Ricoh GXR Leica M mount!!!

[Tom Caldwell]

Don't try the Industar 69 as it will not focus properly without some serious modification with a file. It was designed for the "Chaika" (?) camera and had the same thread but a different flange back distance so it will mount fine if not work. Apparently they can be modified and I have one to try but am plucking up courage to try the file trick. A lathe might be better. A pity really as they are a tiny little compact beauty. They apparently work fine once modified.

Well worth trying is the Canon FD 20mm f2.8. Not small or cheap but a very good lens on the GXR-M with FD-LM adapter. I also have just acquired a Rikenon 24mm f2.8 in M42 mount but have not yet got past much more than unwrapping it. Seems like it will be a nice lens as well.

If you are willing to go to ex-slr manual lenses there is a very large field to explore. Meanwhile one of the nicest Russian lenses has to be the Jupiter-12 35mm f2.8 but the Orion-15 goes to 28mm but is f6.3. It is a nice enough lens but more expensive simply because it is rare. At least the Orion is very compact. But the Canon FD lens above will eat it for breakfast in everything except physical size.

The Russar MP-2 is even wider and rarer and not quite as slow. One might be more interested in a modern Voigtlamder when it came to that crunch - they are cheaper.

GXR-M owners are going ape over old (and new) RF lenses because they are small (a great reason) but I find that by treating the GXR-M as a very compact "proper" camera all the old manual ex-slr lenses actually handle pretty well on it. Therefore to stick to RF glass is to shut out a huge number of very competent lenses that can be used.

Right now a Super Takumar 35mm f2.0 in M42 mount is smiling at me, must take it out and se it a bit. It is a big lump of a lens but on the GXR-M it looks so sweet and sexy .... Must pick it up just to feel it in my hands ... Grin.

Tom

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Don't get the Industar-69 mixed up with the Industar-61. The Industar-61 comes in various forms of which the 61L/D is regarded as an exceptionally good lens in regular RF form on LTM. This is 55mm f2.8 and is quite cheap and very good value.

With Russian lenses price is more related to available supply and the fact that the I-61L/D is cheap is simply because they made millions of them and nothing to do with any lack of technical worth in the lens itself. Surely everyone could afford to have an LTM Industar-61L/D rattling around in the gadget bag "just as a backup". My guess is that soon enough after being forced to use the backup people might start to get used to the odd cyrillic characters on the lens front and warm to this lens. Can pass them off to your mates as the incantations of assembly line workers hoping to get them adjusted properly. Joking of course.

On the other hand the Industar-61L/Z is a 50mm f2.8 M42 mount close focus lens that looks completely different. It must be internally much the same design as the L/D or otherwise the Russian naming/numbering system is crackers. I think we are safe to say it is crackers anyway even without this numbering oddity.

Nevertheless the 61L/Z is also a fine lens and my pick of the two. It is small for a slr designed lens and has a very large focus ring area which is perfect and smooth for manual focusing. The lens elements are deeply recessed and the barrel forms its own hood.

I do know that "L" is for Lanthanium which is slightly radioactive but gives the glass better optical properties.

Both lenses are from a series and after much modification from the Elmar Tessar collapsible design. (Roughly with side variations) FED-10 collapsible -> Industar-22 collapsible -> Industar-26M rigid -> Industar-61 rigid in many variants. The I-61 is better built IMHO than the earlier lenses. Quite a few million came off the assembly line.

Oh, and for those that think of lenses in terms of "lens manufacturers" - in Russia lenses were given names more as "types" but numbered almost by prototype many which never made it much further than drawing board. Individual lens types could come out of one or more of several factories and the actual factory of manufacture is determined by the factory logo symbol on the lens. The study of the factory of manufacture is an interesting exercise in itself and far too long winded for here.

Tom

 

[peated]

Tom,

Thanks very much for the advice regarding the Industar-69 and the need to modify to achieve proper focus. While that sounds like a fun project on its own, I'll steer clear for now because I've got my hands full with plenty of other Russian lenses

After reading this thread and others around the net, I did get an Industar-61L/D among other things. At a whopping $15 USD how could I resist (shipping was another $20). Its small size and color (black) make for a nice visual match on the GXR. The few test shots I've taken around the house look pretty nice too. I'm hoping the rain lets up here so I can get out & do more shooting this weekend to get a better feel for the lens.

