Early LTM compatibility with 90mm Elmar

Dez

Bodger Extraordinaire
Local time
6:24 PM
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
1,537
Location
Mississauga, Ontario
I have a very nice old Leica II, from the very first production batch in 1932.



It has a design point I have not seen in any other old Barnack. The focusing cam follower roller is quite narrow, and spaced farther from the edge of the lensmount than in other cameras. It appears that the arm mounting the arm is thicker than in later cameras, causing the position of the roller. I also have a 90mm Elmar from 1937, and it has an extremely narrow focusing ridge, even skinnier than on later models. As a result, the edge of the focusing ridge gets between the cam follower and the edge of the mount when this lens is on the camera, resulting, of course, in huge RF error.

The cam follower arm is quite thick, but it is not bent- it looks like it is supposed to be that way. I can replace the arm, or I can cut it down a bit so the cam follower is in the right place, but I am not eager to do so, as it appears that this is actually the way the camera was built.

Does anyone have some insight to this odd incompatibility?

Cheers,
Dez
 
The SN is 81302, which puts it in the first production batch in 1932.



As you can see, the cam follower wheel is rather skinny, and located far from the edge of the mount. I have never seen another like it.

Cheers,
Dez
 
I have a slightly newer Leica II. S.N. 148015, 1934 I think. Mine looks a little bit different than yours. The roller looks to be the same thickness but is higher up in the lens mount. The roller is perhaps only 1 millimeter or less from the lens mount and the outer edges of the roller are even with the mount.

Joe
 
Hi Dez

I'm sure I've read about this issue somewhere before.. I think there was an problem with using some 90 and 135 lenses on the early Leica II's because of the point you mention. I'm sure someone will shed some light on this...if not, will check back through my books!!

Dave
 
Found it!!

From Van Hasbroeck - rare and ununusual screw mount leicas...chapter 13

"Early specimens of the Leica II had certain teething problems with the coupling cam hence not all lenses couple perfectly to the very early Leica II's"
 
Dez,

You've piqued my curiosity... I have a Leica II, s/n 77xxx. I also have some early black-barrel Elmar 90 and Hektor 135 lenses.

I have not shot enough with the camera to have noticed whether there is an issue with the RF cam following the lens ...

I also have two black Leica III in the 117xxx series that I am also now curious about...

As for whether or not "you should be happy your camera is so authentic?", I guess that depends on whether or not you depend on it for shooting long lenses.

You might consult DAG or Sherry Krauter to see if its simply a matter of changing-out the RF lever and follower. If you elect to have it upgraded, you can ask to keep the original parts...

Luddite Frank
 
I dug around in my stash of Leica bits, but all I could find was the follower arm from an M. I managed to find the correct part from one of my favourite ebay vendors for $15, so it's easy to change if needed, but I probably won't bother. I almost never use this camera as its viewfinder just doesn't work with glasses.

Cheers,
Dez
 
I used to have a 79xxx body that was just like the one shown above - never had the same lens to try it though

Dez, does yours have the yellow/green tint to the RF window?
 
As you can see, the cam follower wheel is rather skinny, and located far from the edge of the mount. I have never seen another like it.
Dez

I have two early II's, 74510 and 90043 and both have rollers as skinny as yours, but are positioned somewhat higher. My III has a thicker roller.

Both my II's have one yellow rangefinder glass.

Erik.
 
I used to have a 79xxx body that was just like the one shown above - never had the same lens to try it though

Dez, does yours have the yellow/green tint to the RF window?

The windows are untinted. There might be a slight yellowish tinge to both parts of the RF image, but I suspect this is just a property of the reflecting surfaces. There is nothing like the purposely yellow moving image sometimes seen.

Cheers,
Dez
 
My 1932 II, s/n 77xxx does not have an obvious tint to the glass RF lenses themselves; I don't recall if there there was a slight pink-ish tint when looking through the RF... not long after getting the camera, I inserted a small circle of Roscolux R-23 in the front RF window to increase the RF contrast.

I will try to dig-out my black Leicae tomorrow and investigate RF color and RF arm / roller thickness, etc.

LF
 
I have a 5-digit SN Leica II (1932) that I bought from Johan a while back. Also with the "0" mark on the ring to indicate that it's been standardized.

I have shot my 1937 90mm Elmar with it without any focussing problems. I'll check the follower later when I get home today.
 
Finally got a chance to go digging in the camera closet.

I pulled-out my three black Leicae:

Leica II, s/n 778xx ( " 0 " on lens mount, plus collimation plug in back of body )

Leica III, s/n 1173xx ( " 0 " on lens mount, no collimation plug in back of body )

Leica III, s/n 1177xx ( " 0 " on lens mount, no collimation plug in back of body )


Looked at two characteristics:

1) RF follower wheel and arm

2) RF coloration ?


Here's what I found:

Leica II - has "skinny" RF wheel and "straight" arm. RF main window ( rewind end of body) has slight yellowish tint. Moveable image ( wind-end ) has no tint.

Leica III (both cameras) - have thicker RF wheel and "dog-legged" arm. No tint in either RF window.

I haven't pulled-out my Leica lenses yet to compare the mounts and RF operating barrels.

LF
 
Back
Top Bottom