Leica LTM fake Leica I Elmax 481 on evilbay

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Erik,

here's what you can do with a 1932 Leica II and an Elmar

That black II has a screw at the other end, but I have not had chance to explore why they are there yet. The lens is clean, but I fear there is a trace of fungal damage on the front element - it will probably go to Sherry at some point to see if it can be resurrected.

Whay did I buy it? I have another very similar II from the same batch, but that one has a mint Elmar with infinity lock.
 

Attachments

  • CNV00013.jpg
    CNV00013.jpg
    50.2 KB · Views: 0
Charles Woodhouse said:
Hi John,
I guess you noticed that the lens is a IA lens converted to interchangeable. That should be enough reason for buying the camera. Check the solid focusing lever and the reduced diameter mounting flange.
Click to expand...

I think you are right. Maybe the camera is a converted I. I cannot see it's serial number.

Leica's I can produce this:
 

Attachments

  • EJVS 906 2007 Julius geitenboerderij klein.jpg
    EJVS 906 2007 Julius geitenboerderij klein.jpg
    144.5 KB · Views: 0
Well, the serial is right for a 1932 II, although somewhat later than my other example. Research I have done suggests that the batch of numbers was issued in '32, but some of the bodies were actually completed in '33; this could be one of those.

You guys spotted the lens, eh? It is in excellent condition all over, except for the front element, which looks to have some slight etching. I'm hoping it will not affect results too much, but if it is possible, I would like to get it restored.

I'm hoping to find time today to investigate those screws at either end of the body. If this was built in 1933, it could just be that it has a III body shell and the screws were added to blank off the strap lugs. Alternatively, they could be there because it is a later replacement body shell. Not sure how I will tell.

The shutter is a bit dry, and a little lazy on the first curtain, but I'm sure a CLA will sort that out. All in all a nice example in pretty good condition - I bought it to use, so that my other one stays minty, but I'm now wondering if this one is too nice (is that possible?)

More later.
 
Right,

Here's all the dirt on this camera. The numbers match inside & out 867xx, so it is a II according to all the lists I can find. There are some detail differences with my other II which is about 350 earlier, mainly in that it has a light baffle at the bottom of the 2nd curtain drum - see pic.

Also, while it has the same film pressure plate - a round one with a hole for the focus tool, and prevented by rotating by two lugs, the lugs engage with a screw in the backplate - on my other body, there is a cast pip.

The screws in the body seem to just be there to blank off the holes. The more I think about this, the more I feel it is a II made with a III body - sort of a Leica 2.5?

The lens would appear to be converted A lens and is definitely shorter than my other 11 o'clock example, which dates to 1932, it is 28.5mm from front to back of the lens tube (ignoring the mount), while all my others are 31.5mm. So there you are, short ones do exist! Does this mean that they are of a different formulation, as the elements are 3mm closer to the film plane? ISTR reading in an old AP that the Elmar was recomputed at some point, but I can't now find the article.

While I was looking around, I removed a film chip from the curtain track, so the shutter is now much better. I'm looking forward to running some Tri-X through this 😀

[edit] Just noticed that the vulcanite is loose right across the wind side of the body - careful handling is in order, I think!
 

Attachments

  • LIIa.jpg
    LIIa.jpg
    76.1 KB · Views: 0
  • LIIb.jpg
    LIIb.jpg
    67.7 KB · Views: 0
  • LIId.jpg
    LIId.jpg
    102.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Hi John,

Good to hear you've helped with the 'short' Elmar saga. I assume it is a difference in design of mount rather than any optical changes which I think came much later.

Since the camera has a hole in the pressure plate I assume it has a blanking plug in the back of the body. Add this to the lack of any blanking plate to cover over the slow speed dial and I'd guess that the body really is a II and not a III.

Anyway, congratulations, it looks to be in great condition, I hope you enjoy it and don't go along with the 'too good to use school'!

Michael
 
john neal said:
Right,



[edit] Just noticed that the vulcanite is loose right across the wind side of the body - careful handling is in order, I think!
Click to expand...

When the vulcanite is loose, try to slip a piece of double sided tape into it. It's better when the vulcanite is fixed to the body. It's very brittle and it breaks easily.

The lens is a beauty. You should compare it carefully to an ordinary nickel Elmar. When it's so short, maybe it's a converted Elmax or Anastigmat!

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
The lens is a beauty. You should compare it carefully to an ordinary nickel Elmar. When it's so short, maybe it's a converted Elmax or Anastigmat!
Click to expand...

Oooh! Did they do that? I must say, I thought it would have to be a different formulation, as the front element is 3mm nearer the film plane.

How would I know? (OK, Erik, I appreciate you may not want to discuss that in open forum), but if you could PM me some clues, that would be great.
 
I'm afraid it's very hard to see. The last group of glass elements has to be taken out and studied. Anastigmats and Elmaxes have a rear group that consists of three elements instead of two. The chance it's an Anastigmat or Elmax is however very small. It can also be an Elmar with a relative shorter true focal length than the nominal. You should compare it carefully with another early Elmar. When you suspect it's an Anastigmat or Elmax, try to contact a specialist like James Lager. Good luck!

Erik.
 
Don't want to be a killjoy but converted Anastigmats are marked as such. A converted Elmax I have never seen. Spotting the additional element to 'prove' the lens is a job for a specialist

As you say, both are sufficiently rare as to be discountable.

I took a couple of rolls with an Anastigmat. Although in reasonable condition the results were not remarkable. The Elmar is way better.

Michael
 
Erik,

Thanks for that but, as Michael points out, it is a bit of a specialist job to strip down the rear elements. For now, I'll carry on thinking it's a short Elmar. If I send it to Sherry, i'll get her to count the elements and report back. Hopefully, we will get some dry weather this weekend, so that I can try it out.
 
Dralowid said:
Don't want to be a killjoy but converted Anastigmats are marked as such. A converted Elmax I have never seen. Spotting the additional element to 'prove' the lens is a job for a specialist
Click to expand...

I've seen converted Anastigmats and Elmaxes that were relabeled Elmar, but I do not remember where or when. Anyhow, Sherry Krauter is a noted specialist.
Michael, I think it's really not interesting wich lens is better, the Anastigmat, the Elmax or the Elmar. It's the historic significance of the Anastigmats and Elmaxes that counts!

Erik.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom