Jump to content

OH BOY: a real VISA


Washington

Recommended Posts

Telyt2003 and Rip,

 

Thanks for the detailed responses. It has taken me awhile to reply since I wanted to carefully check the treads again and check the Novoflex catalog about the parts on the Pigriff-B system.

 

The Pigriff (A) and Pigriff-B seem to be the same except for the connections used on the pigriff at each end. The original Pigriff used a LTM scheme at the camera end and a 48x1mm thread at the lens end. The Pigriff-B uses a breachlock bayonet mount at both ends of the Pigriff (same at both ends). This bayonet, BTW, is larger than the bayonet mount used at the camera end of the Pigriff-C system and the Novoflex bellows systems.

 

Further on the Pigriff (A) and Pigriff-B parts:

Moving away from the camera, past the Pigriff, the next units is the the PIFAS (f-stop iris unit). The only functional difference between the PIFAS and PIFAS-B is the different type connection to the Pigriff (A or B), as mentioned above. In front of the f-stop ring is a spacer tube of 32mm effective length. The Novoflex catalog lists this tube as part of the PIFAS unit, not part of the lens head unit. The threads are indeed 77.5x0.7mm at both ends. At the f-stop ring end, the tube is secured with a set screw in addition. It appear that the intent is that the tube remains fixed to the PIFAS except for servicing or modification (hence the set screw).

 

This short tube seems to be the same for your description of the Pigriff-C system. I must say, the measurement of 77.5mm diameter threads threw me. Seems an odd choice of sizes. However, the 0.7mm pitch is an ISO standard (I don't believe there is an ISO standard 0.75mm pitch, but there may be some non-ISO type). It was just hard for me to read w/o a thread gauge and only 3-4 thread turns.

 

On my units, it is indeed possible to leave this tube out. However, it doesn't quite work right. Screwing the lens head directly into the Pifas (without the tube) results in interference with the iris operation if the lens head is screwed in tight. I guess this is not an issue with the Pigriff-C if Rip is able to do that.

 

The lens heads I have are 400mm f/5.6 doublet version. I don't have the T-Novoflexar triplet (but would like to find one). My units (from a A and a B system) appear to be identical with the C unit in Rip's photos. The lens head mounting end is the 77.5x0.7mm thread using a short ring of ~18.5mm. The attachment to the lens unit frame is a different thread and secured by a set screw. It has been awhile since I took that apart and I don't remember the thread size. I'll go measure again if I get a chance.

 

The Pigriff-B unit I have came with the bellows system. I am considering shortening that pifas-b tube so I can use the unit with a visoflex while leaving the bellows in the system. The practical solution is to shorten that ube about 20mm.

 

 

So it appears that Novoflex kept the same system ahead of the Pifas. That is useful information in considering other lens heads. I've been wondering if is is worth picking up one of the 560mm telyts intended for the R system and adapting them to the Novoflex. It is much more common to see the R system versions than the Visoflex versions.

 

Just for information, the other lens head I have is a 300mm f/5.6 in Pigriff (A) version. Novoflex seem to have dropped this offering when they went to the B system. It is light and easy to handle. I only got it recently. I intend to do some comparisons with the 280 f4.8 (V3) Telyt-V I have. The Leitz lens is much heavier in comparison.

 

RM

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll be reading this when I wake up. I sure wish I had a parts list with the letter-code

for all.

 

Good morning, Rip!

 

Oh, sorry, here they are ...

(Hope you don't mind recycling your image from post1)

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

So what I marked the "front part of PIFAS-C" should be your "spacer ring".

The lens head normally is screwed into it (in front of it).

Best regards,

Telyt2003

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've scanned all my Novoflex info into PDF form and hope to post that soon. I wanted to add some info with the posting. It probably belongs over in another area when I post it. That will have all sorts of diagrams and part lists for Pigriff-B. But they are all the same nomenclature for the C system. More later.....

 

RM

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

Thank you very much for your trouble as I know K-H will too!

 

I have compared the B & C 600mm heads… the B 600 in my kit had the same tube

attached as the one I took off the 400 C lens…. so I screwed the tube into 600 C and

took side by side shots. Other than the serial # they seem to be identical (I don’t know

about the glass B to C) Just one oddity: the B Lens hood is a very loose fit on the C,

but tight on the B which it came with…. so there was some minor change in the tolerance

of the lens hood bayonet on the C.

