Leica LTM Thread Mount Leica. Old Advertisements

[dab]

I am enjoying my Leica IIf a lot, fall in love with Elmar and Summaron. For quite some time I was collecting Barnack Leica's posters and adverts. If you find this topic interesting - you are welcome to go through the whole set of more then 100 images on my website hifi.pictures/adverts/leica/

If you have some of such adverts - please share.

Some of my favorites:

 

[dab]

And this one is interesting

 

[Trask]

That's a nice collection, dab -- thanks for sharing!

 

[WoodallP]

And this one interesting

These are really great and I hadn’t realised that « Barnack » had officially been used as the camera name. Thank you.

 

[Coldkennels]

Such a great collection - really enjoyed browsing those over a coffee. One thing that was really interesting was how much the American and English adverts were full of copy and specs, but the German adverts were much more stylistic and rarely seemed to talk about features of the camera.

Also, this bought a smile to my face:



Not only do I love how a coupled rangefinder was referred to as "automatic focusing" in the 1930s, but I wonder how many people would agree with the statement of "more accurate than ground glass focusing". I know I would - I've always struggled with anything that involves ground glass (including SLRs... even with "focusing aids").

 

[Dralowid]

As I understand it, when they first became available they were called 'Barnacks' because, when you are promoting just one new item you won't have thought to call it a 'I' and it needed a name.

Once there was a range the early cameras became 'back numbered', I don't know if this was done by Leitz or its distributors. The Barnack nomenclature was dropped.

I have some early paperwork where the lens illustrated is an Anastigmat. Also some just after the Summar was launch where the example is the rigid version.

 

[dab]

I wonder how many people would agree with the statement of "more accurate than ground glass focusing"

I am with you on this, prefer rangefinder focusing over SLR/TLR, want to try Contax II with better rangefinder.

 

[Erik van Straten]

As I understand it, when they first became available they were called 'Barnacks' because, when you are promoting just one new item you won't have thought to call it a 'I' and it needed a name.

Once there was a range the early cameras became 'back numbered', I don't know if this was done by Leitz or its distributors. The Barnack nomenclature was dropped.

I have some early paperwork where the lens illustrated is an Anastigmat. Also some just after the Summar was launch where the example is the rigid version.

I thought "Anastigmat" was the first name of the Leica-lens and that it was changed later into "Elmax" (Ernst Leitz and Max Berek) because "Anastigmat" was for most people too difficult to remember) and that in the end it became the better sounding "Elmar".

 

[Dralowid]

Don't forget that the Anastigmat has one more element than Elmax/Elmar. I understood it was redesigned to make it cheaper to produce. And there were lots of lenses named 'anastigmat'. Surely it is a type of lens not brand name.

I had a converted LTM Leitz Anastigmat once, the results seemed to me to be the same as those from an early Elmar...ie fine. Sold it at Westlicht for a significant sum.

 

[Coldkennels]

I am with you on this, prefer rangefinder focusing over SLR/TLR, want to try Contax II with better rangefinder.

Honestly? "Better rangefinder" is up for debate, as far as I'm concerned.

The Contax has a longer baselength but a lower magnification due to the combined RF/VF, and that really makes a difference.

Personally, in terms of ease of focusing, I'd take any Leica III (1.5x mag RF) from the IIIb through to the IIIg in good condition over literally anything else. It's just so much easier to see when you're in focus - much less hesitation. Add in how easy it is to calibrate the rangefinder yourself, and there's basically no reason to miss the focus on those things.

Then I'd probably take the Contax II, followed by an M3, then the Leica II, maybe then the Contax IIa, and finally your typical 0.72x M viewfinder.

(I just bought my first digital M - the M240 - and am frankly shocked at how hard it is to focus a 135mm lens accurately. I've never struggled like that on a IIIf or IIIg. No wonder people don't like them!)

 

[dab]

The Contax has a longer baselength but a lower magnification due to the combined RF/VF, and that really makes a difference.

Thanks for pointing this out. I love magnified view on my IIF and don't want to go to lower magnification. I will think more now about buying Contax II body. Anyway Sonnar 50/1.5 on my wishlist somewhere hight. Probably little lower then Summar.

 

[Coldkennels]

I do love the uncoated 50/1.5 Sonnar that came with my Contax II, but I absolutely hated dealing with the convoluted hellscape that is the Contax - so I ended up buying an Amedeo adapter to use the Sonnar on my Leicas. It's still probably cheaper and easier to get one with a Contax than it is to get one on its own, though.

That said, I'm not sure I'd take it over the Summar, personally - I like the Summar a lot, and I find the Sonnar flares easier and in a more extreme fashion, even with a hood. But it is a lovely lens.

 

[dab]

That said, I'm not sure I'd take it over the Summar, personally - I like the Summar a lot, and I find the Sonnar flares easier and in a more extreme fashion, even with a hood. But it is a lovely lens.

Ok, there are no good Summar available for the price I can afford. So I ordered Contax IIIa with Opton Sonnar 1.5. The set costs same money as scratched and hazy Summar. Now looking around for Contax RF -> LTM adapter.

 

[dab]

Updated the website yesterday with few new Leica's adverts and added new Contax section.

 

[Godfrey]

@dab : Thanks for the collection of old Leica advertisements! That's really fun!

An 'anastigmat' lens is a lens optical design designed to eliminate astigmatism (that is: prefix "a" meaning without, "astigmat" as short for astigmatism) and allow proper focusing of points on the focus plane. First such lens in production was evidently from Zeiss in about 1890. The adoption of the term as the name of a lens as "Anastigmat" would certainly cause some confusion...

