13Promet
Well-known
It depends on what you mean by "quite recently"...
According to the seller, the gear was kept in a cupboard as his father's relic since 1995 until the day I bought it 6 months ago.
The son of the previous owner told me that his father has been using it (along with the M2 and the perfectly genuine Elmar 50 that I bought from him) for his work from the mid 60s until the early 90s.
He also told me the he remembers pretty well the day of 1964 when his father brought home the new, very expensive M2, which was a great happening for their family, and told me that he was already owning a Leica before.
Therefore, it's probable that he kept the LTM lenses from his previous setup, adapting them to the M via the rings.
Given the price of the sale, his obviously genuine emotional involvement, and the fact that he had no clue at all about photography, I'm quite sure that he was not lying to me. It would actually be pointless in such sales circumstances as I was openly looking for the body and considered the lenses as a bonus.
According to the serial number, the 50 Elmar wich came with it is from 1954.
"Frankie" could be a complete fake, of course, but anyway dated before the mid 60s.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The origins of the lens will remain a mystery, but I do not think that a very romantic story is involved.
Erik.
Erik.
what is the close focus ?
Filzkoeter
stray animal
I'm still not sure why someone should put so much work into faking a 3,5cm Elmar, as there are no off-the-shelf parts available to built one.
For the same amount of time and work a forger could possibly fake 1000 50mm "Elmars" from old Industar or Fed lenses.
13Promet:
You said the field of view is quite near to 35mm.
1. Does this lens focus correctly on infinity and near distances?
2. The ring that makes contact with the RF arm of the camera, has it more travel then the lens element assembly when focusing? Or do both move the same distance?
If both answers are "yes", the lens would be nearly impossible to fake without machining the whole focusing assembly from scratch. All the 50mm Elmar style lens parts won't be able to focus 35mm optics correctly and provide correct RF movement.
Also: how many reflections are there when shining a flashlight through the lens? There should be 6 reflections for a 3-group lens as the Elmar, 4 in front of the aperture and 2 behind (35mm Elmar: single lens - single lens - aperture - cemented doublet)
[the reflections should look similar to this]
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The picture of the back of the lens shows that there is a second focussing tube for the rangefinder, just as there is on a real Elmar 35mm (and on every non 50mm Leica lens). The back of the lens is like an Elmar 35mm, only the way the optics are fitted in is different. When the opticts have a focal length of 35mm, the lens will more or less focus correctly.
Erik.
Filzkoeter
stray animal
That's exactly my point
Imagine you are a forger of Leica fakes. What would you do to make some money?
a) Open your drawer full of Industar lenses, change the engravings to resemble a 50mm Elmar & sell a piece for 100€?
or
b) Machine most parts customly, find optics that fit the barrel, build a new aperture mechanism, built new focusing mechanics & a RF cam, collimate the new lens, engrave new depth of field & aperture markings based on the new focal length & optics (basically building a new lens from scratch), engrave the lens to resemble a 35mm Elmar & sell a piece for 200€?
....and I just found another 35mm Elmar with the same baffle: https://www.flickr.com/photos/81009684@N07/8683123388/
This list lists chrome lenses for 1930-31: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Elmar_f=_3.5_cm_1:3.5
gb hill
Veteran
How come on this lens the #5 on the F stop scale is smaller than the rest of the numbers but on every other 35 Elmar the 5 is the same size as the rest of the #'s? Lenses with later serial numbers as well as those with earlier numbers have the same size F Stop numbers.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes, that is the same baffle! I've never seen one before. But this makes the mystery even more mysterious.
I really don't know what to think of it. Maybe it was originally a genuine lens that was damaged and repaired with self made parts.
Erik.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Front of my Elmar 3.5 cm with no SN#.
13Promet
Well-known
Checked on the X-E2, actual MFD is about 100 cm, matching the barrel engravings.
Yes it does
Same travel
6 reflections points, just like the picture in your link.
This keeps seeming the most probable solution of the mistery: the front part of the lens was damaged, then the middle ring added to have a different front element collimated.
But - in this case - it sounds very cost-unefficient to perform the optical calaculations, machine from the scratch the middle ring and the Whole front part of the barrel, engrave and chrome it. For repairing just one sample of a relatively cheap lens.
Kate-the-Great
Well-known
That is interesting... on a 35mm lens, shouldn't the RF coupling ring have more travel than the lens group? Since the RF coupling operates off the displacement of a ~50mm lens, and a 35mm will have less displacement when focusing?
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Kate-the-Great is right, this is very strange indeed. When the focal distance is 35mm, then the travel of the rangefinder coupling must be larger than that of the optics. That is why wideangles on rangefinder cameras focus so precise.
Erik.
Erik.
Filzkoeter
stray animal
So it is at least a Tessar type (or a triplet, but that's even more unlikely being a wide-angle lens). The Tessar formula isn't well suited to be wide angle, it would propably fit the mention that it is slighly narrower in its field of view then 35mm.
The performance should be better, especially on a crop sensor. The corners look really blurred, the contrast seems okay (maybe the elements could need some cleaning; I've never seen a pre-war lens without at least some faint haze).
If the lens is genuine (and I believe that at least the optical cell and some other parts are), something's out of whack with it.
I don't know about the 35mm Elmar's construction, but my clue would be that the "extended" barrel belongs to the Elmar but was reassembled wrong on this lens... but if that was the case, the lens wouldn't focus correctly anymore.
Maybe someone modified it to be some kind of soft-focus lens by changing its focal length (by changing the element distances) and then reshimmed the optical cell to focus correctly? (Edit: but if done so, the distance markings would be off)
I propably would disassemble it and take a closer look at the insides. To see what looks to be genuine and what looks like a modification and if it would be possible to remove the mods to bring the lens back to its original specs. Those older lenses are really easy to work on if you have some common sense.
What is the distance from the flange to where approximately the aperture sits in the optical cell (at infinity)? Add 28.8mm to that distance (the flange distance of LTM) that should tell you the focal length.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The pre-war Tessars and Elmars are all triplets (derivatives of; with four elements, the last two cemented). The Elmar 35 mm has it's diaphragm between the elements 2 and 3 and the Elmar 50 mm between the elements 1 and 2.
The Elmar 50 mm is in fact a Tessar, only the place of the diaphragm is different.
The Elmar 35 mm was not a great lens and was replaced by the Summaron 35 mm f/3.5, a Gauss-derivative with six elements, in 1946.
Erik.
Dralowid
Michael
Erik,
I bet you've produced some great images with a 35mm elmar but I agree. It is on my list of 'Leitz lenses I haven't really enjoyed'. There are others on the list that are much prized by others but not by me...
Michael
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Four tiny uncoated elements are not enough to produce a quality image with an angle of 64 degrees: the most recent 35 mm Ultron from Cosina has nine multicoated elements.
What are the other Leica lenses you do not like, Michael?
Erik.
Dralowid
Michael
Erik,
I'm pondering how to answer your question, I don't want to hijack the OP's thread but there are several reasons why I might not enjoy using a lens and they are mostly personal. Weight and size, condition of example, ease of use are all factors as well as, obviously, results. I would have thought myself wedded to the 50mm Elmar but around ten years ago I found a coated Summar...
I'm pondering how to answer your question, I don't want to hijack the OP's thread but there are several reasons why I might not enjoy using a lens and they are mostly personal. Weight and size, condition of example, ease of use are all factors as well as, obviously, results. I would have thought myself wedded to the 50mm Elmar but around ten years ago I found a coated Summar...
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Just a point that breaks the flow of the thread. During the 2nd World War there were serious shortages of Leicas and lenses for them and in the UK the dealers and Govt. appealed for them in ones and twos for Govt use (RAF etc).
I imagine that a lot were stripped down and rebuilt from assorted parts as they became damaged and I guess several simple parts were made for them. Earlier in the 30's there was also a popular industry turning out lenses for the Leicas and I've seen adverts for modifying the early ones to make them take interchangeable lenses (mostly 135mm).
And, of course, I'm sure we've all seen genuine ones that have something wrong like the "0" or "O" for standardised lens on ones that were made/dated long after that special mark ended.
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
Just a point that breaks the flow of the thread. During the 2nd World War there were serious shortages of Leicas and lenses for them and in the UK the dealers and Govt. appealed for them in ones and twos for Govt use (RAF etc).
I imagine that a lot were stripped down and rebuilt from assorted parts as they became damaged and I guess several simple parts were made for them. Earlier in the 30's there was also a popular industry turning out lenses for the Leicas and I've seen adverts for modifying the early ones to make them take interchangeable lenses (mostly 135mm).
And, of course, I'm sure we've all seen genuine ones that have something wrong like the "0" or "O" for standardised lens on ones that were made/dated long after that special mark ended.
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
13Promet
Well-known
IMO it's very unlikely that somebody modified an already soft lens to make a permanent very-soft-focus one by spending a lot of money: that long ago they used to add a stocking or some vaseline to the front in order to achieve such effect, with very little expense and reversible effect.
Also, the middle ring doesn't seem to be differently assemblable in the same barrel (it couldn't be fit either in the front or in the rear of the barrel): it's added for sure, and it increases the lens depth by about 4mm.
I'm quite sure that it's not possible to rebuild the genuine lens from what I have, and anyway it would be a real challenge without a complete genuine one to be used as a reference and no specific competence at all.
As for blurrines, it for sure does not depend on haze as the lens has just been CLAd and the glass is very clear.
Anyway, it could be fun to disassemble it and have look inside.
I have some competence in motorbike mechanics as I maintain part of my S1000RR BMW on my own, but a lens is another story and for sure needs different tools.
Can you suggest an online tutorial to do it?
I tried to measure flange to aperture distance but it's quite hard to do it accurately due to glass distorsion and no reference between internal and external elements of the lens.
Easier to guess it by comparing the FOV with another 35mm lens, as I already did.
Don't worry, I'm not jealous of "my" threads: it's public stuff
13Promet
Well-known
I checked the MFD precisely (max 1-2 cm error) and the infinity lock by my sample picture posted before, and they both seem to be accurate.
Possibly the latter benefits of the very deep DOF at f/6.3/long distance/wide FOV, which could compensate for some unaccuracy.
I'll try again at f/3.5 to check it out whether infinity focus is off.