Leica LTM Modified Elmar 3,5mm: any clue?

[13Promet]

Some months ago I purchased the M2 I'm currently using, and it came together with an ordinary "red scale" Elmar 5cm and the following, quite uncommon Elmar 3,5cm.

DSCF4494 (Large) by S A, su Flickr

It's clearly modified adding a ring to the barrel between the focusing and the aperture controls, wich makes it thicker than the original.
Adding mistery to the mistery, the serial number on the front element ring(55539) refers to a 1930 Elmar 35, while this one is clearly a later one (it's chrome rather than nickel, and the FL is in cm rather than mm).
Even if heavilly modified compared to the orinal optical scheme (distance between front and rear elements is completely different due to the added ring) it focuces correctly.

I've had it examined by the main Leica experts over here in Milan, but nobody was able to explain the origin and the scope of this lens modification.
The lens was sold by the son of the original owner, who died 15 years ago, so I can't get any explanation from him.

Is anybody able to explain this misterious lens?

 

[ferider]

Is it still a 35mm lens ? Or did they increase the focal length ?

Just wondering. Interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[02Pilot]

My guess is that the glass belonged to something else originally, and it was converted by mounting in the Leitz lens barrel to use on an LTM camera. I did something very similar when adapting a Nikon 35 L35AF lens to LTM. Pulling the glass and comparing the elements to an original Elmar 35/3.5 would be definitive, though it still wouldn't tell you where the glass came from.

 

[13Promet]

Is it still a 35mm lens ? Or did they increase the focal length ?

Interesting question, never thought about it.
Just tried it Vs. the XF35 on Fuji X-E2 (I have no digital M to quickly check it otherwise): the modified Elmar is a bit tighter, but not by much.
If the XF is exactly 35mm, I'd guesstimate the Elmar to be in the 36-37mm range.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The top parts in brass are NOT those of a true Elmar. The whole thing seems to be a falsification. Those early Elmars are not numbered on the outside. I think this thing is Russian.

Erik.

 

[13Promet]

The optical shell was originally mounted in a nickel mount. Maybe the owner wanted it to match with a chrome body. Or the original mount was damaged.

The chrome mount appears to be wartime.

To me, the glass looks in too good condition to be from the 1930 after I got it CLAd.
Especially considering that the previous owner was a pro photographer and -according to his son - took it through very heavy usage for 25 over years ('64 to early 90s).

This does however not explain the strange difference in height compared with a normal Elmar 35mm. Maybe the optics are from a Russian lens.

In fact, the added ring is the really weird part of the thing.
I'm not an optician, but I think that glass must be differet from original Elmar in order to keep the same FL with such different distance between the groups.
Probably, the ring was necessary in order to keep the same FL with different glass, indeed.
Your latter sentence could explain the mistery.
I add another picture of it from a different perspective.

DSCF4504 (Large) by S A, su Flickr

 

[13Promet]

My guess is that the glass belonged to something else originally, and it was converted by mounting in the Leitz lens barrel to use on an LTM camera. I did something very similar when adapting a Nikon 35 L35AF lens to LTM. Pulling the glass and comparing the elements to an original Elmar 35/3.5 would be definitive, though it still wouldn't tell you where the glass came from.

I think so too.

 

[13Promet]

The top parts in brass are NOT those of a true Elmar.

Are you referring to the front element retention ring or to the top part of the barrel?

 

[13Promet]

The top parts in brass are NOT those of a true Elmar. The whole thing seems to be a falsification. Those early Elmars are not numbered on the outside. I think this thing is Russian.

Erik.

Googling around a bit I found ths 1932 Elmar picture.
It is numbered, actually.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Yes, sorry I was confused with the Elmar 50mm f/3.5. Leitz started to number the lenses on the outside towards 1932. Numbered lenses below 100.000 are extremely rare.

The first Elmar 35mm f/3.5 came out in 1932, so a serial number of 55XXX is impossible.

Seen from the front it is clear that it is a falsification. Just compare the lettering (font) with a real one.

Erik.

 

[Dralowid]

Interesting.

I'm uncertain about the typographic detail of the lettering surrounding the lens. The 3 as in 3,5 and 6,3 doesn't look like the usual style to me and doesn't match that on the the distance scale. It does in the pic of the other lens. Can't really double check because I sold mine many years ago.

This lens has never really commanded a value that would make faking it a commercial opportunity so I guess it is something done specifically for the previous owner.

 

[13Promet]

Yes, sorry I was confused with the Elmar 50mm f/3.5. Leitz started to number the lenses on the outside towards 1932. Numbered lenses below 100.000 are extremely rare.

The first Elmar 35mm f/3.5 came out in 1932, so a serial number of 55XXX is impossible.

Seen from the front it is clear that it is a falsification. Just compare the lettering (font) with a real one.

Erik.

Got it, thanks for the clarification.
Also, AFAIK, early models were coupled to the camera and not usable on other bodies.
One of the local experts I've shown it to, told me that he already saw some chrome samples with only 5 figures in the serial number.
His idea is that sometimes at Leitz they misnumbered the lenses by missing one figure.
None of them made the hypothesis of a fake: they all told to me that it is a mod.
But they can all be wrong, of course.

 

[Rayt]

Have you shot with it?

 

[13Promet]

This lens has never really commanded a value that would make faking it a commercial opportunity so I guess it is something done specifically for the previous owner.

I agree on this, but take in account that producing in URSS was extremely cheap, and that they often did not care about production costs at all.
On the other hand, I must say that all the mechanics of the lens are very accurate and smooth, very similar to the Elmar 50 I own: they don't "feel soviet" at all.

 

[13Promet]

Have you shot with it?

I had just had it back from CLA, so not properly shot with it on an M body yet.
Just a quick shot on the Fuji X-E2 two hours ago to check the FL.
It's much softer than the Fuji XF-35 which I compared it to, but I guess it's not a surprise

 

[ferider]

Some later ones have the same front font (for example the "f"), see for example ebay #141803816736. Can you show how the rear looks, 13P ? "Fake" or not, it's clearly not an an original Elmar. Whatever it is, it was made with love, and cherished by the owner (being in a Leica bubble case and all).

Roland.

 

[Monochrom]

Hi, i think it´s a fake.

There are parts that are exactly as those used in the industar lenses. The stop screw is situated too near to the edge and engravings just don´t have the smoothness of leica ones.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Michael is right, it is done specifically for a previous owner, so it is no real Elmar. Curiosities like this are however very interesting and mysterious, worth collecting.

Now look at the small lever for setting the f-stop. On a genuine Elmar the short sides of it have an angle of 90 degrees to their long side. On the lever of this lens the angles are much smaller, 60 degrees? I don't think Leitz made for this lens a special f-stop lever.

Erik.

 

[Filzkoeter]

I don't really think it's a fake, at least not one built from russian parts:

a) the distance scale faces the right way (the numbers are facing the other way on russian Elmar-style lenses).
b) the knurling is wrong for a russian Elmar-style lens (but it is right for some genuine Elmars)
c) There are no russian lenses or parts to fake a 3,5cm Elmar


This lens has many parts and details that scream geniune Elmar and that would be really hard to fake (not machining everything from scratch)

btw. the engravings on early Elmars look _really crude_

Edit: just take a quick look here, how different and sometimes crude the engravings look on each 3,5cm Elmar: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/RF-Nikkor/Leica_RF/LSM35mm/

 

[Erik van Straten]

The only part that convinces me being genuine is the dept of field ring and its engraving.

The brass filter ring is too thick and is rounded on the outside. Those rings are on an Elmar thin and have sharp ridges at both sides.

The engraving of the word "Germany" is really clumsy.

Erik.