With the C with added extension tube back into the PIGRIFF C and with the Canon

adapted I could not achieve infinity… close though, So I put on the Nikon adapter and

body with no extension of the C slider tube and it was great… a hair past infinity which

could easily be corrected with the infinity stop adjusting screw. Great!

I will try your method of using a tube betwixt Viso and lens mount. I have a crazy

collection of adapters from many sources as I be seen in the bellows shot (600 removed)

it is used for super close ups of humming birds 20-25 feet away.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rip,

 

Since you seem to have both the Pigriff-C system and a complete Pigriff-B system, I'd like to hear how they compare. It seems that one can get all the same functionality out of the Pigriff-B system that the C has built in. Your "Frankenstein" system in another thread illustrates the full blown setup. I have a similar setup. The "C" system is clearly more elegant and refined. The "C" system seems easier to transport.

 

But what I really want to hear is not those differences but if there is a difference in the ergonomics of use. Is there an advantage to getting a "C" system over the full blown "B" system? Is the handling different? Is the capability of photography improved?

 

Maybe others have some experiences to share also?????

 

RM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Telyt2003 and Rip,

Thanks for the detailed responses. It has taken me awhile to reply since I wanted to carefully check the treads again and check the Novoflex catalog about the parts on the Pigriff-B system. (...)

 

Robert,

thank you for this summary of the features of the older Novoflex Pigriff (A) and B systems.

 

What you are saying on the Pigriff-B and -C systems is in perfect agreement with the information obtained directly from Novoflex, and my and others' experience with the Novoflex Pigriff-C system (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1773508-post16.html).

 

It should be perhaps once more stated that the rear thread of the lens heads and the connecting thread of the PIFAS-units were the same (M77,5 x 0,7) in both the system B and C (but not the "A"), and that therefore lens heads made for Pifas/Pigriff-B are compatible with Pifas/Pigriff-C, and vice versa.

 

This includes the Leica Telyt 560/6,8 head when adapted to one of these two Pigriff systems.

 

(...) I've been wondering if is is worth picking up one of the 560mm telyts intended for the R system and adapting them to the Novoflex. It is much more common to see the R system versions than the Visoflex versions.

(...)

RM

 

Sure, or pick up just the head of the Telyt 560/6,8 that quite often is offered separately (without the R- or Visoflex-tube).

You only would need (the front) part of the Telyt 560/6,8 head, and an adapter tube (the Novoflex adapter was named 'LINSE-560', no longer made, not sold separately), as described here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1762325-post44.html.

 

I would still propose to shorten such an adapter tube, or to make it modular so that it can be shortened by ~16-20 mm for use with Visoflex2/3 (the 'LINSE-560' adapter had a normal length of 76,7 - 5 mm): http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1770291-post12.html ;).

 

Best regards,

Telyt2003

Edited by Telyt2003
Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

I especially appreciate your statements on the PIFAS-B unit!

They match with what can be reported for the PIFAS-C unit, summarised as follows:

 

1) The "spacer tube" in front of the aperture ring is part of the PIFAS.

2) This "spacer tube" of the PIFAS was the part that Novoflex formerly shortened (for example, for use withVisoflex2/3)

3) Taking out the "spacer tube" of the PIFAS unit could result in technical difficulties.

 

ad 1) The "spacer tube" in front of the aperture ring, normally is a (secured/fixed) part of the PIFAS:

(...) In front of the f-stop ring is a spacer tube of 32mm effective length. The Novoflex catalog lists this tube as part of the PIFAS unit, not part of the lens head unit. The threads are indeed 77.5x0.7mm at both ends. At the f-stop ring end, the tube is secured with a set screw in addition. It appear that the intent is that the tube remains fixed to the PIFAS except for servicing or modification (hence the set screw). (...)

as compared to my post with reference to the PIFAS-C:

(...) what you refer to as a "spacer tube" of the "lens heads" very likely belongs to (was delivered with) the PIFAS unit, at least in the system C.

This "spacer tube" is not a part of a lens head, at least not in the system C:

The "spacer tube" is normally fixed to the PIFAS-C ("f-stop unit") via a securing screw, and thus normally cannot be unscrewed.

This "spacer tube" (i.e., the front part of the PIFAS-C), in fact, has the same threads on both ends, however the rear thread is longer than the front thread. (...)

