Different LTM?

Ted Town

Newbie
Local time
6:40 AM
Joined
Aug 4, 2025
Messages
10
Location
SoWestO
So I'm in the local coffee shop doing a show-and-tell with an old friend. He oohhhs and ahhhs at my Canon P on the table, then pulls out a Soviet FED5 with a 35mm Leitz 3.5 lens. Naturally I want to try it out on mine, so both lenses come off. Curiously, the Leitz threads are way too small for the Canon.

What's the deal here? Did Barnack Leicas have smaller mounts than the M series?
 
So I'm in the local coffee shop doing a show-and-tell with an old friend. He oohhhs and ahhhs at my Canon P on the table, then pulls out a Soviet FED5 with a 35mm Leitz 3.5 lens. Naturally I want to try it out on mine, so both lenses come off. Curiously, the Leitz threads are way too small for the Canon.

What's the deal here? Did Barnack Leicas have smaller mounts than the M series?
I got no problem attaching my Summaron 35mm f3.5 lens in LTM on my Canon P or Canon VT cameras.
 
So I'm in the local coffee shop doing a show-and-tell with an old friend. He oohhhs and ahhhs at my Canon P on the table, then pulls out a Soviet FED5 with a 35mm Leitz 3.5 lens. Naturally I want to try it out on mine, so both lenses come off. Curiously, the Leitz threads are way too small for the Canon.

tWhat's the deal here? Did Barnack Leicas have smaller mounts than the M series?
That's bizarre..... both my Elmar 3.5cm f3.5 LTM and my Canon 50mm 1.4 LTM..... fit the same M adapter...
I've never run into that problem. 🤔
 
So I'm in the local coffee shop doing a show-and-tell with an old friend. He oohhhs and ahhhs at my Canon P on the table, then pulls out a Soviet FED5 with a 35mm Leitz 3.5 lens. Naturally I want to try it out on mine, so both lenses come off. Curiously, the Leitz threads are way too small for the Canon.

What's the deal here? Did Barnack Leicas have smaller mounts than the M series?
Just a review of the basics for you.

Leica M-mount (introduced 1954) is a 44mm bayonet mount with a 27.8mm flange distance, offering faster lens changes and automatic framelines, whereas Leica Thread Mount (LTM/M39) is a 39mm screw-in mount with a 28.8mm flange distance. LTM lenses fit M-bodies via adapters, but M-lenses cannot fit LTM bodies. @ Rangefinderforum

Key Comparisons:
- Mount Type: M-mount uses a 4-claw bayonet system. LTM uses 39mm diameter x 26 threads per inch (TPI).
- Flange Distance: M-mount is 27.8mm, allowing it to be "thinner" than LTM. LTM is 28.8mm.
- Compatibility: LTM lenses require a simple thin adapter (e.g., LTM-to-M) to achieve infinity focus on M-bodies.
- Functionality: M-mount supports automatic frameline selection, while LTM requires manual selection or external viewfinders.
- Usage: LTM is ideal for vintage, compact lenses. M-mount is standard for modern, faster Leica glass.

Note: LTM (26 TPI) is often confused with M39 Zenit (1mm pitch), but they are not interchangeable due to differing flange distances.

I've never owned or played with any Canon rangefinder camera, so I don't know what the issue you had might be.
I have heard of some odd fitment issues now and then.

G
 
Last edited:
Are you certain the Soviet FED5 is an actual LTM camera? There were so many knock offs and poorly made knock offs of the Leica thread mount cameras. Many with Leica engraving. If your Canon lens did not fit the FED5, I would suspect the FED5 is a bad Soviet copy of the Leica LTM cameras.

Best,
-Tim
 
I do not know if this helps or not as what you describe is rather odd and I have never heard of exactly this issue. I knew there were 39mm variants (such as the ones for Paxette and for Zorki cameras) but not similar mounts with slightly different diameters. My personal thought is that this may be some kind of one-off experiment by a private owner if the throat diameter is different from the standard diameter of 39mm. I have had a Soviet rangefinder before, and it mounted LTM glass natively so any mod would have entailed modding both lens and camera. I have owned the Summaron 35mm f3.5 in LTM and it was absolutely standard size in its thread specifications. I also sometimes used it with a Leica LTM to M adapter and again it worked perfectly. (I later sold it because another Summaron 35mm f3.5 came into my hands and this one was in native M mount which was more useful to me. I have also owned several Canon rangefinder cameras and I can confirm that Leica LTM lenses all mounted and worked.

So, feeling curious, I typed the following into my AI Search Engine to see if anything came up: "Other than the Leica Thread mount (LM) what other cameras used a 39mm thread mount which is the same or similar but may vary in thread pitch etc?"

The response (which I have not really analyzed yet - I just got up and have not yet had my "heart starter" (black coffee) was as follows:. There appears to be no mention of cameras/lenses with similar but smaller throat diameter than 39mm but this may be because my question was not explicit on this point.

"Several cameras used 39mm thread mounts that are similar to or identical in diameter to the Leica Thread Mount (LTM/L39), but many differ significantly in flange distance (the distance from the lens mount to the film plane), making them incompatible for focusing, or use different thread pitches.
Here are the main cameras and systems using 39mm threads, categorized by their relationship to the true 39mm x 26tpi (threads per inch) Leica standard:

1. True LTM/LSM/L39 Compatible (39mm x 26tpi~28.8mm Flange)
These cameras share the same thread diameter, pitch, and flange distance as Leica, allowing for direct, interchangeable use of lenses:

2. Incompatible 39mm Systems (Different Flange/Pitch)
These cameras use a 39mm thread, but lenses cannot be used interchangeably with Leica cameras without significant modification or extension tubes:
  • Early Soviet Zenit SLRs: The Zenit 1, 3, 3M, and C used a 39mm mount, but with a ~45mm flange distance (similar to M42) rather than the 28.8mm rangefinder standard. These are sometimes called "ZM39".
  • Braun Paxette: These rangefinder cameras use a 39mm thread, but the flange distance is different from Leica, and the lenses often have no rangefinder coupling cam.
  • Soviet Chajka 2, 3, 2M: A half-frame camera with a 39mm thread that is not compatible with standard rangefinder flange distances.
  • Great Wall DF (Chinese SLR): Used a 39mm screw mount.
3. Specialty/Other 39mm Usage
  • Enlarger Lenses: Almost all photographic enlarger lenses use a standard M39 x 1/26" thread, which allows them to be physically screwed into Leica cameras, although they lack focusing mounts and cannot focus to infinity.
  • Miranda Mirax: A reflex housing (mirror box) made by Orion Seiki/Miranda with a 39mm thread.
Key Differences to Note
  • LTM/L39: 39mm diameter, 26 threads per inch, 28.8mm flange distance.
  • Zenit M39 (ZM39): 39mm diameter, usually 1mm pitch (not 26 tpi)~45mm flange distance.
  • Early Canon (J-mount): 39mm diameter, but with 24 threads per inch (incompatible with 26tpi).
  • Canon Rangefinders: Models II, III, IV, V, VI, P, and 7.
  • Soviet Rangefinders: FED (1, 2, 3, etc.), Zorki (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), MIR, Drug, and Leningrad.
  • Japanese "Leica Copies": Nicca, Leotax, Tanack, Yashica YE/YL, Melcon, and Honor.
  • Other: Voigtländer Bessa (L, T, R), Corfield Periflex, and Reid "

 
I have used a lot of Soviet LTM lenses in my Leica IIIb bodies, no problems except a slight focus displacement. Focusing in the eyes with the Leica RF gives perfect focus on the ear, in a face portrait, with Soviet lenses such as Jupiter-8.

Never tried a Leitz in a Soviet body but they can screw in perfectly.
 
The first time I saw a camera show table of Russian LTM lenses I bought 10 of them.

About 10 minutes later I returned them all. Astonishingly most of the lenses would not mount on a Leica IIIf.
The mounting threads were not right.

Take a 2nd close look at that "35mm Leitz 3.5 lens" if you can. It may may be Russian made with Leitz Engravings added.
 
The only weird lens mounting issue I encountered was a Nippon Kogaku 35mm F3.5 that wouldn't mount on my fed 2, and mounts on my zorki 1, but it won't focus or turn. It works on my Canon and other japanese rangefinders
 
Dear Ted Town,

I guess I'm confused here, big surprise.

I own 4 M39 mount bodies, a Zorki 4, a Canon 7, and Voigtlander Bessa L and a Bessa R.

I own a variety of M39 mount lenses from Jupiter in 35mm, 50mm, and 135mm, and Canon in 35mm and 50mm. All reliably mount and dismount from all the bodies I own.

I don't know why an M39 lens wouldn't mount, unless it was modified in some way.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg PA 🙂
 
Maybe the Leitz is missing the stop screw and what you thought was the LTM mount was the thread of the helicoid?

No soviet lens ever had problems with the mount (it is not that hard to cut a mount) but off course did focus differently due to Zeiss standards.
 
The only problematic LTM lens l own is a post war Industar 10 lens. It mounts fine on a Zorki 3M and on a Nicca or Tower camera but will not mount on a Barnack Leica or LTM Canon camera.
 
The first time I saw a camera show table of Russian LTM lenses I bought 10 of them.

About 10 minutes later I returned them all. Astonishingly most of the lenses would not mount on a Leica IIIf.
The mounting threads were not right.

Take a 2nd close look at that "35mm Leitz 3.5 lens" if you can. It may may be Russian made with Leitz Engravings added.
Thats quite interesting. I can even mount my pre war Fed lenses to modern Voigtländer LTM to M adapters 🤔
 
The fit (or backlash) on some postwar Soviet M39 lens mounts on the camera may differ. Sometimes a mount is warped, because the screws of the mount are unevenly tightend or the paper shimms under the mount are not level. Lenses with a tight fit won't fit, looser ones will.
From the hundreds of cameras I had, this problem only occured to me twice. Usually most lenses can be excanged vice versa without problems when the rangefinder cam of the lens is barrel shaped. And of course, there is the short focus difference.
 
Maybe the Leitz is missing the stop screw and what you thought was the LTM mount was the thread of the helicoid?
I had wondered that, since he had to give his lens quite a twist to get it off. I phoned him today and asked if maybe he had unscrewed just part of the lens. He said no, but he was driving and didn't have the camera with him. I told him this was the topic of much discussion here.

Well, I guess it will remain one of life's little mysteries. One thing is certain: if I ever have lots of extra cash burning a hole in my pocket I'll look for a Canon lens rather than a Leitz. But let's be honest - I'm not likely to have much extra cash.

Thanks for all the responses.
 
Back
Top Bottom