Experiences with Leningrad? Worth the trouble?

[RLangham]

So I've always wanted one of these. They're supposed to be the absolute high-end of the Soviet camera world, with clockwork drive a la the Robot, fixed framelines for common focal lengths, full range of shutter speeds...

I always imagined that with, say, a fast Canon 50mm lens, a Leitz or even a well-made example of the Jupiter, this would have the potential to be a professional shooting machine.

Of course, they're one of the most expensive Soviet cameras that I know of, and I've seen enough "as is" listings to know that this camera must have some reliability issues above and beyond the usual failure rate of aging Soviet cameras. Also, I understand that the frame spacing is wildly variably on these as the film is wound onto a big drum , with no sprockets involved. So does anyone have an opinion on whether this camera is worth the monetary risk? Do I stand a significant chance of getting one that works for a couple weeks and breaks, or do most tend to run fine?

 

[Jojje]

If Soviet cameras were so good, why did they steal my father's Yashica 1960 in Leningrad?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think I'll stick with my Kiev. Having no other option to advance film and cock the shutter than the spring motor sounds like a surefire formula for a camera that looks perfect, but can't be used.

If only there were a way to adapt M39 lenses to the Kiev/Contax mount (but the flange to film distance is longer than M39 -- as is virtually every other mount ever made).

 

[RLangham]

If Soviet cameras were so good, why did they steal my father's Yashica 1960 in Leningrad?

Did it have a coupled meter I wonder? The Soviets made some decent cameras and a few very good ones, but meter coupling was one thing they didn't bother with until much later.

 

[RLangham]

I think I'll stick with my Kiev. Having no other option to advance film and cock the shutter than the spring motor sounds like a surefire formula for a camera that looks perfect, but can't be used.

If only there were a way to adapt M39 lenses to the Kiev/Contax mount (but the flange to film distance is longer than M39 -- as is virtually every other mount ever made).

Now that you say that, it does have an absurdly short flange distance, doesn't it? Because LTM m39 lenses focus extremely close when you mount them on m39 Zenit.

Yeah, the problem you mention is exactly what I worry about. There is a thing you can do if it gets stuck trying to cock the shutter, but it doesn't always work, or so I've heard.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The very shallow front-to-back thickness of the Leica was surely intentional. Back when 35 mm was "miniature" cameras and "double frame" was a new format (almost all 35 mm still cameras before the Leica 1 used 18x24 cine format), the tiny size of the cameras was an important feature, and Leica had "miniature camera" pretty well nailed down from the beginning. The only smaller "double frame" 35 mm cameras were folders without the ability to interchange lenses. A Barnack Leica with the retracting lens was pretty danged small.

You could actually put a complete Barnack Leica with retracted lens inside the film chamber of one of the larger box cameras with the film carrier cone pulled out (as if for loading). Don't think it would quite fit into a B2 (6x9 on 120) size, but surely in the 116s (2 3/4 x 3 3/4).

 

[RLangham]

The very shallow front-to-back thickness of the Leica was surely intentional. Back when 35 mm was "miniature" cameras and "double frame" was a new format (almost all 35 mm still cameras before the Leica 1 used 18x24 cine format), the tiny size of the cameras was an important feature, and Leica had "miniature camera" pretty well nailed down from the beginning. The only smaller "double frame" 35 mm cameras were folders without the ability to interchange lenses. A Barnack Leica with the retracting lens was pretty danged small.

You could actually put a complete Barnack Leica with retracted lens inside the film chamber of one of the larger box cameras with the film carrier cone pulled out (as if for loading). Don't think it would quite fit into a B2 (6x9 on 120) size, but surely in the 116s (2 3/4 x 3 3/4).

I think it would fit in some B2's, in fact. I was quite surprised on receiving my Zenit S how small it was, with its Barnack Leica-derived body casting (modified from the Zorki I.)

The flange distance does probably put some irritating constraints on lens design, though. Did the Noctilux have a screwmount version?

 

[Donald Qualls]

According to Wikipedia, the Noctilux has only been produced in M mount.

 

[RLangham]

According to Wikipedia, the Noctilux has only been produced in M mount.

See, I feel like it'd be difficult to make a big aperture lens in LTM. I don't know why, something to do with the flange distance, maybe? Or just the narrowness of the lens throat. The widest aperture I know of on a LTM lens was a 50mm 1.5 Canon, and those go for more than the camera bodies in good shape now.

Of course, you know, the other thread-mount I care about is even smaller in diameter, but it has an SLR-like flange distance, due to the massive shutter and light box--the Argus C mount. I wonder if there's an m42 or K-mount adapter for Argus like there are for Zenit lenses... You certainly wouldn't adapt it to LTM! It wouldn't link with the rangefinder and the flange distance would mean you would have to mount it on an extension tube. I know there are adapters for it for mirrorless digital, but that's everything.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've got a 35 mm f/2.8 Jupiter-12 that's almost long enough to contact the shutter curtain in my Kiev 4M. Can't imagine what the 28 mm lenses for that mount must look like.

The limitation on the M39 mount, as you note, is thread diameter. All your elements behind the flange have to fit through that hole -- and the rear groups in a Noctilux are about 70% of the front element diameter, which is 53 mm on current versions -- glass plus mounting doesn't leave anything. The saving thing here is that the Noctilux is a 50 mm lens, so it probably doesn't need to enter the Leica body at all (it certainly doesn't protrude behind the M mount bayonet, so it might well be extended a little if they made if in M39). It might, however, be wide enough at the back to vignette on the mount threads at the largest apertures.

Been a long time since I've handled an Argus RF -- my brother bought a C3 at a yard sale around 1972 (he was ten at the time), but I never used it; I was too happy with my Kodak Pony 135 (Model C). Haven't seen that one since about 1974.

 

[reddesert]

Short lens to flange distance doesn't impose constraints on lens design - one could always build a tube into the lens body to move the lens further away (some long focus lenses for LTM like 90mm or 135mm have a pretty long mount for this reason). The diameter of the lens mount throat does constrain the design, although notice that the Canon 50mm/0.95 lens was made for 39mm screw mount. But, ultrafast lenses like that or various Nocts (-ilux, -Nikkor) are basically a money separation device more that anything else.

What does impose a design constraint is long lens to flange distance. Early wide angles for SLRs were expensive, not super wide, and often not that great, because of the design constraints of clearing the mirror requiring a retrofocus wide angle. Similarly, when APS-C DSLRs were first introduced for legacy mounts, it was expensive to get a true wide angle because none of those 18-x mm consumer-grade zooms existed yet.

None of this answers the OP's question. I don't know anything about Leningrads. I have a couple of Soviet RFs and they seem fine, but I question whether any spring wound potentially complicated old camera could be a "professional shooting machine." I've only ever shot a few assignments for others, but Rule #1 of assignments is, IMO, to have a backup for anything critical that could reasonably fail.

 

[RLangham]

Been a long time since I've handled an Argus RF -- my brother bought a C3 at a yard sale around 1972 (he was ten at the time), but I never used it; I was too happy with my Kodak Pony 135 (Model C). Haven't seen that one since about 1974.

Oh, I see them all the time at antique stores and thrift stores. I own two and was just trying to fix a shutter issue on one today. My other one is my most reliable camera.

 

[RLangham]

The diameter of the lens mount throat does constrain the design, although notice that the Canon 50mm/0.95 lens was made for 39mm screw mount.

As a matter of fact I was aware of the "dream lens" for Canon RF.

However, it was not an LTM lens. Yes, it goes on an LTM camera, but the camera (7s? One of the deluxe models) had a special male bayonet mount outside the regular threading, used only for this lens and found on no other camera. Basically it was an attempt to manufacture exclusivity, though now of course there are adaptors for that lens to mirrorless digital cameras. I've heard it's not actually that good of a performer, though.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had a 7s, bought it used in the early 70s, the sales guy at the store I bought it also had the .95, when the boss wasn't looking talked me out of it, said depth of feild was so shallow wide, with a far amount of distortion, I got the 50 1.4 instead. Never knew if he was doing me a favor or wanted to keep the lens in the case until he could buy it.

 

[RLangham]

I had a 7s, bought it used in the early 70s, the sales guy at the store I bought it also had the .95, when the boss wasn't looking talked me out of it, said depth of feild was so shallow wide, with a far amount of distortion, I got the 50 1.4 instead. Never knew if he was doing me a favor or wanted to keep the lens in the case until he could buy it.

