Jump to content

working Ur-Leica?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Milar 50mm wide open: Quite nice in the centre but big drop off towards the edges

100% of the center from that pic:

 

Yes, the summar will be niceer, but stil not bad I think.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 393
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Looks like significant field curvature! What aperture? Have you tried it close up to see if the field flattens at the reproduction ratios closer to those for which the lens was intended to be used (I don't know what they were but I believe that it was originally a micro/repro lens)? I have a 42mm Summar on order and look forward to trying it out. Inevitably I'm suspecting that its performance will improve as it is well stopped down, as with most such older lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

same but closed aperture: Corner improve quite a bit

 

and the 100% center: Not really picking up a lot, already affected by difraction

Edited by zwieback
Link to post
Share on other sites

fully open the lens is claimed to be at 4.5 and closed I guess it may be around 16ish. did not watch the shutter speed change between the two shots. Anyway, performance near the centre is really good, even wide open.

What is not visible in the shots is that there is also considerable cussion type of distortion. I wonder what it would be like for protraits. I think this is really interesting lense for it. Landscape and architecture probably less suited....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup.  Same result exactly I got. Waaaaay too much unacceptable bokeh, and stopping down to 16 is not the answer.  Next reason you’ll find it’s unuseable on the UR is that even with the cell machined down to squeeze the lens right under the sliding lid....the barrels just do not extend enough even for an infinity focus.  It’s designed for a 42 Summar not a 50 Milar.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 42mm Summar appears to have been inteded to be used at maginifications of 3-15x (http://www.macrolenses.de/ml_detail.php?ObjektiveNr=100) but the 50mm Milar which was also used on the Aristophot isn't indicated (slightly longer focal length so lower magnification probably). I'm not familiar enough with the aristophot to know whether these figures are correct but they sound reasonable. I don't know when these lenses originally date from but I guess they pre-date the Aristophot so again I wonder what their original design purpose was?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ambro, I already understood after your very first post that YOU would not pick the Milar.

I am not building the camera because I am looking for superior image quality. The conversion offers a technicall challange, forces me to dig deeper into understanding the design of the early and later Leicas, combined with some craftsman skills and this is what I like. Once the camera is finished I am not expecting to have a product that competes with a modern camera, in fact, that would be a total failure, I would like to have something that allows me to follow the foot steps of the 35mm film camera pioneers.

Same goes with the lesns selection. When I do fotographie -in general and almost exclusivly- I am NOT aiming to get what I saw as a picture (yes, you read right) with the possibly highest image quality. I tried to explain it already earlier. I would like to create pictures that are unique and somewhat special. If the Ur would fire out pics exactly like on a M2-3-4-6... what's the deal, why build a new camera? If I want ultimate image quality I chose my 50 apo and a modern M or take out my large frame. My interests are lenses with a unique lookold or new, and I chose old lenses not because they are cheap but because of their flaws. This is what you do not get from a modern lens. Speaking about modern lenses, there are nice ones out too and guess what, the most expensive ones are made for increasing the out of focus /blur areas, the Noctilux lenses. They are made to NOT reproduce what you see, to work in a range and to extend it, in which technicaly image quality is indeed poor. They are very similar to the Milar in the way they are designed to only have got a small in focus area. In big contrast the Noctilux is achieving this by high end optical design whereas the Milar is on the opposite side of the scale in the same respect.

This is my own view and I am happy even if you dissagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there was still the question coming up if the corners would not drop of that much when doing macros (did it quick and dirty - hand held).

Here is one shot of a drawing taken by focusing the center: Also here, quick drop off

Link to post
Share on other sites

here is another one, this time not onyl focusing exclusively on the centre but keeping it balanced centre-to-edges. Both pics are wide open:

I think over all okish but the conclusion is that the drop off is not linked to the lens being only corrected for micro/macro fotographie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, zwieback said:

here is another one, this time not onyl focusing exclusively on the centre but keeping it balanced centre-to-edges. Both pics are wide open:

I think over all okish but the conclusion is that the drop off is not linked to the lens being only corrected for micro/macro fotographie.

Macro lenses like the Milar seem to have been intended for higher magnification than this, and to be used stopped down. Which is why they don't traslate well into general purpose lenses especially when used at wider apertures. I am sure that this sort of result would not have been acceptable when the Ur Leica was being prototyped. The whole point was to produce a small, compact, high quality camera capable of good results and lens choice would have been important.

Edited by pgk
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 21 Stunden schrieb pgk:

Have you tried it close up to see if the field flattens at the reproduction ratios closer to those for which the lens was intended to be used

I tried after your post and this is why I sent the pics you see above. So we know now that it does not flaten up, maybe a  bit

Edited by zwieback
Link to post
Share on other sites

bejond the theorie, using the lens for fotographie I took it out for a lap around the block. All picks wide open taken with the 2nd version of my adapter on an A7 for which I own a couple of macro rings that allow range adjustment combined with their threads:

Don't like the colors that much... not a Leica

Edited by zwieback
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the UR predates the film cassette, it’s necessary to load and unload in total darkness, unless you use Ortho film and the proper red safelight.  Loading in a dark bag is certainly possible, I’ve learned to do it, stripping off film from a bulk roll,  putting back the bulk roll in its box, Then using the correct spool (they are slightly different and will only go in one way...anchoring the film in the spool...winding it on the supply spool tight, anchoring the film in the take up spool, winding some on.....oh Yes I forgot the top of the leader needs the Barnack trim...now all this is pushed into the camera body and when it’s all seated ....the vital part.....make sure the sprocket wheel is in the film sprockets and it’s indeed pulling film.  This done, the bottom but on and the screw tightened.   All in the dark bag.•••••••••. So here’s what I done with #9.   The little Tessina uses this small capacity plastic cassette which fits in the UR with room to spare, indeed one, if made a little bigger would be even better,  No, no 35 cassette will fit.   I removed the supply side film spool shaft from the camera and put a dummy screw on top.  The tessina cassette is opened up, the inner shaft removed and the open end capped with black tape.  The cassette allows about 18” of tightly rolled film, I roll it in till it gets tight, pull a bit out to free it up, then cut in the normal Barnack leader and trim it.   So this gives free and easy daylight loading.  The most important thing is you can see the film running on the sprocket gear and your secure knowing “its working”.    After you shoot all the film, when you shake the camera you hear the empty plastic cassette rattling.         •••••.   Of course back to the darkbag to unload, and then to load the reel and continue in to development......or just unreel the film into a can to store.   All in all it really put a lot of ease into using the UR as a daily user.  

Edited by Ambro51
Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who in the recent past has been loading 70mm cassettes for my Combat Graflex and the huge KOOBF cassettes (10 metres of 35mm film) for the 250 Reporter camera inside a changing bag from bulk film, I can tell all that it is a nightmare. Instead I now wait until I am down at my French house on a moonless night, where there is little to no street lighting to provide light pollution and load the cassettes on the workbench in the total darkness of my cellar. Far easier! I do now have the AFLOO winder which makes life a lot easier for the KOOBF cassettes. If I used my Combat Graflex more, I would be tempted to get one of the Watson or Linhof 70mm auto-loaders which come up from time to time but they always fetch around £400. 

Wilson

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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...