# Problems focusing (Yashica TL - Electro + Yashinon DS f/1.9)



## Tom Sawyer (Jan 11, 2009)

Hi people, I just registered because I'm having some issues with focusing. 

Let me start by saying that I am a complete novice to photography, and I never touched anything but compact cameras until lately, when I retrieved my dad's Yashica SLR from the depths of some cupboard.

I'm now reading a lot on the internet, and trying things, but as said in the title, I'm having trouble with the adjusting the focus:
The focusing distances on the lens simply don't match up with the distance the objects are away from me. I made a test to get it straight. I measured exactly one meter to the object, adjusted the lens to one meter - blurrrrr. To get the subject even remotely sharp, I had to turn the ring until infinity, and even then it wasn't that sharp.

On the other hand, I can focus things that are only about 40cm from me blazingly sharp, even though the lens should just go down to 0,5, but to do that I have to set the focus to about 1m! 

What do you recon, is it a problem with the lens, or with the camera? 
Or am I doing something wrong? 
I have another lens, a Carl Zeiss, and it won't focus properly either, but I know my dad always said that lens wasn't working correctly...

Thanks for any help!


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 11, 2009)

Hi and welcome to the forum.  I does sound as though your camera is in need of repair.  Has the camera  ever been dropped?

You can get another body for very little money if you find that the Zeiss is something that you don't want to give up.

Just a thought, is there a detachable ring on the camera where the lenses go?  If so, try taking it off.  If you have to have it for the lenses to fit then make sure it's in all the way.

Good luck and don't be a stranger.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 11, 2009)

Sounds like the first lens has been taken apart ... and put back together incorrectly ... when it was put back together the lens was not aligned properly.


----------



## compur (Jan 11, 2009)

Tom Sawyer said:


> I measured exactly one meter to the object, adjusted the lens to one meter - blurrrrr. To get the subject even remotely sharp, I had to turn the ring until infinity, and even then it wasn't that sharp.
> 
> On the other hand, I can focus things that are only about 40cm from me blazingly sharp, even though the lens should just go down to 0,5, but to do that I have to set the focus to about 1m!



Does the focus adjustment stop right at the infinity mark?  Or, does it
stop short? Go beyond it?


----------



## Tom Sawyer (Jan 12, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> Sounds like the first lens has been taken apart ... and put back together incorrectly ... when it was put back together the lens was not aligned properly.


Yes, I was told it could be that... but in response to compur, the marks line up correctly, looks correct.

There are no extra rings attached.
Can it be that it's something with the body, or is it most likely the lens? What could be wrong in the body? The mirror looks good, works even better.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 12, 2009)

Based on your description ... I would say the lenses have a physical problem, not the camera body.


----------



## Tom Sawyer (Jan 23, 2009)

Hi guys!
I have an update: I received the outcome of the first film I shot, and to my surprise, all the close up pictures that appeared sharp are blurry, and all the landscape pictures I took, with the lens set to infinity, are perfectly good, despite appearing a little blurry when I took them! Also, on close shots, the pictures are most of the time cut-off on the bottom, as if I was pointing the camera up, which I wasn't, I remember them to be perfectly well aligned. 

So, what I think is happening is that the lens is working correctly, but what I see in the viewfinder isn't what is being captured by the film, right? This would point towards a problem with the body, perhaps the mirror? What do you think?
Thanks a lot for replies again!


----------



## compur (Jan 23, 2009)

Have you tried a different lens?


----------



## Tom Sawyer (Jan 23, 2009)

Yes indeed, I tried the Yashinon and a Carl Zeiss, with similar results.


----------



## compur (Jan 23, 2009)

Good thing there's plenty of cheap screw-mount bodies on eBay, huh?


----------



## Torus34 (Jan 24, 2009)

If I understand correctly, your test roll suggests that the image you see through the viewfinder is not the same as that which the film 'sees'.  In addition, what the film sees apparently corresponds well with the actual distance markings on the lens.  So it seems possible to rule out a lens or lens mount problem.

A misalignment of the viewing system components [camera ever dropped or partially disassembled?] may be the culprit.


----------



## Tom Sawyer (Jan 24, 2009)

Torus34 said:


> If I understand correctly, your test roll suggests that the image you see through the viewfinder is not the same as that which the film 'sees'.  In addition, what the film sees apparently corresponds well with the actual distance markings on the lens.  So it seems possible to rule out a lens or lens mount problem.
> 
> A misalignment of the viewing system components [camera ever dropped or partially disassembled?] may be the culprit.



