dave lackey
Veteran
And here it is:
Wow, David, where is this reference from? I would love to see more.
I have seen the 65mm Elmar referred to as a short-Elmar, it is made for bellows work.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Wow, David, where is this reference from? I would love to see more.
Your best bet would be one of the Hove Foto book reprints of the old catalogues. They often turn up on ebay and - usually - don't sell. I've a range of them and have been replacing them with the originals (and somehow managing to sell the reprints). Anyway, this was from the genuine article.
The other books I mentioned are also useful sources and turn up on ebay from time to time. Note that the USA had their own versions and they were - at times - nothing like the UK version. Apart from the prices, the USA got the IIIb first but we got colour pictures in the sample pages first probably because of Agfa.
Regards, David
Roger Hicks
Veteran
As far as I am aware, -KUP = coupled (for RF), as in HEFAR/HEFARKUP (coupled and uncoupled 135 Hektors). That's from memory: I'm too lazy to go and check.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I guess you have to be very careful about saying the second one out loud...
Regards, David
Regards, David
Dralowid
Michael
IMG_0487.jpg
OK folks, the one on the left is 'shorter' than the others. It and the middle one are un-numbered and without infinity catches. The one on the right is an ordinary f22 version.
Any ideas? I'm sure I have others to prove the point but don't want to get lenses and cameras mixed up.
Michael
OK folks, the one on the left is 'shorter' than the others. It and the middle one are un-numbered and without infinity catches. The one on the right is an ordinary f22 version.
Any ideas? I'm sure I have others to prove the point but don't want to get lenses and cameras mixed up.
Michael
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Are the lenses at left and center Nickel- plated ? The focus knob looks like an early style, perhaps like would be found on a "hockey-stick" Leica ?
When installed on a camera body (LTM), where is the lever situated when the lens is at Infinity - 7 o'clock, or 11 o'clock ? What are the aperture ranges on each lens ?
The lens on the right looks to be chromium, withe the later-style infinity-release button.
When installed on a camera body (LTM), where is the lever situated when the lens is at Infinity - 7 o'clock, or 11 o'clock ? What are the aperture ranges on each lens ?
The lens on the right looks to be chromium, withe the later-style infinity-release button.
Dralowid
Michael
Sorry if it wasn't clear. Left and centre are nickel, right, being f22 and postwar is chrome.
Both nickel lenses are 11 o'clock, left is in metres, centre in feet. Normal early stops, 3.5 to 18.
No infinity locks on the two earlier lenses.
Converted lenses can come with infinity locks or without (see also my avatar). I believe early standardised Elmars also came without the lock. (there are, of course, more than one type of lock)
Not sure where this is going
Michael
Both nickel lenses are 11 o'clock, left is in metres, centre in feet. Normal early stops, 3.5 to 18.
No infinity locks on the two earlier lenses.
Converted lenses can come with infinity locks or without (see also my avatar). I believe early standardised Elmars also came without the lock. (there are, of course, more than one type of lock)
Not sure where this is going
Michael
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Thanks for the additional info...
I'm now not sure my question is relevant to your original inquiry, but helped me understand what I'm looking at....
I have only one 5 cm Elmar, a nickel 11 o'clock s/n 99xxx, that came with my Leica II s/n 77xxx (1932).
One thing I discovered about my Elmar is that the lugs on the barrel are too small to lock it securely on the the early brass close-focusing helical that I have; haven't tried a later Elmar on it. None of my Summars fit it either.
I'm now not sure my question is relevant to your original inquiry, but helped me understand what I'm looking at....
I have only one 5 cm Elmar, a nickel 11 o'clock s/n 99xxx, that came with my Leica II s/n 77xxx (1932).
One thing I discovered about my Elmar is that the lugs on the barrel are too small to lock it securely on the the early brass close-focusing helical that I have; haven't tried a later Elmar on it. None of my Summars fit it either.
Dralowid
Michael
Can't help with the helical problem but for what it is worth, I have always assumed that a lens with a serial number left the factory as a standardised lens and is not a conversion from the fixed variety. Reckon your serial number would support this.
Michael
Michael
Luddite Frank
Well-known
That would be my guess too, as the camera bodies/lenses were standardised by this time, although my Leica II does have the collimating plug in the back of the body shell.
Dralowid
Michael
Production numbers for the II in the early years are high, a testimony to its revolutionary success.
Most of those big early batches of IIs have the collimating plug (and the small pin for holding the camera base in place). I even have an early FED that has that plug.
Michael
Most of those big early batches of IIs have the collimating plug (and the small pin for holding the camera base in place). I even have an early FED that has that plug.
Michael
Luddite Frank
Well-known
I will have to check the pin on mine...
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
Long Elmar
Long Elmar
This is a fascinating controversy. I wonder why I don't see any reference to a difference like that in my Lager book?
I seem to have ended up with a bunch of Elmar 50's for one reason or other, so I checked them with a caliper. I didn't make a huge effort to be precise, but just did a comparison. The measurement is of the length of the lens barrel when it is partially collapsed, so the focus mount is not a factor. I measured from the rear of the barrel mount flange to the front rim.
- Original nickel 11:00 standardized version, with no serial number
- Chrome prewar f18
- Chrome postwar f16
- 2 x chrome postwar f22
- Red dial, with a diamond index
The first four types were all exactly the same length, and the red dial a bit less than one mm longer. It's not clear that this means anything optically: what if the front rim is deeper on the red dial (it doesn't appear to be)? If there is any difference in the focusing mount of the red dial version, that could make up for changes in the barrel. So far, I am too lazy to make precise measurements of the key dimensions that would effect the lens's optical position, but all other things being equal, it seems reasonable that the red dial lens could foul things internally when the older versions don't.
Cheers,
Dez
Long Elmar
This is a fascinating controversy. I wonder why I don't see any reference to a difference like that in my Lager book?
I seem to have ended up with a bunch of Elmar 50's for one reason or other, so I checked them with a caliper. I didn't make a huge effort to be precise, but just did a comparison. The measurement is of the length of the lens barrel when it is partially collapsed, so the focus mount is not a factor. I measured from the rear of the barrel mount flange to the front rim.
- Original nickel 11:00 standardized version, with no serial number
- Chrome prewar f18
- Chrome postwar f16
- 2 x chrome postwar f22
- Red dial, with a diamond index
The first four types were all exactly the same length, and the red dial a bit less than one mm longer. It's not clear that this means anything optically: what if the front rim is deeper on the red dial (it doesn't appear to be)? If there is any difference in the focusing mount of the red dial version, that could make up for changes in the barrel. So far, I am too lazy to make precise measurements of the key dimensions that would effect the lens's optical position, but all other things being equal, it seems reasonable that the red dial lens could foul things internally when the older versions don't.
Cheers,
Dez
Last edited:
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Just dug-out my II, s/n 778xx - it has a small base-plate pin and collimating plug.
My two black III's, both in the 117xx range, have large base-plate pins and no collimating plug.
LF
Dralowid
Michael
...AND...
Some of the ealy lenses have mounting flanges that are smaller. This is particularly noticeable when mounted on a camera because it demonstrates that the mounting flange on the lens is noticeably a smaller diameter than the flange on the camera.
Michael (in search of trivia to enjoy)
Some of the ealy lenses have mounting flanges that are smaller. This is particularly noticeable when mounted on a camera because it demonstrates that the mounting flange on the lens is noticeably a smaller diameter than the flange on the camera.
Michael (in search of trivia to enjoy)