 

For illustration, here is a double page from the original instructions of the Novoflex Pigriff-C system:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

(The thread for the set screw can be seen in Rip's image (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/leica-m9-forum/268926d1311106000-oh-boy-real-visa-600s-compared.jpg):

The Noflexar 600/8 lens heads shown both have the "spacer ring"/front part of the PIFAS-C attached at their rear ends. Since normally this "spacer ring" is a fixed part of the PIFAS-C unit, the lens heads are normally screwed into the PIFAS' "spacer ring" (On the right, this "spacer tube" is taped and marked with "Novo 400 mm tube", on the left, one can see the thread of the removed set screw).)

 

ad 2) This fixed "spacer tube" of the PIFAS-units evidently was the part where Novoflex formerly intervened to shorten the system, if necessary (for example, if the system C was to be used with a Visoflex2/3):

(...) At the f-stop ring end, the tube is secured with a set screw in addition. It appear that the intent is that the tube remains fixed to the PIFAS except for servicing or modification (hence the set screw). (...)
(...) If you carefully compare the Novoflex system C of Jaap which had been shortened for use with the Visoflex2/3 by Novoflex (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/917943-post11.html), then you see one clear differencce between Jaap's and [Rip's] (and also my) system C (as pictured in [Rip's] post 1) :

The Pifas-C unit in Jaap's picture is clearly shorter at its front end (in his picture, this part (in black lacquer) of the Pifas-C is short, in your image the front part of the (black matt) Pifas-C is normally long).

- so probably Novoflex shortens the system there (Everything else apparently looks the same (...)

 

ad 3) However, just taking out the complete "spacer tube" of the PIFAS unit (to shorten the system) probably will result in technical difficulties.

(...) On my units, it is indeed possible to leave this tube out. However, it doesn't quite work right. Screwing the lens head directly into the Pifas (without the tube) results in interference with the iris operation if the lens head is screwed in tight. (...)
(...) There is an internal 'stop' for the rear thread of the "adapter tube" (the front part of the PIFAS-C) preventing it from being srewed in more than about half way of the long thread of the rear part of the PIFAS-C.

On the contrary, if you screw, for example the Noflexar 600/8 lens head, directly into the truncated (rear part of the) PIFAS-C (e.g., without its "spacer tube"/front part in place), then there is no internal 'stop' for the rear thread of the lens head which can be screwed in until you hit an internal ring against stray light (which isn't stable enough as a true 'stop').

This I feel isn't very nice, and is the reason that I actually prefer shortening the system © by taking out the intermediate tube (with 80 mm threads) of the Noflexar 600/8 lens head (as described above). (...)

 

I had stopped my experimenting (with taking out the "spacer tube"/front part of the PIFAS-C) at this point :

I did not want to break the Noflexar 600's internal ring against stray light, nor was the connection stable enough, if this ring was used as a 'stop'. I wouldn't exclude having run into problems with the iris operation, would I have forced screwing in the lens head further (and/or would have removed this stray light ring).

Thus, I would strongly prefer an adaptation in the way Novoflex intended (with a shorter "spacer tube" as part of the PIFAS), or the shortening of the lens heads proper where possible/appropriate (see my proposals for the Noflexar 600/8 and the Telyt 560/6,8: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1769807-post9.html).

 

BTW, bringing the two parts of the PIFAS-C back together, was quite difficult:

The last bit of turning the threads of the "spacer tube" (the front part of the PIFAS-C) and the rear part of the PIFAS-C was extremely tight, and therefore it was quite delicate to bring the two parts of the thread for the tiny set screw into exact alignment, as to allow screwing it in smoothly (anything else would surely have destroyed the set screw and its thread). As a result, I would not recommend taking apart the PIFAS-C unit (unless you are intending to replace its front part with a shorter "spacer tube", Novoflex sadly no longer makes it - and it was evidently not sold separately).

 

With best regards,

Telyt2003

Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

But what I really want to hear is not those differences but if there is a difference in the ergonomics of use. Is there an advantage to getting a "C" system over the full blown "B" system? Is the handling different? Is the capability of photography improved?

 

Maybe others have some experiences to share also?????

RM

 

Robert,

as you may know, I only use the Novoflex Pigriff system C. However, some of my thoughts on the "ergonomics of use" of system C might be of interest for you, even when I cannot directly compare ...

