Leica LTM Interesting 90mm f4 Elmar serial number

[bbutterfield]

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?

 

[bbutterfield]

Found this page -- according to this it's an early lens from 1930. But my lens is definitely not a "fat" 90mm so still a bit of a mystery.

https://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Elmar_(I)_f=_9_cm_1:4

 

[bbutterfield]

Hah -- found a more appropriate source:

https://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Elmar_(II)_f=_9_cm_1:4

Looks like a 1932 black/nickel version.

 

[Malcolm M]

“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.

 

[bbutterfield]

“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.

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.

 

[Malcolm M]

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.

 

[bbutterfield]

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.

Sounds reasonable. In any case it was inexpensive and takes very nice pictures so I’m a happy camper!

 

[Malcolm M]

Sounds reasonable. In any case it was inexpensive and takes very nice pictures so I’m a happy camper!

Which is all that really matters. 100% agree that it's a lovely lens (mine is circa 1950, coated).