Leica M5 Lens Compatibility

[JNewell]

For case 3 the problem is the M5 cover plate shape, that fouls these lenses. I guess that, if you have had these lenses machined by Leitz, you can use them safely with their respective "eyes" (that's the point!)

That what Wayne and I (and maybe others) have been saying, except that at least in the case of the DRS, the post on the rear of the goggles can be removed easily with only a screwdriver. We do not believe the focusing mount itself requires any modification to avoid damage to the M5 (or CL, for that matter) metering arm.

 

[venchka]

Amen!

Amen!

That what Wayne and I (and maybe others) have been saying, except that at least in the case of the DRS, the post on the rear of the goggles can be removed easily with only a screwdriver. We do not believe the focusing mount itself requires any modification to avoid damage to the M5 (or CL, for that matter) metering arm.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

We don't want another Internet Myth like the one about Konica M-Hexanon lenses not working on Leica bodies.

 

[JNewell]

To hopefully shed a little more light on this (I am not trying to be a troll or anything of that type), I just received an original CL instruction book with an insert concerning lens compatibility. It states that the CL is fully usable with a DRS without the goggles. (Taking the post out wouldn't help because the VF/RF windows are spaced differently than an M body.) Given that the flange/film plane distance is identical with the M series, and given that all of the other cautions match the M5, I think that is additional support for use of a DRS on an M5 without fear of fouling the metering arm.

 

[colyn]

Based on my own use of the DR Summicron and M5 I have to side with Wayne. I have no meter issues with this lens on the M5.

 

[czamagni]

Hi again, sorry but there is still something I can't understand, because one thing is to use the DR without its goggles (Wayne's avatar!), and another is to use it with them, and I haven't seen here a clear answer about this problem, if I have clearly understood your posts.

So please, dear users of M5 + 50DR, can you please clarify your experience instead of continue to repeat that the DR does not catch the meter arm? We all know that the DR does not catch the meter arm, even Mr. Maielli (please!).

I think that the main point that needs to be explained is if you really can use a 50 D.R. WITH its goggles mounted without any major lens/goggles modification on your M5.

This is the real question, and you seem to answer that you can do it, you have done it and that the near focusing system works perfectly without any major modification. A major modification is obviously not anything that you can do with a screwdriver, but something that needs more skills and some technical tools.

Now, Leitz publication ref. 120-47 is saying that you should have this lens machined to use it on a M5 (not because of the meter arm, but because of the goggles).

If you really are sure your DR haven't been modified in the past (but one should be the original owner to say that) and if you can still mount the DR+googles on your M5, the only answer is that Leitz is not telling the truth in its publication.

That's possible. I do have a M5 and a collapsible 50 Summicron, and I can safely collapse it the M5 body, because, even collapsed, the Summicron goes not so far inside to catch the meter arm.

So, should we really assume that this was another false information from Leitz?

Best regards

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

Hi, dear friends.
First of all, I'M A TRUE STUPID DOPE!
The responsible of the Leica M5 meter system locking was the dead of the 386 silver oxide battery, that i put in an MR-9 adapter (bought in the Small Battery Company of London).
In conclusion, i think that the modifications of the DR Summicron, requested for the Leica M5, concern only the goggle mounting system and not the lens bayonet mount. Truly, the Leica M5 user manual and the N.° 120-47 supplement are a bit confused in this matter...
Anyhow, to avoid any other misunderstandment, i asked to Sherry Krauter to eliminate any doubts.
I'm very sorry for your nuisance.
Ciao.

 

[venchka]

No worries! No, you are not that thing you said. We have all done it. I was a "true stupid dope" one day in Grand Tetons Natioanl Park. I made the best photographs ever...with an emtpy camera! How's that for a "A TRUE STUPID DOPE"?

All's well that ends well. I'm glad we found the true nature of the problem.

 

[colyn]

Now, Leitz publication ref. 120-47 is saying that you should have this lens machined to use it on a M5 (not because of the meter arm, but because of the goggles).

The machining Leica is referring to is the post on the goggles. This post is too long for proper use on the M5 and has to be either machined down or removed. Once this post is modified the goggles can be mounted and used with the M5..

The DR Summicron and the rigid Summicron are optically identical and share the same lens mount. Therefore it will not interfere with the meter arm..

 

[RML]

I'm very sorry for your nuisance.

Nuisance?! Not at all! See what discussion you sparked! That means there is a lot of confusion on this subject, and clarifying this confusion can only be a good thing. So, keep these questions coming, Vincenzo. 🙂