Exactly, spot on. 
I went berserk and disassembled the whole upper part of the camera, because it's not worth traveling to Lisbon to have it checked out, I will get another body off ebay instead. 
So I just figured If I'm getting another one I'll check this one myself, see if I can see anything.
In fact, I encountered a problem, and I thought it would fix my issue, but it didn't...one of the two springs that press the Prism against that focusing screen was disconnected, because a little plastic part was broken and so the prism was kind of loose and not really steady against the screen. I managed to fix it to that the prism is now steadily held down by the springs, but my problem persists. Everything else looked very good and securely in place.
Weird, but well, now I know how the inside of a SLR camera looks, I guess I have learned something from this.

I'll be looking for another M42 body on ebay, say, have you got any tips on good, sturdy, reliable m42 mount bodies that go for cheap these days, other then the Yashica TLs? I'll try to get another TL, I grew quite fond of this one, but maybe there are other ones that may be worth checking out?


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 24, 2009)

The old Pentax Spotmatic was a classic M42 mount camera.
I know some that are still shooting with them.


----------



## Torus34 (Jan 24, 2009)

On M42 bodies, I've found this site helpful:

Screw Mount (M42) Cameras

I picked up an old Mamiya 500TL and find it quite satisfactory.  I also use a Chinon SLR and like it.  Both serve as good 'platforms' for the M42 lenses I have.

With camera bodies of, shall we say, a 'certain age', one of the problems you may encounter are very slow low shutter speeds.  In some instances, the 1 sec might not work at all.  If possible, get information on this from the seller of the body before you bid.

And good luck in your search.  There's much photographic pleasure to be had from the older M42 rigs.  Mine range from the Chinon back to a Praktica IVb.

On diagnosing your camera's problem, the old Sherlock Holmes adage comes to mind: "When the impossible has been eliminated, ..."  ;-))


----------



## compur (Jan 24, 2009)

Chinon CS: built like a tank. Few people in the USA are familiar with how
great they are so they sell at low prices. Same camera also sold under the
Vivitar brand name.

And, Chinon made other M42 cameras that are also good choices.

See:
http://anusf.anu.edu.au/~aab900/photography/cameras/chinon.ht

Or, at higher cost, a superb M42 camera is the Fujica ST801 or ST901:






See:
http://www.thecamerasite.net/01_SLR_Cameras/Pages/fujica-ST-801.htm

http://www.pentax-manuals.com/fujica/cameras/st801.htm

http://www.pentax-manuals.com/fujica/cameras/st901.htm


----------



## Tom Sawyer (Jan 24, 2009)

Thanks a lot, I'll keep your tips in mind.

What about the Praktica MTL 5? I heard it's not so well built, and kind of the "black sheep" of the Prakticas?


----------



## compur (Jan 24, 2009)

I believe Mitica100 is our resident Praktica expert.  I have little experience
with them myself.


----------



## Torus34 (Jan 25, 2009)

You'll find information on the quality of the later Prakticas at the site I noted above.


----------



## Tom Sawyer (Jan 27, 2009)

I found a new problem, hooray, everything is broken:
My Yashinon lens is an auto, right? So, I select the aperture, and when I take the shot the lens is supposed to stop down to the selected aperture, and then open wide again after the shot. So far so good, but this is problematic. If, for instance, I select f16, and set the shutter speed relatively high, then look into the lens and take a shot, the thing hasn't got enough time to close down that far, it doesn't even have time to close halfway. The shutter snaps, the little pin in the lens is released and the lens is opening again, having never even reached the vicinity of f 16. 
This is not supposed to happen, is it? it's probably not smooth enough anymore...


----------



## compur (Jan 27, 2009)

Welcome to the world of vintage cameras. 

Take your lens off and pop the actuator pin on the rear with your finger at
various aperture settings.

The diaphragm should snap immediately to the appropriate aperture.  If not,
it is probably gummed up with old lubricant.  It needs cleaning, in other
words.  It's movement should be very snappy which yours sounds like it
isn't.

This is something you should always check (if possible) before buying 
older lenses.

Having the lens cleaned would cost more than finding another one (unless
you do it your self which I don't recommend unless you plan to dedicate 
yourself to the frustrating process of learning camera repair.)


----------



## Tom Sawyer (Jan 28, 2009)

Snap...haha, not even close...it sort of slowly glides.
I'll just forget about this lens, or if I want to experiment with it I'll improvise a manual, perhaps by taping down the pin. Thanks again, you've been very helpful.


----------