...
(I just bought my first digital M - the M240 - and am frankly shocked at how hard it is to focus a 135mm lens accurately. I've never struggled like that on a IIIf or IIIg. No wonder people don't like them!)

Hmm? I don't recall the M typ 240 viewfinder being much different from my M10 Monochrom or M10-R ... I pulled out my beloved and ancient Hektor-M 135mm f/4.5 and did some tests, focusing first with the rangefinder and then with the Visoflex 020 and focus assist magnification on several different objects around my condo and outdoors. I guess my eyes are still up to the task with the RF and such a long lens as I was able to achieve perfect critical focus 19 times out of 20 with the RF, however the Visoflex 020 with magnification makes it much faster to focus, and I hit 20 out of 20 that way.

(I did notice once upon a time when the M9 was freshly sold and I had just received the M-P typ 240 that the latter's viewfinder was actually much crisper in the RF patch compared to my M9... but that may have been simply a issue with my M9's rf system .. probably needed a tiny bit of cleaning or adjustment.)

Of course, fitting the same lens to the new-to-me M6TTL 0.85x body makes focusing the RF faster and I think more consistent, but I'm unwilling to sacrifice a roll of film and an hour's processing work to confirm it.

But yes: focusing a 135mm lens with a rangefinder can be a bit difficult, and I figured out that this was made my dear old friend Don descry the Hektor 135mm as being "an unsharp piece of junk!" compared to the Nikon F and 135mm lens he replaced his M3 + Hektor with. My Hektor 135 is exactly the same lens he had and returns delightfully sharp photographs, which amazed him, but then I have the benefit of Live View and the Visoflex 020 to ensure critical focus.

I don't have an LTM version of the Hektor (or any other lens past 50mm ...did once upon a time...) to test focusing with the Leica IIIc body's rangefinder, but its 1.5x magnification should give focusing accuracy comparable to the M6TTL 0.85x (trading of a bit of RF baseline with more magnification). I've been thinking of finding a nice 90mm lens for it, but doubt I'd use it enough.

G

 

[Coldkennels]

Hmm? I don't recall the M typ 240 viewfinder being much different from my M10 Monochrom or M10-R [...] I don't have an LTM version of the Hektor (or any other lens past 50mm ...did once upon a time...) to test focusing with the Leica IIIc body's rangefinder, but its 1.5x magnification should give focusing accuracy comparable to the M6TTL 0.85x (trading of a bit of RF baseline with more magnification).

I've been using various Barnacks almost exclusively for something like 15 years at this point. Never been an M fan, but caved as it's the only real option in town for a digital rangefinder. There's a huge difference between a 1.5x RF and a 0.72x combined RF/VF in terms of clarity of focus, and I'm constantly second-guessing myself with longer lenses on the M240.

Apparently the IIIf and IIIg have an EBL more-or-less equal to the 0.85x M, so you're bang on the money there. I still think I'd rather take a (well-calibrated!) higher mag RF over a longer base combined VF/RF though, even if the EBLs were equal.

 

[JeffS7444]

Not Leica, but Canon's earliest ads closely mimicked1930s Leica advertisements.

 

[JeffS7444]

This one appears to have come from Dan Tamarkin's collection.

 

[neal3k]

Here is my favorite Leica early ad. I posed my Leica I on it when I put this on Flickr.

Leica and Lindbergh by Neal Wellons, on Flickr

 

[Godfrey]

I've been using various Barnacks almost exclusively for something like 15 years at this point. Never been an M fan, but caved as it's the only real option in town for a digital rangefinder. There's a huge difference between a 1.5x RF and a 0.72x combined RF/VF in terms of clarity of focus, and I'm constantly second-guessing myself with longer lenses on the M240.

Apparently the IIIf and IIIg have an EBL more-or-less equal to the 0.85x M, so you're bang on the money there. I still think I'd rather take a (well-calibrated!) higher mag RF over a longer base combined VF/RF though, even if the EBLs were equal.

Personal preference most likely ... 15 years using a particular type of viewfinder means you're very practiced with it and it must work for your eyes.

I've worn glasses since I was in about 3rd grade ... the Barnack range/viewfinder is much less friendly to my eyes and more difficult to see with because I have to be far more precise about eye position with it than with any M's finder. That's why I originally gave up with the IIIf I inherited (used a Nikon F and an M instead) and even with the IIc/IIf that were my first Leica purchased cameras, I tended to set the focus by scale more than use the RF.

I had some trepidations about the Barnack rf due to my experience with the IIIf and the IIc/f I'd owned so long ago, but I find the IIIc I bought recently has a better rangefinder than I expected. I imagine it is simply that I've got many more years of experience now and am used to focusing with all manner of often difficult camera viewfinders at this point. (The IIIf, IIc/f, and Nikon F were amongst my very first cameras...) Also, the fact that I'm now only rarely in any hurry when using a camera means I just take whatever time I need to get the focus right.

... I do find the M rf patch still a bit easier and faster to use than the IIIc's rf simply because the clearly defined edge of the rf patch allows me to use that portion of the patch to match up a hard edge very quickly compared to using it to combine two images by coincident coalescence. ...

The M6TTL 0.85x viewfinder is about the best M viewfinder I've had. I'm very glad I went for that rather than continue the search for a 0.58x MP. The latter would have been a mistake.

G