There is no reason to believe Soviets had no technology to produce thoriated glass, but rather that they wanted to avoid such at at their consumer optics. Economics of glass sorts seems the more likely reason.
Good Russian Cameras?
-
A
- Thread starter brainmonster
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 4x5 film sheaths
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale 3.25x 4.25 plate holders
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Zone vi darkroom safelight
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale 8x10 contact frame
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale 8x10 contact frame
- Started by Peter Schrager
Forum statistics
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Remember Chernobyl? I've got one of those radioactive Super Takumar 50/1.4, had it since 1981. It's one element made from thorium glass, it's inside the metal lens housing and it's not an exterior element -- and thorium is an alpha emitting. As long as you don't use it as a loupe for hours a day, for years, it's safer than living with a smoker. An FSU items that's spent any time in the Exclusion Zone may well be a different story, with gamma emitters, higher activity isotopes, and so forth.
Just saying...
True, but I don't that any item from exclusion zone would be radioactive unless it's covered with radioactive soil or dust, but I'm not really into buying extremely dirty cameras.
For people who like Japanese cameras, Japan has has much exposure to radiation, including 2 cities hit with atom bombs, and nuclear reactor meltdown in fukushima, which was more recent, so Japanese items should be worried about if this was an issue as well.
This thread is clearly going the wrong way.
I have a Minolta 28mm F2.8 made using Thorium glass and over the years it has developed a light yellow colour. Ideal for B&W 'cos I don't need to use a yellow filter with B&W, but it is absolutely no good for colour! I do know that this lens is a lot sharper than an ordinary MD version. And I mean sharper - corner to corner.
Kiev 60 maybe in arax version...
Two words: neutron activation
If subjected to neutron emission, the steel and brass and aluminum in the camera may become (mildly, in the general case) radioactive.
Chernobyl blew irradiated material into the air. Fukishima put it into the sea. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been safe enough for people to live in once more, for decades.
None the less, "radioactive" doesn't mean "will sneak into your bed and kill you in your sleep" -- at worst, in this context, it means "increased risk of cancer, to be ignored if you or someone you live with smokes or you live in Virginia or North Carolina and have a basement."
+1
Or instead of having 5-6 "cheap" $40-$80 cameras just get one + CLA that costs less than half of all those cameras combined. Like I said, get it CLAd if you cant stand the issues (high speed capping, maybe the frame spacing is bad).
Anyways,
I'm getting close to buying a Praktica LTL-3, or MTL-5 that claim to have working meters and are tested. Anyone have any input on these cameras? I kind of want to try a german camera instead of a Japanese one, I have several Japanese autofocus cameras already.
Might scrap the Russian camera idea, since probably the viewfinders are free of thorium on these cameras and just buy a helio m42 lens for the body.
The only bad thing I can say over the Praktica L-series is that the self-release lever is literally a pain due to its design, I thus prefer L-series models that lack it. One may grind its edges though.
The button for stopping down/stop-down metering at respective models is likely the best of its kind.
Long times at the shutter by now at many samples are slow, and that sticker at the rewind lever is a hassle during dismantling.
The button for stopping down/stop-down metering at respective models is likely the best of its kind.
Long times at the shutter by now at many samples are slow, and that sticker at the rewind lever is a hassle during dismantling.
Sure. I'll save up all the money I'd have spent on Kievs and Jupiter lenses, and get a pre-War Contax in three or four years, when I can save up a thousand dollars or so without common life emergencies eating the money (and a Sonnar in another three or four).
Or I can shoot with the Kiev I have, with the very nice Jupiter 8 and Jupiter 11 (and the Jupiter 12 still making its way from the Ukraine), get a backup, and either find someone who can and will work on the advance system to fix the frame spacing, or try to clean the gears myself.. I'm not really interested in a Retina, anyway. If my Kiev quits cold, I can replace it for under $100 (heck, I've got under $150 into the body and three lenses). If a Retina breaks, it'll cost more than that to fix it -- if it didn't break something you can't get fixed any more.
