Leica LTM Interesting 90mm f4 Elmar serial number

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
B

bbutterfield

Bruce
Local time
12:45 PM
Joined
Apr 6, 2021
Messages
34
At least it’s interesting to me since I can’t find it in the online lists I’ve searched. The earliest non-prototype SNs seem to start at 100000 while this lens is stamped 96771. Looks like a bog-standard thin black Elmar to me. What am I missing?

E66E744F-BE55-47C5-B7E2-4839B5FABBAB.jpg
 
“However, the Leitz company, realising the importance of having serially numbered lenses, started numbering the lenses at about 80,000. Today, lenses with five-digit serially numbers are much sought after.”

Van Hasbroeck

If your serial number is original to the lens, it probably started life as a “fat” Elmar, and was later converted. Is it rangefinder coupled? And I don’t know why Leitz picked on 80,000 as a start point.
 
Malcolm M said:
“However, the Leitz company, realising the importance of having serially numbered lenses, started numbering the lenses at about 80,000. Today, lenses with five-digit serially numbers are much sought after.”

Van Hasbroeck

If your serial number is original to the lens, it probably started life as a “fat” Elmar, and was later converted. Is it rangefinder coupled? And I don’t know why Leitz picked on 80,000 as a start point.
Click to expand...

I don't think the lens is a "fat" Elmar (type I) since the ridges on the lens capsule conform to those on a "thin" Elmar (type II). See photo.


IMG_0496.jpg
 
Van Hasbroeck again, this time from a Leica Special Amateur Photographer, 25 June 2005.

“Early examples of the 9cm Elmar were mounted in what seems now to be an absurdly wide focusing mount… and this version is usually known to collectors as the “fat” Elmar. When the much narrower version of the 9cm Elmar became available… Leitz offered an inexpensive conversion service.”

So I suspect that you have a very early numbered Elmar, originally “fat” and very possibly uncoupled, which an early owner modified to make more useable, thereby ruining your investment.
 
Malcolm M said:
Van Hasbroeck again, this time from a Leica Special Amateur Photographer, 25 June 2005.

“Early examples of the 9cm Elmar were mounted in what seems now to be an absurdly wide focusing mount… and this version is usually known to collectors as the “fat” Elmar. When the much narrower version of the 9cm Elmar became available… Leitz offered an inexpensive conversion service.”

So I suspect that you have a very early numbered Elmar, originally “fat” and very possibly uncoupled, which an early owner modified to make more useable, thereby ruining your investment.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable. In any case it was inexpensive and takes very nice pictures so I’m a happy camper!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom