Modified Elmar 3,5mm: any clue?

[13Promet]

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.

IMG_0456 (Custom) by S A, su Flickr

I agree about the love in it, also considering that the guy selling it to me together with the M2 for the need of money was almost crying in doing so, as it was the only relic from his father.
He requested me to send him links to my pics shot by the M2 on a regular basis for making it less sad...
There's definitely an emotional load in this weird little thing.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The back looks completely different from mine.
- there are no holes in the rear of the infinity lock (there should be two)
- there are no cutouts in the retaining rings
- there is a large ridged baffle that is not on mine
- I see a knurled retaining ring that I have never seen on a Leitz lens

I must say however that the glass really looks good for such an old lens.

Erik.

 

[13Promet]

The mistery is geting deeper and deeper 🙂

 

[Rayt]

Maybe it is a one off prototype hand made by Mr Leitz himself!

 

[Dralowid]

- there are no holes in the rear of the infinity lock (there should be two)
- there are no cutouts in the retaining rings
- there is a large ridged baffle that is not on mine
- I see a knurled retaining ring that I have never seen on a Leitz lens

Erik.

And...did the 3,5 Elmar normally have the decimal point of the actual focal length stamped on the back of the infinity lock catch like the 5cm, even when converted?

Michael

 

[Erik van Straten]

And...did the 3,5 Elmar normally have the decimal point of the actual focal length stamped on the back of the infinity lock catch like the 5cm, even when converted?

Michael

Not on my two examples and also not on my first version of the Summaron 35mm f/3.5.

It would be nice to see some pictures made with this lens.

Erik.

 

[13Promet]

It would be nice to see some pictures made with this lens.

Owning no digital M, all I can do now is using it adapted on the X-E2.
Shot 5 minutes ago out of my kitchen window at f/6.3.

DSCF6749_PP (Large) by S A, su Flickr

Center 100% crop
DSCF6749_PP-2 by S A, su Flickr

Top right corner 100% crop
DSCF6749_PP-3 by S A, su Flickr

I'ts obviously very soft, especially in the edges/corners (can't imagine on FF...).
On the other hand, colour and distortion wise, it doesn't look that bad at all (it's a very dull day).
Anyway, not owning any other lenses this old, I'm not sure how it's supposed to perform.

And i guess that - subject apart - this example is not that interesting for it being on APS-C digital platform, not really the playgound of this lens...

I'll take some shots with it with my next roll on a film M, but they won't be done before next weekend, unfortunately.

 

[13Promet]

Another obvious optical "feature" of Frankie (nickname for Frankenstein 😀): sharpness falls off rather abruptly right after half way center>edge (on FF it would be about 1/3 the way).

DSCF6749_PP-4 by S A, su Flickr

 

[astro8]

I very much doubt if the engraving on this lens is from Leitz.
It is very rough and the fonts all look wrong to my eye.
I designed and engraved coins and medals in my earlier years and these type of things tend to stand out like the proverbials.

 

[13Promet]

I very much doubt if the engraving on this lens is from Leitz.
It is very rough and the fonts all look wrong to my eye.
I designed and engraved coins and medals in my earlier years and these type of things tend to stand out like the proverbials.

But look at this...

Genuine Leitz from WWII: the engravings are way rougher than Frankie's ones.

 

[Rob-F]

Some of the engraving looks OK, e.g. "Elmar." But some of it is really bad. "Leitz" is really bad, and the aperture numbers are still worse. I'll vote Russian fake.

 

[astro8]

Look at the 't' in Leitz - terrible, the flat top of the 'f' in 'f=' the rounded horizontal on top of the 'E' in Elmar. Even the '8' appears inverted and I've never seen that font used on a Leitz lens.

Granted, the depth of field ring is passable.

I can see it has been engraved with a less than sharp cutter. Look at the divots where the engraver has hesitated at the start of the strokes. This is usually a sign of lacking confidence...or a beginner.

The overall impression I get is that it was not engraved by Leitz.

 

[Erik van Straten]

the engravings are way rougher than Frankie's ones.

I do not agree. I agree completely with Greg. In fact I have studied typography, calligraphy and graphic design, and I admire the engravings on the pre-war Leitz lenses greatly. They look simple, but they aren't, I assure you. Both design and execution are first class.

The pictures you've made with this lens are definitely not up to those of a genuine Elmar 35mm, but maybe the results on film will be better.

Erik.

 

[02Pilot]

Irrespective of the provenance of the donor barrel, I'm more curious about the source of the glass. The rear shot seems like it might provide some indication (moreso than the front, certainly). The baffle and the retaining ring aren't familiar to me - has anyone encountered something similar?

OP, have you considered disassembling the lens to check for additional markings? I suspect you might be able to have it collimated and get somewhat better performance from it as well.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Leica I model C, Elmar 35mm f/3.5, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[13Promet]

Well, unless it's a prototype (extremely improbable) of course there's no question about it not being (completely or partially) genuine.
That's how I started the topic by the title, actually, and I'm not claiming anything different now 🙂

But - according to the local experts I've shown it to, to the kind members of this forum and to the researches I've performed on the Web - it neither looks like any typical CCCP-made fake.
And when the Soviets started producing something, genuine or fake, they usually made zillions copies of it for the way their manufacturing activity was organized (e.g. Luftwaffe Leicas).
It also looks like a quite well built copy as for mechanics, while soviets were pretty poor from this standpoint as far as I know.

So i'm not feeling that the mistery is solved yet.

It could be modified over here in Italy after some damage occurred, as manpower was pretty cheap in the 50s and we had a few optical factories at that time.
Never the less it does not seem very cost-effective to machine all those parts from the scratch to adapt different glass, considering that the lens itself was not so expensive.

Could it be Japanese?

 

[13Promet]

OP, have you considered disassembling the lens to check for additional markings? I suspect you might be able to have it collimated and get somewhat better performance from it as well.

I have no clue about how to do it: I could possibly disassemble it, but collimating and reassembling it correctly... :bang:
Moreover, I think that the job was already done by the lab which CLAd it: according to the technician, the focus was calibrated.

Considering that I've basically had it for free (330€ together with an M2 to be CLAd and an excellent condition red scale Elmar 50 + Fison hood), I'll more likely keep it as a Leitz-looking-Lomo-lens 😀
There's people spending hundreds of $ for cameras based on plastic flawed lenses, so I can keep it as is 😉

I'm just curious to find out what it is...

 

[02Pilot]

Well, if it was already collimated, I guess there's not much more performance to be extracted, but if it were me I'd still pull it apart to see what's in there. In addition to markings, I'd be looking at the shape of the parts and the glass (we don't even know how many elements this thing has) for clues as to its origins.

The glass looks uncoated, which suggests pre-war, but of course that's just speculation.

 

[Filzkoeter]

Maybe it's some kind of really early post-war black market lens, cobbled together from different Elmar parts someone found at the Leitz storage?

Germany was in ruins, people wanted to have something to eat and some coal for the winter.

Some really crudish looking cameras and lenses emerged those days (look at some very early post-war black market Zeiss lenses, they can look really mismatched with crude engravings and parts that don't resemble any other parts from before or after).

I don't think that people really cared about the best looking engravings if they could earn some money by selling their DIY Leitz/Zeiss lenses/cameras to survive.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Germany was in ruins, people wanted to have something to eat and some coal for the winter.

This is very romantic. I think it is much more probable that it is quite recently made in Ukraine like so many other Leica imitations. That is a quite profitable business in those countries.

Erik.