, so will develop the film tomorrow to see how I got on, ignoring the shots taken with the lens cap on

[DaveS]

TOE? I remember them when they were in Holborn, not that far from the (Sadly) long defunct Brunnings(Weep). I got a microscope from them when I was in my teens (Bad decision)
As for lenses I've a m42 mount 85 f/2 Jupiter 9, which shows quite horrendous coma (By star testing) until stopped well down (Try f/8).
Dave