Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Mir 1 Brussels Grand Prix lens
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Equipment Care and Repairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As requested, here's a quick snap of my lens mounted. I marked up the parts that are suspect. It is attached using the M42 adapter via a M39-->M42 converter ring.

- aperture preset ring doesn't rotate past 11 (and rotates well past 2.8 )
- unevenness of the barrel, especially seen when lens is set to focus @ 0.7m

tomasg, it's the upper aperture ring that is off, the second one slides around just fine based on the preset I choose. I am familiar with this setup as I have two other lenses that use it (two versions of Helios 44-2).



PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My 44 reaches infinity, I have heard/read that the 2 mounts have different registration, it's possible I guess, I just haven't seen it in the few M39 SLR lenses I've come across.

Anna,
I don't know if it's just me, but in this picture, it looks like the lens above the focus ring is bent to the side, if it is, then there is much more damage then previously discussed, now that I look again, the distance from the back of the focus ring to the mount looks even, but above the focus ring it doesn't, correct?
I fear that the rear section of the optics is bent somehow, and only by separating the optics from the helicoid section will we know for sure.
[/quote]


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with lightshow, this lens looks bended :O
Thats pity, it's a nice early KMZ version from 1958 or 1959.
The best way to understand the problème would be to disassemble it like on the photo above.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Agree, that has nothing to do with the focus ring. The damage is somewhere else inside the lens.

BTW, I've never heard about different register distances of Zenit M39 SLR lenses. I'll check with my others tomorrow if they behave like my Mir-1.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:

Anna,
I don't know if it's just me, but in this picture, it looks like the lens above the focus ring is bent to the side, if it is, then there is much more damage then previously discussed, now that I look again, the distance from the back of the focus ring to the mount looks even, but above the focus ring it doesn't, correct?


Yes, that is correct. It is bent above the focus ring. It is most pronounced with focus set to 0.7m. As focus approaches infinity, the focus ring and the middle aperture ring come together and the bend practically disappears.

I look forward to getting my tools and taking it apart (I should be receiving everything I need by this weekend). I'll definitely post pictures with my progress.

The optics on this lens are so clear and beautiful, I hope that there's something I can do to salvage it!


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Agree, that has nothing to do with the focus ring. The damage is somewhere else inside the lens.

BTW, I've never heard about different register distances of Zenit M39 SLR lenses. I'll check with my others tomorrow if they behave like my Mir-1.


Zenith 3M flange focal distance is the same as m42 (45.46mm). The Braun Paxette m39 use 44mm and the ltm register distance is 28.8mm. If some lenses behave differently, they are misaligned, like this lens.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
tb_a wrote:
Agree, that has nothing to do with the focus ring. The damage is somewhere else inside the lens.

BTW, I've never heard about different register distances of Zenit M39 SLR lenses. I'll check with my others tomorrow if they behave like my Mir-1.


Zenith 3M flange focal distance is the same as m42 (45.46mm). The Braun Paxette m39 use 44mm and the ltm register distance is 28.8mm. If some lenses behave differently, they are misaligned, like this lens.


The correct Zenit M39 SLR register distance is 45.2 mm although some sources report that it maybe same as M42 which is 45.46 mm. However, as I showed already in this thread regular M42 adapters to not work without modification of lens or adapter. 0.26 mm are simply too much difference for precise focusing wide open and prohibit the correct focusing for infinity.
So the story that ZM39 equals M42 register distance is a myth, although it may also work if the lens is used at F16 or even smaller apertures (if available).

BTW, I've tried it on all of my different cameras with different M42 adapters and it simply doesn't work, although it works perfectly with the special Zenit extension tube for the use on M39/LTM mount. So the correct solution is the Zenit M39 extension tube (16.4 mm) on an regular M39/LTM adapter for the used camera. There is no need to argue about that fact any longer. Sorry. 16.4 + 28.8 = 45.2 and not 45.46.

Last edited by tb_a on Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:15 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:

There is no need to argue about that fact any longer. Sorry.

Well you're no fun.... Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
tb_a wrote:

There is no need to argue about that fact any longer. Sorry.

Well you're no fun.... Smile


Sorry, but it starts to become cumbersome. I'm on the edge to loose my nerves.... Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anna Valeria wrote:
As requested, here's a quick snap of my lens mounted. I marked up the parts that are suspect. It is attached using the M42 adapter via a M39-->M42 converter ring.

- aperture preset ring doesn't rotate past 11 (and rotates well past 2.8 )
- unevenness of the barrel, especially seen when lens is set to focus @ 0.7m

tomasg, it's the upper aperture ring that is off, the second one slides around just fine based on the preset I choose. I am familiar with this setup as I have two other lenses that use it (two versions of Helios 44-2).



Aha ok, i wasn t sure if you knew about it, some photographers new to mf lenses make this kind of mistake. From the picture it looks the problem is really bad. Rolling Eyes I wonder who managed to put it back this way, pitty. But there is hope, a considerable amount of force would be necessary to bent it that way and there would be some evidence on the barrels of the impact, so maybe someone didn t allign the threads correctly upon putting it back.
I would try one thing: hold the front part of the lens, the barrel where the cap is placed and the mount of the lens, then try to simply unscrew the lens, the Helios 40 and the Tair 11A come apart that way. No need to loosen any screw on those to lenses.

Tomas

Last edited by tomasg on Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:13 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
My 44 reaches infinity, I have heard/read that the 2 mounts have different registration, it's possible I guess, I just haven't seen it in the few M39 SLR lenses I've come across.

Anna,
I don't know if it's just me, but in this picture, it looks like the lens above the focus ring is bent to the side, if it is, then there is much more damage then previously discussed, now that I look again, the distance from the back of the focus ring to the mount looks even, but above the focus ring it doesn't, correct?
I fear that the rear section of the optics is bent somehow, and only by separating the optics from the helicoid section will we know for sure.
[/quote]

My guess is that the silver ring at the back of the optical group is used to adjust the flange distance for different mounts, my Helios 40 (m39) has also one there, just much bigger Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Nordentro wrote:
tb_a wrote:
Agree, that has nothing to do with the focus ring. The damage is somewhere else inside the lens.

BTW, I've never heard about different register distances of Zenit M39 SLR lenses. I'll check with my others tomorrow if they behave like my Mir-1.


Zenith 3M flange focal distance is the same as m42 (45.46mm). The Braun Paxette m39 use 44mm and the ltm register distance is 28.8mm. If some lenses behave differently, they are misaligned, like this lens.


The correct Zenit M39 SLR register distance is 45.2 mm although some sources report that it maybe same as M42 which is 45.46 mm. However, as I showed already in this thread regular M42 adapters to not work without modification of lens or adapter. 0.26 mm are simply too much difference for precise focusing wide open and prohibit the correct focusing for infinity.
So the story that ZM39 equals M42 register distance is a myth, although it may also work if the lens is used at F16 or even smaller apertures (if available).

BTW, I've tried it on all of my different cameras with different M42 adapters and it simply doesn't work, although it works perfectly with the special Zenit extension tube for the use on M39/LTM mount. So the correct solution is the Zenit M39 extension tube (16.4 mm) on an regular M39/LTM adapter for the used camera. There is no need to argue about that fact any longer. Sorry. 16.4 + 28.8 = 45.2 and not 45.46.


So. then Wikipedia must be wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
not just Wikipedia is wrong.. everybody who has no infinity problems with his M39 Mir wide open on a M42 adapter is wrong. It jusrt can't be.

tb_a said so.. Period!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, Wikipedia is wrong. And Thomas is correct at 45.2mm.

For MIR-1 data see ... http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photohistory.ru/1207248187959276.html&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

cheers
Geoff


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Who is more trustworthy, the manufacturer or Wikipedia?

http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/mir-1.html

According Zenit it's clearly 45.2 mm.

Therefore any unmodified lens isn't capable to focus correctly for infinity on any unmodified M42 adapter. Period.

Watch the paper next to the lens:



It states clearly 45.2 mm on the original document from 1957 which was originally available for every lens. What evidence do you need additionally?

BTW, I would never be that strict in argumentation if there would be any doubt, i.e. if I wouldn't be 100% sure.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sligthly off topic:

I've just tested the difference with my Jupiter-11 in ZM39 version. Same story as with Mir-1. No wonder.
However, the difference is not that extreme in comparison, i.e. infinity is almost sharp, but far below the sharpness when used correctly.

Maybe some of the M42-believers might try to use the correct register distance with their ZM39 lenses. This would show you the full potential of your lenses even when used fully open.
I am sure nobody will use the M42 adapter again once the difference is realized. Wink

BTW, Zenit had good reasons to include an 16.4 mm distance ring in their M39 standard 4-ring set. Simply to allow the use of ZM39 lenses on their Zorki and FED RF cameras which are built according Leica standard (M39/LTM) for 28.8 mm register distance.

Hope that helps.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:
not just Wikipedia is wrong.. everybody who has no infinity problems with his M39 Mir wide open on a M42 adapter is wrong. It jusrt can't be.

tb_a said so.. Period!


Dear Jan,

Yes, Wikipedia is wrong. That's already proven. I do hope that also you can accept this. You should also note that everybody can write anything into Wikipedia as long as nobody says anything against it. Obviously there are not so many people around who know the correct specifications of Zenit cameras and lenses and care about the English or German part of Wikipedia. The Russian part of Wikipedia is btw. quoting the correct 45.2 mm register distance in their M39 article.

I have explained in detail that it may be possible under certain conditions (modifications and/or apertures of F16) to use a M42 adapter instead. It's just a matter of 0.26 mm and certainly for short to medium distances it doesn't play any role at all. I am also sure that you didn't buy your old ZM39 lenses new, so you cannot know whether any pre-owner has already done something with them to enable the use on M42 cameras or adapters. It may also be that the more or less blurred infinity is good enough for you. I don't know.

Kind regards,


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dear Thomas,

you should finally accept that I have no înfinity problems with MIR 1 or Helios 44 (both M39) on a M42 adapter. And yes I mean wide open as I said a few times in this thread. I also know that there isn't any hidden potential in both lenses since I used them also with a the VNEX system from Heny.. there I can focus even behind infinity.

You are absolutely right when you guess I didn't buy my old Zenit M39 lenses new and they may be modified.. yes I didn't and have no idea about the past of my lenses. It seems for me many owners have modified lenses.. or maybe we use export versions which have the M42 distance? This could be so... my MIR has no kyrillic letters and came with a M39 to M42 adapter ring. And it could explain the "different register distances of Zenit M39 SLR lenses". You know? I don't...

btw. if you wouldn't always speak for everybody at everything, I would be quit nearly all the time. But as long you always know everything better than anyone else.. this won't change.

PS: don't tell me about wikipedia


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Point taken guys, but I`ve never had problems with infinity on any of my Soviet m39 SLR lenses with a regular m42 adapter. Wink
Someone should fix the false info on wikipedia.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:

You are absolutely right when you guess I didn't buy my old Zenit M39 lenses new and they may be modified.. yes I didn't and have no idea about the past of my lenses. It seems for me many owners have modified lenses.. or maybe we use export versions which have the M42 distance? This could be so... my MIR has no kyrillic letters and came with a M39 to M42 adapter ring. And it could explain the "different register distances of Zenit M39 SLR lenses". You know? I don't...

btw. if you wouldn't always speak for everybody at everything, I would be quit nearly all the time. But as long you always know everything better than anyone else.. this won't change.


My ZM39 lenses are both "export" (Latin lettering) and "domestic" (Cyrillic lettering) and are all 45.2 versions. So most probably your lens was privately modified before.

The question was raised by the OP and I delivered the explanation AND the possible solutions. It doesn't really help to say: My lens is working like this or that.

If you are under the impression that "I always know everything better than anyone else", even when I am wrong then this might be your personal impression. I certainly won't discuss about issues where I don't know anything about or I have just heard something from somewhere. In other words: If I contribute something I also know something about mainly from own experience and ownership. However: errare humanum est Wink And I certainly will accept that I am wrong as long somebody proves the different. Just to say that I am wrong without providing the evidence for it is certainly not enough. That's my personal point of view and that will not change. I have delivered the evidence for my statements quite detailed.

Looking forward to interesting discussions.

BTW, Wikipedia. I've seen yesterday a very interesting documentation about the detailed background of the Wiki and how it works. The topic as such ("Fallbeispiel") isn't that interesting and will always be controversial. Nevertheless, it's really worth to see. It's unfortunately only in German which shouldn't be a problem for you I think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHfiCX_YdgA I think everybody should have a look into that more detailed to understand it better. I've learned a lot that I wasn't aware before.

Kind regards,


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
Point taken guys, but I`ve never had problems with infinity on any of my Soviet m39 SLR lenses with a regular m42 adapter. Wink
Someone should fix the false info on wikipedia.


Lars, believe it or not: Until I've done some lens comparison tests especially for infinity landscapes I didn't realize that myself as well. Wink

Honestly speaking those lenses are not my favorite ones and therefore not used very often.

Unfortunately I don't have the nerves to contribute to Wikipedia. That's too cumbersome for my taste. Sorry.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for your comments, all. I don't know which adapter my lens will perform best with until I attempt to fix the uneven barrel issue. As of right now, it stops focusing well before I reach infinity.

tb_a, like you suggested, I purchased the Zenit M39 extension tubes as well as a M39/LTM --> Nex adapter. The tubes are shipping from Ukraine and won't be here for a few weeks, so it will be a bit before I can test the lens with your suggested setup.

Clearly, though, there's a serious issue with my lens, no matter which adapter works best at infinity. This weekend I will take it apart and post an update with some photos.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi, all!

Well, I am here with an update.

I took the lens apart today and learned a lot. It was quite an ordeal. At some point, someone disassembled it (probably for the same reason I did today) and did an awful job putting it back together.

The locking collar at the end was secured with two tiny screws (this step wasn't mentioned in the reference threads). I had to take them out before using the spanner. Also, for some reason the collar was glued or lacquered on. After unsuccessfully using a spanner and sheer force to try to unscrew it, I ended up putting very small drops of solvent (acetone) carefully between the threads. That loosened it and I was able to finally take it off. This was step 1 in the referenced thread ( http://forum.mflenses.com/helios-44-13-blade-1st-gen-relube-mir-1-37mm-relube-t64426,highlight,+mir++1++37mm.html ). Took me over an hour just to get past this!

Along the way, I discovered that the heads of many grub screws were ruined. There was nowhere for the screwdriver to grab onto. I'm guessing someone used too much force and stripped the heads. It took a long time to get those loose enough to proceed.

Finally, after about three hours of work, I got down to this:



It may not be very apparent from the image, but the metal housing is bent. It has to be a factory defect and there's nothing I can reasonably do to try and fix this. It's like a tiny Leaning Tower of Pisa!

It's very disappointing that the lens is not fixable. But, I did clear out internal dust, cleaned all the parts and applied new lubricant. Also, I fixed the issue with misaligned aperture present ring (the first ring). It now correctly goes from 16 to 2.8. Whoever took the lens apart did not bother to align the ring correctly. I guess he/she figured the lens is not fixable, so why bother.

Seems like I will be searching Ebay for another copy of Mir-1! At least the optics on this one are in extremely good shape, so I can use it for parts if I need to down the road.

In the end, the lens is much more usable now than it was when I first received it. I may not be able to focus beyond ~7 meters, but at least it is clean and everything is freshly lubricated. Once I receive the Zenit M39 extension tubes, I will try them out to see if I can focus a bit past 7 meters.

Thank you for all your tips and suggestions! And, sorry if I used the wrong terms to describe lens parts - I'm still learning what is what Smile


PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Welcome Anna Valeria!

That is a lot of skilled work. I would try to straighten that piece. Wink Maybe with closet dowel...


PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Welcome Anna Valeria!

That is a lot of skilled work. I would try to straighten that piece. Wink Maybe with closet dowel...


Thank you for the welcome and suggestion!

I tried to tug on that piece with some tools, but it just seems like it will require quite a bit of force. But, yes, it does seem that if I somehow straighten that piece, everything should be in order. I will consider your closet dowel idea and see if I can find one that will fit.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Equipment Care and Repairs
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3