noimmunity
scratch my niche
My dream would be to have a collapsible 135. Have there ever been any collapsible teles for RF? Why (not)?
collasible 135?
- Thread starter noimmunity
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 8
- Views 1K
B.J.Scharp
Still developing
I've got a foldable 135, my 135 Tele-Elmar has a removable head (for Viso use), so it could be stored in two parts...
Don't know about any collapsable lenses bigger than 90mm though...
Don't know about any collapsable lenses bigger than 90mm though...
Sonnar Brian
Established
Most Telephoto designs require that the rear elements be much closer to the film plane than the actual focal length calls for.
Leica "Long Lenses" such as the Elmar and Hektor are not telephoto designs, but are Anastigmats with a long focal length. So- the rear elements are farther away from the film plane and making a collapsible focus mount is possible. The 9cm f4 Elmar Collapsible will fit into the M3's fitted case when collapsed. It cannot be collapsed on the M8 and M9.
There used to be a Collapsible 400mm (I seem to remember, or 500?) lens that collapsed for storage. I've got a 20 or 30 year old Pop Phptp that featured it.
Leica "Long Lenses" such as the Elmar and Hektor are not telephoto designs, but are Anastigmats with a long focal length. So- the rear elements are farther away from the film plane and making a collapsible focus mount is possible. The 9cm f4 Elmar Collapsible will fit into the M3's fitted case when collapsed. It cannot be collapsed on the M8 and M9.
There used to be a Collapsible 400mm (I seem to remember, or 500?) lens that collapsed for storage. I've got a 20 or 30 year old Pop Phptp that featured it.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Brian, thanks for the explanation. Would that anistigmat design apply to the Nikkor 85/2 Sonnar as well? I recall Dante Stella saying it's not a tele design.
I'd trade convenience to have a 135 that folds into a compact package without unmounting the lens. (Is that like niche of the niche, or something?).
I'd trade convenience to have a 135 that folds into a compact package without unmounting the lens. (Is that like niche of the niche, or something?).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
For once, I don't agree with Brian on this one, partly (as he says) because very few 135mm RF lenses are true teles. My suspicion is that the real problem is much simpler.
The amount of space inside the camera body (= available for collapsing) is significant with a 90mm lens, but adding another 45mm of collapsing tube means it would stick out of the back of the camera. Making a 2-diameter collapsible tube (with intermediate bayonet) is practical with a 500mm but heavy and bulky for a 135. In other words, the savings on weight/bulk aren't worth it.
As I was writing this and visualizing it, I also realized that you couldn't easily make the tube thin enough. A 90/4 is as fast as you can conveniently collapse. A 135/4 lens head is 40% bigger and requires a wider tube...
Cheers,
R.
The amount of space inside the camera body (= available for collapsing) is significant with a 90mm lens, but adding another 45mm of collapsing tube means it would stick out of the back of the camera. Making a 2-diameter collapsible tube (with intermediate bayonet) is practical with a 500mm but heavy and bulky for a 135. In other words, the savings on weight/bulk aren't worth it.
As I was writing this and visualizing it, I also realized that you couldn't easily make the tube thin enough. A 90/4 is as fast as you can conveniently collapse. A 135/4 lens head is 40% bigger and requires a wider tube...
Cheers,
R.
Sonnar Brian
Established
Leica is one of the few companies to actually incorporate the word "Tele" into the name of the lens to denote that it is a "TelePhoto" design. The Elmarit became the "Tele-Elmarit", the Elmar became the "Tele-Elmar" with the change of the optical formula. Tele-Photo lenses have a positive front group and negative rear group. Looking at Neblette, 1973, the 135mm lenses shown for 35mm cameras look to be telephoto designs.
Comparing lenses side-by-side, the 13.5cm F4.5 Hektor-M is about the same length as the Komura 200mm F4.5 in LTM. It is much longer than the Nikkor 13.5/3.5, Canon Serenar 135/4, Canon 135/3.5, Schacht Travenar 135/3.5, and Arco 135/3.8 Tele-Colinar (all in LTM). Last one was easy to figure out... Most of the non-Leica lenses were "about" the same length, except of course the 200/4.5. I need to do a mug shot of 135's.
I suspect the Canon Serenar 100/4 is an Anastigmat. It is a Triplet.
Comparing lenses side-by-side, the 13.5cm F4.5 Hektor-M is about the same length as the Komura 200mm F4.5 in LTM. It is much longer than the Nikkor 13.5/3.5, Canon Serenar 135/4, Canon 135/3.5, Schacht Travenar 135/3.5, and Arco 135/3.8 Tele-Colinar (all in LTM). Last one was easy to figure out... Most of the non-Leica lenses were "about" the same length, except of course the 200/4.5. I need to do a mug shot of 135's.
I suspect the Canon Serenar 100/4 is an Anastigmat. It is a Triplet.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
what about a two-stage collapsible design (asks the fellow who knows zilch about engineering and lens design)?
ZeissFan
Veteran
The Nikkor is based on the Zeiss Sonnar of the same speed and focal length. I think it becomes a matter of physics where it's not possible to collapse the barrel into the throat of the lens mount. And that's especially true of the Zeiss Ikon Contax rangefinders regarding the 85/2 Sonnar. They might have been able to do it with the 135/4, but the savings in length probably didn't make it worth the effort.
Sonnar Brian
Established
My Speculation: Collapsible lenses fell out of favor in the 50s. Optical design was improved to the point that slight play in the collapsible mount "undid" a lot of the improvements in the optics. Look at the Nikkor-H 5cm F2 "Hybrid". Basically, Nikon took a collapsible lens and put a brass tube over it so it could not be collapsed.
Two-sage collapsible: hard to make a mechanism to keep the front and rear sections of the optics collimated. The mechanism for the 9cm F4 collapsible Elmar works well, but is heavy. The collapsible lens weighs more than the non-collapsible.
Quick test that "usually is a good indicator" of a lens being a Telephoto design: open the aperture and look through the lens from front and back. The aperture of the lens will appear larger when viewed through the front.
Two-sage collapsible: hard to make a mechanism to keep the front and rear sections of the optics collimated. The mechanism for the 9cm F4 collapsible Elmar works well, but is heavy. The collapsible lens weighs more than the non-collapsible.
Quick test that "usually is a good indicator" of a lens being a Telephoto design: open the aperture and look through the lens from front and back. The aperture of the lens will appear larger when viewed through the front.
Last edited by a moderator:
