Elmar (s) 9cm length

[fer_fdi]

Hi all, can't find the length of the 9cm Elmar

-I 1933-51
-II 1951-63
-3 element 1964-68

I'd appreciate any help, hopefully from actual specimens.
I'm looking for length (at infinity, no caps or M adapter) excluding the mount (flange to top) of this three lenses.

I'd also like to know the actual weight of the same lenses, since online info is contradictory.

thank you in advance!

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

The early one (f/4 9cm.) weighs 293g with brass and Bakelite caps and 271g without.

Focussed on infinity about 2.83" and focussed at 3ft about 3.2" but difficult to measure because of the twist needed to get from behind the flange to the filter ring.

Hope this helps.

Regards, David

 

[fer_fdi]

Thank you very much David.
I assume this is the 1933-51 one

 

[mdarnton]

Mine's later, with the 39mm front, grooved for a snap-on hood. It's 270 gms, 85mm long. It's from 1961.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Yes, mine's the 1937 version and the red cardboard box (printed 'gold' version) weighs 28g if that's of any interest. It's not as well designed as the FED version* for the same era...

Regards, David

* (Edit) The grey FED cardboard box, not the lens.

 

[fer_fdi]

thanks again David. Looking for lenses only, but thank you.

mdarnton :
thank you very much. 85mm... was the lens at infinity?
David's first version is 72mm, I didn't thought they were so different... 13mm was unexpected...

 

[mdarnton]

Yes, at infinity. 84mm if I measure differently, but not less.

I wonder if his is the "fat" elmar. It's the oldest model, very thick in the middle, and I wonder that because he had a hard time measuring. Mine's a straight shot from the front to the back.
Fat elmar: https://www.google.com/search?q=fat+elmar

 

[fer_fdi]

yes, I'm asking about the slim Elmar (I'm assuming there are two versions)
plus the 3 elements, which is slim but a bit fatter because of the fluted focus ring.

for comparison, 1957 Elmarit is 87mm long, or that's what I found... it must be wrong

* (Edit) The grey FED cardboard box, not the lens.

I guessed so! haha

 

[sreed2006]

Silver with black vulcanite band near the base Elmar f=9cm 1:4, Serial 1080231 (made in 1953, which makes it the II in your list).

Weight = 194g without caps

I used calipers to measure overall length and took a depth measurement from the mount's flange to the very rear of the lens.

Length when focused at infinity: 2.90" or 73.66mm (3.195" total length - 0.295")
Length when focused at closest: 3.30" or 83.79mm (3.468" ttl length - 0.169")

 

[fer_fdi]

thanks a lot Sid

Well, this is getting confusing!
Maybe saying that there are only two versions between the old fat and the 3 elements is not correct...
here we have two supposed version II, one 84mm/270g another 73.5mm/194g

 

[mdarnton]

It's 8mm from the front of the filter ring to the front of the glass on mine. Since they're all supposedly the same formula, I wonder if that depth is the difference--I don't remember the earlier one I had having the glass so recessed. Mine looks a lot like this one on the front: http://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2014/4/8/2/a/f/2afc4946-bf68-11e3-809a-6d48593824d2.jpg

Did you find this page? http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...ces/RF-Nikkor/Leica_RF/Leica_ELmar90mmf4B.htm The one from 1947 past halfway down the page has the glass much more towards the front than mine does.

 

[sreed2006]

From mdarnton's link http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...ces/RF-Nikkor/Leica_RF/Leica_ELmar90mmf4B.htm

My lens looks like the one with multiple pictures at the bottom of the page (excluding the very last picture). Search for the word NETTAX on the page; it is the pictures by him that show my version of the Elmar 9cm.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

My copy of the Hove Foto Books little "Leica Pocket Guide" shows the 'fat' one as 1931-32, the thin one (mine) as 1933-48, then another 1949-63 that's slimmer or it may be the aspect ratio, then (3 elements as new optics) from 1964-68, then the 1954-68 collapsible, then the last at f/4 the 1973-77 Elmar-C for the CL and CLE. After that come the f/2.8's and the f/2's.

Hope this helps.

Regards, David

 

[fer_fdi]

It's 8mm from the front of the filter ring to the front of the glass on mine. Since they're all supposedly the same formula, I wonder if that depth is the difference--(...)

yes, it seems that is the case...
So, the 1951-63 Elmar has (at least) two body versions: on the second version the front element is more recessed and have a channel for a clip-on hood. That would account for the longer body.
But the 75 grams difference is a bit too much, don't you think?



Thank you David.
Online data I found differs slightly from the pocket guide: 1931-32 / 1933-51 / 1951-63 / then 3-element 1964-68.
(this seems to be coherent with Dennis Laney's "Leica Collector's Guide")
In any case, it seems that the change/s is within 1949-63 or 1951-63
One type being shorter as yours and Sid's and another being longer as mdarnton's



I'd like to know the length/weight of the 3-element body, still.
I know it's a different optical formula but the body looks like the preceding version but with a different focus ring, now fluted.

.

 

[Rico]

Various measurements follow, with caps excluded. All lenses are M mount, and were infinity focussed. Length was measured from mounting flange to end of barrel. Weights on my crappy scale are ±10g.

Elmar 3-element: 220g, 76mm
Elmar 4-element: 240g, 85mm
Elmar collapsible: 320g
Elmarit v1: 86mm

According to Lager, there are several postwar 4-element barrel designs which may explain our variations in weight and length. My version is 1829xxxx, E39, vulcanite collar, channel for IUFOO hood.

 

[fer_fdi]

thanks a million Rico !

Size and weight of your 1961 4 element matches mdarnton's

yes, it looks like several barrel designs were manufactured during that period (last period before 1964)

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Been wondering about this all day, on and off.

So I rummaged around and found a large metric Vernier calliper that would take the lens and a camera body. Then I measured from the Vulcanite at the back to the filter ring and again from the Vulcanite at the back to the flange with the lens removed. Took one measurement from the other and can now say that my 1937, f/4, 9cm lens is 71.6mm at infinity and 81.9 at the 3ft point on the scale. Or rather, at the closes point on the scale...

The fatness around the fluted bit was 42.9mm.

Hope this helps. I was worried that we might all measure slightly differently and knew I'd twisted the scale slightly trying to get behind the flange and so on. Plus the metric to Imperial conversion could have been screwed up.

Regards, David

PS I also had a look through my collection of 30's catalogues but they all seen to show the same 9cm lens, regardless of the date of the catalogue.

 

[fer_fdi]

thanks a lot David!

 

[fer_fdi]

happy new year to all! 😀

 

[farlymac]

Ha, I was checking mine (your Series II), and I couldn't get it to go past 30 feet. Then I took the rear cap off. D'oh!

#10362xx LTM 3 element
74mm from bottom of flange to top of the 34mm filter ring
190 grams

PF