It took me a while to understand how the Pigriff system C could work for me (for focal lengths up to 400 mm and esp. non-tethered 'hand held' photography with shoulder supports alone (no tripod), I still much prefer the Leitz manual rapid focus systems (sliding focus Telyts, Televit, Focorapid).

 

One problem was that in the beginning I tried to reproduce what the young lady on the cover of my Pigriff-C instructions is doing:

Using it 'hand held' with just the shoulder stock (Pistock-C), and two 'long arms':

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

This did not work at all for me: The equipment is too heavy and big to do this for longer periods.

In addition you (still?) need a certain force to press the focusing grip and you have to HOLD this force against the spring when you freeze the focus for shooting. This introduced a shiver to the system (not good for 'hand held' photos).

However, I would be interested, if you have a comparable impression with the system B?

 

When I combined the Pigriff system C with a monopod (Monostat), a ball head and the Pistock-C on top, things changed completely:

I learned that for very long focal lengths past 500 mm, the Novoflex system, if 'semi-tethered' via monopod, can have great advantages, and focusing via the grip became much more comfortable (supportable).

 

What I like most is the integrated rapid additional extension tube (8 cm) for close focus:

I always take care to be able to make full use of this extension for focusing! (instead of using up part of it for adaptations).

With my current adaptation to the Visoflex2/3 (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1769807-post9.html), I need the extension tube for distances from 4 to 10 m, and I have a strong tendency to roughly 'prefocus' with the extension tube whenever possible in such a way that I can do the fine-focus with the focus grip, while depressing it only a little bit (fine-focusing with the focus grip (of the system C) is much more precise and easy at the near end than at the far end (fully depressed by its 3 cm).

Would you mind to report some of your experiences with the older systems (B) as compared to this?

 

Hope this may be of help...

Best regards,

Telyt2003

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

.

.

.

It should be perhaps once more stated that the rear thread of the lens heads and the connecting thread of the PIFAS-units were the same (M77,5 x 0,7) in both the system B and C (but not the "A"), and that therefore lens heads made for Pifas/Pigriff-B are compatible with Pifas/Pigriff-C, and vice versa.

.

.

.

Best regards,

Telyt2003

 

 

 

 

Telyt2003,

 

Slight correction to your statement above: The Pifas A interface to the lens head unit is IDENTICAL to the B and C system. They all use M77.5x0.7mm thread. The Pigriff A/Pifas A only differs in the connections at both ends of the Pigriff. On my units, the A and B parts are interchangable for the lens head to pifas.

 

RM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Telyt2003,

 

Slight correction to your statement above: The Pifas A interface to the lens head unit is IDENTICAL to the B and C system. They all use M77.5x0.7mm thread. The Pigriff A/Pifas A only differs in the connections at both ends of the Pigriff. On my units, the A and B parts are interchangable for the lens head to pifas.

 

RM

 

Thank you, Robert!

Good to know (sorry, this point I got differently until now :o).

In other words, I can use whatever (Novoflex) lens head that was built for use with whatever Pifas-unit on my Pifas/Pigriff-C! Wow.

 

This means Novoflex only changed the connection of their lens heads once, when they introduced the system D ? (which works with a bayonet for connecting the lens heads to the diaphragm unit integrated into the Pigriff D, if at least I understood this correctly).

If so, they in principal could have used a bayonet-adapter ring (like that for the Televit) to achieve retro-compatibility?

Telyt2003

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today’s info.

After messing with the Nikon and Canon body I fitted a Viso directly with the Visa mount.

To Gain infinity focus (I am using a 400mm just now) - the tube marked ‘’ Front Part of

PIFAS-C in the above photo is not used. Then .674’’ (32.5 mm +/- ) extension at the

adjustable tube is needed for infinity correction. Which gives me a usable length for

an extension tube should I wish to use it with the extension tube fully ‘’home’’.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tellyt2003,

 

Yes, I also conclude that you can use any of the Novoflex lens head (greater than 400mm of course) interchangably between A, B and C systems. But then, this isn't great help since they seem to be fairly identical lenses. Only the Triplet 400mm is a great step forward.

 

Thanks for your details of use of the C system. I'd say that I have similar impressions with the B system. So far, I don't see considerable difference except that (1) the C system is more elegant (yes, an attraction in itself), and (2) there are less pieces to assemble to get to the same system.

 

Rip, what do you think of the comparison since you have both?

 

RM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ready for some hand held testing up in the park tomorrow.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...