Yes now I am searching and may buy a Praktica LTL 3 and adapt some lenses to it, it uses m42 if you have any recommendations. I think I will adapt the Helios 44 to it, hopefully this combination will work well.
But if I really wanted to save money, I would get a Zenit + included Helios lens for under $100.
its up to you if you want to save up a $1000, but we are literally comparing a $200ish IIIc vs the $50 FSU equivalent.
the title of this thread is an oxymoron -- i suppose if you get luck you can find a kiev/contax that's reliable, but i wouldn't bet on it. My experience with soviet cameras, except for the early leica II copies, is uniformly bad.
if it's a cheap shooter you want, find urself a good solid nikkormat, pretty much any model. They're built like bricks, can be had for less than $50 for the body, and the lenses are all dirt cheap and amazing quality.
if it's a cheap shooter you want, find urself a good solid nikkormat, pretty much any model. They're built like bricks, can be had for less than $50 for the body, and the lenses are all dirt cheap and amazing quality.
You were. I was comparing a Kiev 2/3/4 with a pre-War Contax (the post-War IIa and IIIa have a different lens mount, can't use the Soviet lenses that ordinary people can afford even if you get the camera). As I said, I'm not very interested in a Retina.
I've got four working M42 SLRs, and a decent assortment of lenses ranging from excellent/legendary to pretty darned good to not bad for the price. I don't want to get into a different SLR system. OP seemingly might, hence looking at a Praktica (oh, look, another M42, they're cheaper than anything Nikon and plentiful enough it doesn't matter if they break down; you can carry a spare, even two, if you're so inclined).
There is only one of the FSU Kiev rf lenses that I am aware of that will not work on the postwar Contax IIa/IIIa- it is the Jupiter 12 the 35mm with the large, deep set rear lens element. I am pretty sure of that as I have had both the Kiev and Contax IIa. I used the 50mm, 85mm and 135mm FSU lenses on my IIa with no issues. The postwar 35mm Zeiss was a painful purchase!
That's a welcome correction -- though I rather like my Jupiter 12. The first one I bought had some deep marks (bad enough to blur the image at the center) in the apex of that rear element, I wonder if someone didn't try to use it on a IIa/IIIa? Got a better one now, and a disassembled LTM version, I'm going to try swapping the rear group from the parts lens in place of the damaged one; if it's sharp that way, I'll sell it (don't need two). If it's not, then I have to decide whether it's worth trying to swap all the glass from the LTM lens housing into the Contax mount one.
I don't get it. Why avoid lenses with thorated glass if they perform well?
The Soviets most certainly could have used thorium salts if they wanted to in their optics. Are you sure they did not?
Last edited:
I had a set of anamorphic FSU Lomo lenses that were supposed to have the radioactive glass. There were a few discussions about it but other than the yellowing that can be counteracted with UV light there were no serious safety concerns.
The MTL5 has a brighter viewfinder. I also like the MTL50 and MTL5B.
There isn't a sticker at the "rewind lever". He might mean the circular nut underneath the handle.
I think the Kiev 4 had more minor modifications for manufacturability, while the 4M was fairly major redesign. I really enjoyed my Kiev 4, and it led pretty quickly to a Contax iia.
I actually have both. For whatever reason, I like the feel of the LTL3 a little better, but it has a small light leak, and I do not think the meter works (plus it requires mercury batteries). The MTL5 works well, the meter works and uses silver oxide batteries, and is one of my main "light meter functioning" M42 cameras now (the other is a Fujica 605n). I only need the light meter for adapted lenses (with uncertain aperture settings- mainly DKL mount Schneider Kreuznachs: I also have a Retina Reflex IV, but if it stops working...), so for standard M42 lenses I also have Spotmatics and a couple of other cameras available. The MTL5 is my favorite overall at this point given all the considerations.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |