Leica LTM-M adapter does not work on all my Leicas!

[venchka]

And another thing...
My M3 & M2 period correct 50mm DR Summicron and 90mm Elmarit both function correctly on the M5.
Does your M5 function properly with a Leica M mount lens?
Wayne



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nasmformyzombie]

I needed a 50mm LTM-M adapter, and found a really nice condition one at B&H. It is marked Leitz Wetzlar Germany DBP, M2 50, M3 28 50

Here's the thing. It works perfectly on my M3 SS and M3 DS. But it will not lock onto my M7, M240, CLE. It does lock onto my M4-2 and works ok, and while it locks onto my M5 it brings up a complete jumble of frame lines...

Huss, you're a good guy but it's obvious that the real issue is you have entirely too many M cameras! 😱

 

[JoeV]

Is it anodized or coated? For objects with critical tolerances such surface treatments need to be accounted for.

~Joe

 

[Huss]

And another thing...
My M3 & M2 period correct 50mm DR Summicron and 90mm Elmarit both function correctly on the M5.
Does your M5 function properly with a Leica M mount lens?
Wayne



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You tawkin' to me? You tawkin' to me?
😉
Yes, every Leica I have works with all my M mount lenses (as in they mount and lock easily), and every LTM adapter apart from this one.

 

[Huss]

Is it anodized or coated? For objects with critical tolerances such surface treatments need to be accounted for.

~Joe

Whatever it is in that pic above. Doesn't seem to have any kind of coating over the metal.

 

[venchka]

Perhaps an exchange of adapters is in order. If I had a spare I would make you a fair offer. Good luck.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Huss]

Huss, you're a good guy but it's obvious that the real issue is you have entirely too many M cameras! 😱

That reminds me, I didn't try it on my MD-A..
😀

 

[Robert Lai]

Leica adapters have almost always worked fine for me. The exceptions being ones that show a lot of wear, or some signs of abuse.

Voigtlander adapters seem to be the best modern ones, as they are always within tolerances, and they mount on all my cameras.

So far I have one fotodiox and one lomography (came with the Jupiter 3+ lens), which also work.

I ordered a cheap made in China adapter (Kipon) from B&H once. That was so out of spec that I could not even turn it fully to mount a lens on my M7. That one was returned.

 

[Huss]

A while back I tried the Fotodiox and Metabones LTM adapters. The Metabones was about twice the cost of the Fotodiox. Neither brought up the correct frame lines and to add insult to injury the Metabones one actually scratched/gouged my lens mount as it had a rough finish that I didn't notice.
I stick to Voigtlander and Leitz ones now. The one that Fedka sells is ok.

 

[benlees]

So you'd rather have me say the adapter was fine, but the standardised Leica M mount wasn't that standardised after all?

Whatever floats your boat, I'm cool with that too. My Leica II with a truly standardised lens mount 😀 brings up the correct frame line with each and every Leitz viewfinder I stick onto it anyway 😛

He deleted the post. Way to be friendly! It clearly says M2 and M3 right on it. And the guy is sending it back. Put it on an M2! It worked on an M3. Science wants to know!

 

[Huss]

He deleted the post. Way to be friendly! It clearly says M2 and M3 right on it. And the guy is sending it back. Put it on an M2! It worked on an M3. Science wants to know!

What guy is sending it back?
I don't have an M2 - send me yours and I'll test it!

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Rumor has it that the New God Emperor, I mean the New POTUS, already made a secret Executive Order against European products. Of course a German product will follow that order, because everything German since 1945 (at least West G.) follows US orders without asking questions, don't they?

But the big relief is: Later in 2017, you'll all have a chance to purchase New, Great Again, US American made cameras: for the pros, they'll release the the «Lyka», and the «Hazelplath».

(If my secret sources allow me to post pictures, I'll add them.)

 

[peterm1]

" Originally Posted by aperture64 I can't believe people are mentioning poor quality control or mis-production. The adapter says M2 & M3 right on it and was probably made in the same era. How would they know to make the adapter compatible for cameras (M5, M7, CLE & M240) not made until decades later?"

I do not wish to be rude (and certainly do not intend that) but apparently Aperture 64 is not aware of backwards compatibility. By this logic an early lens (say) a Summicron version 1 should not fit on an M4 camera or later. Clearly they do. I can also confirm from personal experience that some Leica made adapters marked M2 and M3 work fine on later cameras (including digital M cameras) but I have had one that has not just as described in this thread. So it's an adapter variability thing as much as some minor change to the M mount in some later cameras.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Huss,

you could try something, since IMHO it is possible that there's just some teeny weeny dust specks or so which prevent the latching:

You could give the adapter into the dishwasher. Perhaps afterwards, the problem is solved.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

FWIW, I have always wondered why they marked them 'M2 50' and 'M3 28 - 50'. It would make sense to me just to mark them 50.

And why the 28 when the M3 frame stops at 50?

The next question is, did they carry on and mark later ones with M4; M5 and M6 and so on? All the ones I've seen are stuck in the M2/M3 mode...

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

They don't all work on all cameras. I have several adapters, all genuine Leica, and several M-mount cameras; and of course I've had a lot more M-mount cameras for review. Once or twice I've found that a particular adapter doesn't latch on a particular camera. I can't get excited about it: it's a tolerance issue, with the adapter at one extreme and the camera at the other (or outside it). All my adapters work on most M-mount cameras, so it ain't an inherent fault in the adapters.

Cheers.

R.

 

[peterm1]

Hi,

FWIW, I have always wondered why they marked them 'M2 50' and 'M3 28 - 50'. It would make sense to me just to mark them 50.

And why the 28 when the M3 frame stops at 50?

The next question is, did they carry on and mark later ones with M4; M5 and M6 and so on? All the ones I've seen are stuck in the M2/M3 mode...

Regards, David

I think the answer to your question is that the heyday of these adapters was in the 1950s when the two primary cameras were the M2 and M3 (ignoring for the moment "specials" like the M1 etc and LTM cameras and lenses were still being made and sold in parallel with M cameras and lenses. This was the cross over era when most Leica users still owned LTM cameras - hence the need for adapters for M2 and M3 bayonet cameras so they could be induced to trade up the body to the new models without the immediate need to invest in new lenses. By the early to mid 1960s the new Leitz lenses being sold would mainly have been M mount and hence the demand for adapters would have fallen somewhat. The M4 started production in 1966 so was not around in the relevant period.

I don't know how long Leitz continued to make the adapters beyond the 1950s but to the extent that they did, I suspect they just kept the existing tooling and marking on them partly for continuity and partly for cost reasons. Later in the production life of the adapters, they would have been on the verge of being phased out in any event or available on back order from old stock. Hence the adapters did not change even though the camera body models did.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

I don't know how long Leitz continued to make the adapters beyond the 1950s but to the extent that they did, I suspect they just kept the existing tooling and marking on them partly for continuity and partly for cost reasons. Later in the production life of the adapters, they would have been on the verge of being phased out in any event or available on back order from old stock. Hence the adapters did not change even though the camera body models did.

At least the markings changed, cf. these two specimens of M-Adapter ISBOO 14098:

 

[Pherdinand]

Well it does say m2 m3 so i agree with the bad dudes above... technically it is a correctly sold adapter😀

Sometimes mnute differences in engineering and/or machining mess up backward compatibility (due to indeed tolerances or imprvements or cost reductions) and i am sure when they made m5 and even more so with digital Ms, they did not give a damn about full compatibility with each and every version of their adapters from the past.

 

[Pherdinand]

I give you an example. If the temperature of the two parts is different you might have a small size or pitch difference that blocks locking in on some cameras.
Or if the M3s you got has a mount made of different material than the non-locking Ms, the adapter meg ght work at one temperature but jst mght miss a bit of tolerance at another temperature. Like, brass on brass works at a wider temp range than brass on stainless steel since SS expands differently.