I mean, I have heard that it can be fun playing with a 50mm with that shallow of a field, but the distortion problem is something I heard mentioned in reviews.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, that's certainly one thing: anything faster than f/1.4 is going to be almost impossible to focus accurately, wide open, even on an SLR, never mind an RF (especially when it's so dark you can barely see the focus screen or RF patch). If you have the RF baseline of an early Contax, and your RF is hyper-adjusted, maybe -- but your DOF will be measured in millimeters at portrait distance, regardless of the image quality available in that razor-edge focus zone. Sure, f/0.95 (which amounts to t/1.1 or so, usually -- 8 elements in four groups in a modern Noctilux has some losses even with modern coatings) will let you shoot by the light of a single candle -- but so will a tripod. And you're going to be shooting fast film and pushing that, anyway (TMZ at 3200, minimum) if you need to shoot in that light.

Tempting to suggest that you're ahead to find a way to add more light to the scene, rather than spend many thousands on a Nocilux, even if you have the camera it fits.

 

[reddesert]

As a matter of fact I was aware of the "dream lens" for Canon RF.

However, it was not an LTM lens. Yes, it goes on an LTM camera, but the camera (7s? One of the deluxe models) had a special male bayonet mount outside the regular threading, used only for this lens and found on no other camera. Basically it was an attempt to manufacture exclusivity, though now of course there are adaptors for that lens to mirrorless digital cameras. I've heard it's not actually that good of a performer, though.

I know, I have one of those cameras (a Canon 7, which is relatively affordable - I don't have the lens of course). But the presence of an LTM throat doesn't prevent the lens from being mounted. I'm pretty sure the reasons for the external bayonet are (1) disposing of the mount thread to give some more clearance for the lens elements, and (2) weight.

Again, I think this lens is kind of a curiosity, so maybe I shouldn't have brought it up; my point is that the L39 lens mount isn't a severe restriction on lens design. You can mount virtually any normal 50/1.4 SLR lens on a L39 camera if you have the right adapter. Of course, this is because the 50/1.4 SLR lens has been designed with a slight retrofocus to clear the SLR mirror box; that's a much more significant constraint than the L39 lens mount. When the Leica thread mount was originally specified, none of these superfast or ultrawide lenses existed.

 

[RLangham]

Well, that's certainly one thing: anything faster than f/1.4 is going to be almost impossible to focus accurately, wide open, even on an SLR, never mind an RF (especially when it's so dark you can barely see the focus screen or RF patch). If you have the RF baseline of an early Contax, and your RF is hyper-adjusted, maybe -- but your DOF will be measured in millimeters at portrait distance, regardless of the image quality available in that razor-edge focus zone. Sure, f/0.95 (which amounts to t/1.1 or so, usually -- 8 elements in four groups in a modern Noctilux has some losses even with modern coatings) will let you shoot by the light of a single candle -- but so will a tripod. And you're going to be shooting fast film and pushing that, anyway (TMZ at 3200, minimum) if you need to shoot in that light.

Tempting to suggest that you're ahead to find a way to add more light to the scene, rather than spend many thousands on a Nocilux, even if you have the camera it fits.

Oh, I agree heartily. There's no use for anything faster than 2.0 on a rangefinder. I rarely use anything faster on SLR's, in fact, since my shooting normals are mainly f/2's.

A 1.4 is occasionally a boon on an SLR, but how often does one need it? I enjoy the precise focus you get by having such narrow DOF in the viewfinder, but that's beside the point.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, my favorite lens of all the glass I own is the 50 f/1.4 Super Takumar (the infamous radioactive lens, with the thorium glass in one of the rear elements). But I doubt I'll ever want or need (for an RF) a lens faster than the 50/2.0 Jupiter-8 "Soviet Summicron" that came with my Kiev 4M. I've got two fixed-lens RFs with faster lenses -- Canonet GIII QL17, and Petri 7s (also with f/1.7); both are 45 mm, as I recall. Neither camera has an accurate enough RF to get dead-on focus routinely when wide open, but with no mirror and a leaf shutter, either one can be hand held down to 1/15, meaning (given super-fast film and/or a heavy push) you can get some "take a chance" shots in light nothing else I own can beat.

 

[Dali]

Well, my favorite lens of all the glass I own is the 50 f/1.4 Super Takumar (the infamous radioactive lens, with the thorium glass in one of the rear elements). But I doubt I'll ever want or need (for an RF) a lens faster than the 50/2.0 Jupiter-8 "Soviet Summicron" that came with my Kiev 4M.

Funny you say that because when I see all the new lenses for Leica M, they all are "fast" lenses. Like you, I wonder how users could manage the shallow DOF (miss or hit method?) not to say about the inbalance (and the finder obstruction) created by these huge lenses... But apparently, there is a market.