The whole Russian lens discussion here has been very interesting and educational. I have to admit I've jumped in with both feet and already acquired 5 lenses based on your posts and material from other forums - all of which arrived before my M-module finally got here this week. Now to get familiar with each...

As for the 28mm, I will look more closely at SLR lenses too. As you said, there are lots of options out there.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

If you want to get a bit adventurous then the Jupiter-3 is a high performance lens at f1.5 but you have to be careful to get one in good condition. The silver ones can be knocked about a bit. Otherwise it looks like a Jupiter-8 with lots of lovely glass on view.

Tom

 

[TKH]

The Jupiter 8 is stunning!


Jupiter8-Sonnar, f2.8


Leitz-Minolta Rokkor is very good.

Leitz-Rokkor, f4


f5.6


f4


f4.5


f5.6


f7.1


Rainer

 

[Mainiac]

Here is a tripod question about the M mount. How heavy have been the lenses that anyone has used with the M mount and mounted on a tripod? Of course the length of the lens would also be helpful. There are a great number of wonderful 1/2 to 2 kilo long lenses available, but I hesitate to buy a 1 1/2 kilo long lens and think that the screw base in the GXR is going to hold it with out some mechanical (ugh) failure.
Peter

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Rainer, I am glad that your lenses are working. The Jupiter-8 packs a lot of wallop for it's cost and worth the "risk" I think. The price is likely to go up as M mount users start to appreciate that Russian lenses are made to good technical design and their glass is fine.

With Russian lenses It is not so much the manufacturing quality control as is the problem but how they were looked after by their owners for 30-50 years. There are a few Russian/Ukrainian ebay dealers that will tart up the lenses for sale but most are just honest citizens trying to make a quid. One Grizzly Bear is a bit erratic sending me some good gear but also some things that were hardly the best of good disclosure and then prevaricated afterwards to make it worse. Fixed one lens myself and I can clean up the other but most buyers, including myself would like to know exactly what they are up against before they bid not after delivery. I am reluctant to name and shame what in my opinion are bad operators. Some have supplied good lenses and then one turns out to have a problem and I think it is innocent as they just make cursory checks. Many don't have digital cameras and adapters to check them on camera. If it looks servicable then it is ok by them. The ones that need shaming are the ones that cover up scrapes and scratches with some sort of dark purplish "ink" - might be a texta but I think it is more like the thick ink omce used in inkwells in schools - remember that? No? Then I guess you are not old enough to draw a pension yet - grin. With practice you can usually detect the thickness of the covering in illustrations of the goods to be sold. If they do that to any of their lenses then it makes the rest suspect to have been "repaired". "Checked by a repairman" in Ukrainian usually means that the teenage son has pulled the lens apart in his bedroom wih war surplus tools and applied liberal doses of grease and then re-threaded the helix incorrectly.

I joke, but there is a hint of be-cautious in there as eBay has not yet sorted out all the flea market shonks from the FSU countries. Of course, like the rest of the world, the majority of the vendors are "just people", honest, and anxious to please. However it is not a case of buying a $2,000 lens from a meticulous owner or a dealer. These lenses are super-cheap unless rare. Most FSU vendors know little about cameras and the lenses are just more trivia that they are buying locally from "garage sales" and re-selling to the greater world to make a profit. If you just treat it like any other flea market there are good bargains to be had for those who can take a small monetary risk and keep their common sense in hand.


Peter, big heavy lenses on a tripod without a tripod collar are a worry. The biggest I have tried on the GXR-M is the Canon FD 200mm f2.8. Luckily it works well hand held - there is no way common sense would allow such a lens to hang off the tripod mount on the camera.

Obviously there must be a market for a "universal" tripod collar for such situations. Must have a look for one.

