ger1g0 Posted September 11, 2013 Share #1 Posted September 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hey guys Can anyone here enlighten me on the difference between these 2 adapters that I think are both 16462s? I think they are for the 90 f/2 and the 135 f/2.8. I purchased both from KEH but am trying to figure why there are 2. I tried the silver version on the 135 f/2.8 and could only get it to focus to a middle distance and not to infinity. The black one has a super tight focusing ring that I am going to return to KEH. I am guessing since both are not the same length, the ability to focus at different distances will also be affected? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/212595-visoflex-adaptor-16462-question/?do=findComment&comment=2418736'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Hi ger1g0, Take a look here Visoflex adaptor 16462 question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jc_braconi Posted September 11, 2013 Share #2 Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) The silver was first made for the Summicron 2/90 the black one must works on both 90 and 135 Usually they work : Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited September 14, 2013 by jc_braconi 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/212595-visoflex-adaptor-16462-question/?do=findComment&comment=2418754'>More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted September 11, 2013 Share #3 Posted September 11, 2013 Hello ger1g0, Welcome to the Forum. Catalogs & instruction manuals of the periods when both of those adapters were produced would sometimes mention that it might be necessary to return the adapter along with the lens it was to be used with to Leitz for adjustment in order that the 2 operate together correctly. Not an uncommon occurrence. Best Regards, Michael 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 13, 2013 Share #4 Posted September 13, 2013 (edited) Hey guys Can anyone here enlighten me on the difference between these 2 adapters that I think are both 16462s? I think they are for the 90 f/2 and the 135 f/2.8. I purchased both from KEH but am trying to figure why there are 2. I tried the silver version on the 135 f/2.8 and could only get it to focus to a middle distance and not to infinity. The black one has a super tight focusing ring that I am going to return to KEH. I am guessing since both are not the same length, the ability to focus at different distances will also be affected? If you mounted it as it looks on the picture, the focusing you quote is right, and also the 90 f2 head wouldn't focus to infinity : the adapter has the OUEPO (later 16474) addon ring, which is used for near focus range : if you dismount the OUEPO, both adapters have the same length and you can focus the 135 2,8 (head only of course) to infinity: the distances read on the scale anyway would be wrong (apart infinity) : the black 16462 was made without scale just for the reason that after the intro of the TE 135 the same Viso adapter could be used for both lenses. Edited September 13, 2013 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orient XI Posted September 15, 2013 Share #5 Posted September 15, 2013 The source of the problem is the silver, scaled, short mount code name ZOOEP (which was latter given the code number 16463) for the f/2 90mm Summicron. This mount does NOT accept the lens head of the f/2.8 Elmarit. The later, unscaled mount code number 16462 accepts the lens head of either lens. The extension tune OEUPO (aka 16474) will extend the focussing range of the Summicron from 104 — 61cm (in OEUPO mount), or that of the Elmarit from 155 — 93cm when used in conjunction with the short mount 16462. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 15, 2013 Share #6 Posted September 15, 2013 (edited) The source of the problem is the silver, scaled, short mount code name ZOOEP (which was latter given the code number 16463) for the f/2 90mm Summicron. This mount does NOT accept the lens head of the f/2.8 Elmarit. The later, unscaled mount code number 16462 accepts the lens head of either lens. The extension tune OEUPO (aka 16474) will extend the focussing range of the Summicron from 104 — 61cm (in OEUPO mount), or that of the Elmarit from 155 — 93cm when used in conjunction with the short mount 16462. Sorry, Orient, but this is not true : mechanically you can mount the 135 2,8 lenshead on the ZOOEP/16463... at least, I can with mine (sorry for the very poor quality pf the pic... ) : a combo not fine to see, and the distance scale is useless... but you can mount ona Viso II/III this and focus correctly: I have not a 16462, but I suppose that, by logic, it is identical in length and mounts (the Summicron 90 lenshead wasn't changed) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited September 15, 2013 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/212595-visoflex-adaptor-16462-question/?do=findComment&comment=2421851'>More sharing options...
Orient XI Posted September 16, 2013 Share #7 Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I went to buy a f/2.8 135mm Elmarit in London last year and came away empty handed when I found its head would not fit, let alone focus, in my ZOOEP, Just to reassure myself I have taken some photographs today at 1.5m (5') with the ZOOEP and my Summicron lens head. These turned out ok. Edited September 16, 2013 by Orient XI missing word Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 16, 2013 Share #8 Posted September 16, 2013 Orient, can you specify in which sense, exactly, the TE 135 2,8 head didn't "fit" into your ZOOEP ? My 135 2,8 is rather "old" (2.063.xxx)... and its leanshead fits nicely on my ZOOEP : maybe your 135 is the later version ? It has indeed a different lens' schema....and indeed my one's back element is just few millimeters from the ZOOEP back flange, when mounted, and takes almost all the inner diameter... is quite possible that a slightly different design poses some problems (sorry for the insistence... those small details on old items always intrigue me... ) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orient XI Posted September 19, 2013 Share #9 Posted September 19, 2013 Luigi, I think it must have been a later 135mm Elmarit as this is reputed to have higher contrast than the earlier. My recollection is that the lens head was too large to fit into the throat of the ZOOEP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 19, 2013 Share #10 Posted September 19, 2013 Thanks Orient... it's logic... I haven't the "new - black" 16462... but indeed, from pics on books, it looks not so identical in the throat... this is even more visible comparing the pics of the addon ring OUEPO and the equivalent-later 16474 : probably the screw thread in itself is the same but, as you say, the new 135 back barrel was too large to enter the old throat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.