 

[RLangham]

Well, my favorite lens of all the glass I own is the 50 f/1.4 Super Takumar (the infamous radioactive lens, with the thorium glass in one of the rear elements). But I doubt I'll ever want or need (for an RF) a lens faster than the 50/2.0 Jupiter-8 "Soviet Summicron" that came with my Kiev 4M. I've got two fixed-lens RFs with faster lenses -- Canonet GIII QL17, and Petri 7s (also with f/1.7); both are 45 mm, as I recall. Neither camera has an accurate enough RF to get dead-on focus routinely when wide open, but with no mirror and a leaf shutter, either one can be hand held down to 1/15, meaning (given super-fast film and/or a heavy push) you can get some "take a chance" shots in light nothing else I own can beat.

Oh, yes, I have the QL17. I don't believe I've ever used it under lighting conditions that would demand the exposure circuit go to f/1.7. The only time I did much shooting indoors with it was when I had some 800 film from Lomography. I have found it sharp enough at higher apertures, however.

Weird how often Canon made rangefinders with fast lenses as one of the big selling points--although, in both cases, there were many other selling points that should have been given more prominence. The Canon 7 is sometimes called the most advanced LTM camera ever (beating out the Leica IIIg and the Leningrad among others), and the QL17 is... well, it's pretty feature-packed for a fixed-lens camera, what with that rangefinder-linked flash exposure automation that takes into account ambient light, parallax correction, QL system...

Canon is a weird contrarian company, or at least they were until Nikon and Canon became the only big names in Japanese photo gear. Note that they released their budget SLR the AE-1 with time value priority when most manufacturers were doing aperture value priority, and that their FL and FD cameras had male flanges for female lenses, as opposed to the common practice in the industry.

 

[MattKing]

Note that they released their budget SLR the AE-1 with time value priority when most manufacturers were doing aperture value priority

The AE-1 was extremely advanced when it was introduced, at a price that allowed it to compete with much less capable cameras. I sold a whole bunch of them.
The FD mount was designed to make shutter speed priority automation possible. Many of the competing lens mounts didn't permit it at the time.
Shutter speed priority was a big selling point - many people were using the AE-1 with Kodachrome 64 and other moderately low speed slide films. Most amateur photographers paid a lot more attention to the shutter speed than the aperture, so that approach made total sense.
Relatively speaking, very little attention was paid to shallow depth of field, and the idea of "bokeh" was unheard of.
Aperture priority automation was both simpler and cheaper to implement into existing systems, so that was the way that the competitors moved to automatic exposure.

 

[RLangham]

The AE-1 was extremely advanced when it was introduced, at a price that allowed it to compete with much less capable cameras. I sold a whole bunch of them.
The FD mount was designed to make shutter speed priority automation possible. Many of the competing lens mounts didn't permit it at the time.
Shutter speed priority was a big selling point - many people were using the AE-1 with Kodachrome 64 and other moderately low speed slide films. Most amateur photographers paid a lot more attention to the shutter speed than the aperture, so that approach made total sense.
Relatively speaking, very little attention was paid to shallow depth of field, and the idea of "bokeh" was unheard of.
Aperture priority automation was both simpler and cheaper to implement into existing systems, so that was the way that the competitors moved to automatic exposure.

Still, even if they had good reasons, they did do conspicuously the opposite of what everyone else was doing. Now that they're a huge digital juggernaut, we forget that they were a little quirky at times.

 

[MattKing]

Still, even if they had good reasons, they did do conspicuously the opposite of what everyone else was doing.

That was because the lens mounts that others were using wouldn't permit shutter priority auto exposure. Canon designed the FD mount the way they did because they understood how desirable that feature was.
There are reasons that the AE-1 was the very first SLR for millions of amateur photographers, and the largest selling SLR ever.

 

[RLangham]

That was because the lens mounts that others were using wouldn't permit shutter priority auto exposure. Canon designed the FD mount the way they did because they understood how desirable that feature was.
There are reasons that the AE-1 was the very first SLR for millions of amateur photographers, and the largest selling SLR ever.

No, no, it's a fantastic camera, I'm not disputing that! I owned one and used it until the shutter and aperture linkage both began to go. I preferred it to my AE-1 Program for some reason. A little lighter, maybe? And I liked the physical needle in the viewer. Now, whenever I miss it, I use my Canonet. Maybe one day I'll get an A-1.