Right at the moment my current "click" is the Super Takumar 35mm f2.0 which is proving to be a very sharp lens. It was not cheap but it was in as-new condition so I am happy. Added to the M42 adapter it makes an RF lens quite "mouse-like" as it is big even for a slr 35mm. However it is very smooth in operation has a big "fat" focus ring and feels well balanced if heavy. Even this lens might put a tripod mounting system on camera to the test. I am wondering if an extendable under-rest assist mount could be used. This would entail a mount to the tripod hole on the camera with a forward arm that would take an arca-swiss type adjustable sliding carrier with another tripod hole. This adjusting carrier being moved to the point of balance of the lens-attached camera unit. The carrier is mounted to the tripod and hold the device on point of balance. You would then need some spring loaded push up padded rest for the lens and an over-centre locking arm. The idea being that the lenses might often not have room for a full surround tripod mount. Also you would need to focus the lens on tripod. Method: adjust sliding arm to lens point of balance, depress support arm against spring and focus lens. Once focus is achieved release support arm and re-lock under lens for support. Take image.

I don't know if such a device exists but there is a business opportunity for someone. Not the most convenient in operation but I think it would work and also be fairly universal.

Much less complex and "here today": Novoflex make a simple "rabbit ears" rest where you simply rest the lens in the "V" of the rabbit ears for support. The rabbit ears rotate easily and you can chose hand held or rest-supported at will. Simple, not rock solid, but should be good enough in most situations with a longer rest for short duration images. No lock down, no fixed focal point, you can't walk away from this setup, but good for many occasions. I have one and like it but the use of tripods bothers me so I tend to struggle on with hand held. Must re-try the rabbit ears.

 

[Mainiac]

Tom I looked at the Novoflex site and could not find the rabbit ears. I did find a shoulder harness with various gadgets attached which could be a help if modified to support the camera/lens combo at the balance point. Like you, I have thought up various support ideas none of which seem to be available commercially.I have my eye on a 100 to 300 zoom but don't know whether the 300 (450 equivalent) will be much good if I have to hand hold it. The trade off is weight and low f number or lightness and higher f number. Since I want to use it for travel and I went to the GXR for light weight, the big fast heavy lenses are not really an option. And yes one can buy a tele zoom with tripod mount but the whole kit of lens and mount is heavier than I want
I'm still interested in the heaviest lens anyone has used with a tripod and the GXR/M mount. Just out of curiosity if nothing else.
Peter

 

[Tri-X]

Tom I looked at the Novoflex site and could not find the rabbit ears. ...
Peter

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/197099-REG/Novoflex_GAKO_Forked_Joint.html

 

[Mainiac]

Thanks Tri_X for the refrence. I now have no excuse not to buy the 2 kilo lens

 

[Tom Caldwell]

My rabbit ears are attached to a Benbo tripod. For those who have never tried a Benbo they should at least once try wrestling with an octopus.

A great idea, they are based on the WWII Bren Gun mount which used a bent-bolt mount (hence the tripod's name). This allows placing the tripod in a lot of quite extraordinary positions almost limited only by your imagination.

However it's main problem is that once the bolt is released the tripod legs flop in every which direction. A little like one of those life-size floppy doll routines you sometimes see mime comedians using - the doll flops everywhere with legs and arms akimbo much to the amusement of the audience. Please never try and set up a Benbo with camera -and lens attached - some grief is sure to happen.

However it is a very versatile tripod in practice (once you have practied setting it up a few times). Once the bolt is tightened the legs are as firm as any.

For field photographers in rough country the Benbo has to be one of the best tripods they can find. With patience and a calm disposition it can cope with about any odd location. Finding one might be harder as I am not sure that they are made any more.

Perhaps for the sake of my sanity I should mount my "rabbit ears" on another tripod - I think I might use them more often.

Tom

 

[widmerpool]

I have programmed 3 my settings for my three lenses. For each one I put Auto-ISO and a minimum shutter speed. The camera is working on auto-ISO, but completely disregarding the minimum shutter speed. Am I missing something? This worked perfectly well for the A12 28/50.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

That is something I have not tried. I have not set minimum shutter speed. Will have to read up on it and try it before I can comment - others may have tried this.

Tom

 

[slappo]

I have programmed 3 my settings for my three lenses. For each one I put Auto-ISO and a minimum shutter speed. The camera is working on auto-ISO, but completely disregarding the minimum shutter speed. Am I missing something? This worked perfectly well for the A12 28/50.

I have ISO set to Auto-ISO in the Shooting menu and ISO Auto-Hi Settings to 800,1/60 in the Key Custom Options menu - and it works for me both with A12/28mm and A12-M by raising ISO and keeping the minimum 1/60 sec.