Is this the world's smallest 90?

[ChrisN]

I've no idea really, but I didn't know they made them this small!

In fact, I know nothing about this lens, apart from the fact that I bought it this morning. Can anyone tell me anything about it?

Roeschlein-Kreuznach -E- Telenar 1:3.8/90mm.

Comparison pic with a 50 Summicron in M-mount.

 

[colyn]

If I recall this lens is for the Braun Paxette which uses the Leica 39mm screw mount but has a different register than the Leica..

 

[ChrisN]

Hi Colyn - yep, just started to google for it and that seems to be the story! What a pity! Maybe I now need a Paxette!

 

[colyn]

Hi Colyn - yep, just started to google for it and that seems to be the story! What a pity! Maybe I now need a Paxette!

I've used the Braun Super II and found it to be a fine camera. It's small enough to fit in the palm of your hand.

 

[alternatve]

What a waste! It looks really small and compact for a 90. The 85/2 J-9 I have is so large that it blocks half of the viewfinder!

 

[LeicaTom]

Wow!

Now that`s compact KOOL if you ask me.....I wonder if this lens could be hacked or modified, like this one was.....?

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38538

That would be sweet to have a LTM 90mm in such a compact package 😀

Tom

 

[ChrisN]

Just had a brainwave! The mount-to-film-plane (register) distance) is longer than the Leica standard; the lens sits further out. Just like SLR lenses do. Hmmm.

M39 to M42 adapter plus M42 to K-mount adapter - bingo! The lens fits on my Pentax DSLR! Works too! Close focus distance is about a meter; don't know if I'll be able to get infinity focus though - too dark to check now. This is fun!

Edit: Just looked up the register distances. Paxette is 44mm; K-mount is 45.46mm. That means the lens is now sitting about 1.46mm too far out. I wonder if a small aperture setting will make up for that? Something to play with, anyway!

 

[payasam]

Looks like you'll get some use out of the lens.

 

[ChrisN]

It doesn't look too silly, does it? 🙂

 

[markinlondon]

It doesn't look too silly, does it? 🙂

No sillier than any other dSLR, Chris 🙄

Well done on finding a use for a neat little lens.

 

[Toyoca 35]

Chris, your mod looks fun!

I've just started using a Super Paxette II B L with the 'standard' Katagon 2.8/50.

Not the sharpest optic in the world, but better than some of the web scuttlebut suggests.

Paxette stuff is quite common here in NZ, so I wonder, is it the same situ in Aus? The wee Braun, while not the slickest handler, is admirably small. It fits in the palm of my hand and I don't miss strap lugs because it is so easy to pocket.

One caveat: lenses for the Paxette II, whilst they are 39mm, are not LTM as Colyn suggests. LTM is the odd combination of 39mmx26tpi, where as the Paxette is, like your adaptor, the very close M39x1. I've not heard of binding problems, but I think that if I had a nice LTM body (which I don't) I'd be VERY circumspect about screwing a Paxette II (the II denotes interchangeable thread mount lens, BTW) lens into it.

Michael Toohey
Rangiora,
New Zealand.

 

[Finder]

Edit: Just looked up the register distances. Paxette is 44mm; K-mount is 45.46mm. That means the lens is now sitting about 1.46mm too far out. I wonder if a small aperture setting will make up for that? Something to play with, anyway!

Place a 1.46mm shim or washer between the mounting ring and the lens. That should compensate nicely for the difference in the flange focal distance.

 

[rogue_designer]

Finder - wouldn't that put the lens even further out?

 

[ChrisN]

Michael - greetings and welcome to the forum!

The thread on this one must be generously cut, as it screwed quite easily onto my M4. Wonderful bokeh, nothing but bokeh!

Rogue - I think you are right. It's ok for close in and small aperture, but it's nothing to write home about!

 

[roland]

Edit: Just looked up the register distances. Paxette is 44mm; K-mount is 45.46mm. That means the lens is now sitting about 1.46mm too far out. I wonder if a small aperture setting will make up for that? Something to play with, anyway!

The register distance for a Leica is 27.75mm so if you had a m39 to m39 converter that was 16.25mm long..... Yeah, you'd lose rangefinder coupling but it'd still be cool to be able to mount it on a Leica.

 

[ChrisN]

The register distance for a Leica is 27.75mm so if you had a m39 to m39 converter that was 16.25mm long..... Yeah, you'd lose rangefinder coupling but it'd still be cool to be able to mount it on a Leica.

Focusing would be a challenge! I think there would be some serious vignetting, too, judging by the example above.

 

[Finder]

Finder - wouldn't that put the lens even further out?

Didn't Chris say the 90 has a flange focal distance of 44mm and the Pentax 45.46mm? So you need to move the lens out by 1.46mm?

 

[Toyoca 35]

thanks for the welcome, Chris.
Here is a site by the inevitable Japanese RF fan who has mounted a Roeschlein Luxon 2.0/50 (the fastest Paxette II lens available) & various other PSM lenses on a Contax via an adaptor. It's a pity I don't read Japanese.

http://fine.tok2.com/home/mountmagic/lens/paxette_lens/paxette_lens_impressions.html

Of course, nobody has mentioned that with that huge register length, caused by the body-mounted Prontor SVS shutter, PSM lenses aren't really that compact when on the camera. The Luxon and the longer lenses really dominate the wee body that these lenses was made for. See Steve's example of a Super Paxette II wearing a Luxon here: http://www.cameraquest.com/braun.htm
A millimetre is still a millimetre, I guess.
On the other hand, they do take up less room in your gadget bag! The whole Paxette II kit will comfortably fit into a very small bag.