Leicaflex SL lens compatibility

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I seem to recall someone saying that some of the shorter Leica R focal lengths weren't compatible with the Leicaflex SL ... something about a change between the SL and SL2 providing more mirror clearance or something like that. 

 

I have the following: 

 

Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 v1

Elmarit-R 24mm f/2.8

Summicron-R 35mm f/2

 

They're all three-cam lenses. Would any of these be incompatible with the Leicaflex SL? 

 

Thanks!

G

[tobey bilek]

24 & 35 work with SL  Unsure of 19

 

What was done is the mirror moves both backward and up in SL2.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gbealnz]

While I'll bow to the knowledge of Tobey, I was always under the impression the R 24mm would not work with the SL. I have always wanted to add the 24mm to my SL, but steered clear because I was sure it wouldn't work.

I believe the 19mm first version is OK, as is the 35mm Summicron R.

Gary

[ramarren]

Thanks Tobey and Gary!

 

So there is some debate about this. I found a link to a  2003 discussion on Photo.net that also contained some info: 

 

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/006WBZ

 

A piece of that goes like this:

...

Douglas Herr , Nov 14, 2003; 05:56 p.m.

 

The 75-200 f/4.5 zoom will fit the Leicaflex and SL. As Jay mentioned the issue with some lenses is mirror clearance. Fortunately the mounts used on the lenses that would be struck by the Leicaflex's mirror are slightly different so they can't be mounted on the Leicaflex (or SL). Most 2- and 3-cam lenses will fit; the lenses I know of with mirror clearance issues are the 15mm lenses, 16mm Fisheye, late 19mm Elmarit-R, 24mm Elmarit-R, 35mm Summilux-R, current 50mm Summilux-R, and the early 80-200mm f/4.5 zoom. Some 3rd-cam lenses will fit, some will not. The distinction is the ridge on the lens' flange that prevents the lens from seating properly on the camera. My 50mm Summicron-R was originally a 3rd-cam lens but it had a Leicafelx flange so it worked; my 14256 Macro-Adapter-R is a 3rd-cam deviceand it had an R-only flange until I modified it.

 

An additional issue is clearance between the aperture ring and the Leicaflex's battery cover. If you're using a hand-held meter anyway just take the battery out and the cover should screw in more to allow the nessesary clearance. Three lenses I've found with this problem are the late 250mm Telyt, 100mm APO-Macro, and 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt.

... 

 

I've known of Doug Herr and his work with Leica R system for many years so I tend to accept his information on the subject. If the lens flange is such that it will prevent an incompatible lens from seating, then I can perform a quick test and know for sure.

 

Sounds like my Elmarit-R 24 is the only one of my lenses that is incompatible; that's too bad as it's quite a nice performer. I know the Summilux-R 50 I have is compatible since that came fitted on one of the SL bodies. :-)

 

My plan is to sell off most of my Leica R gear, but I love the SL and felt I might keep one body and a couple of lenses for occasional use. Looks like if I do that, I will choose from the 19/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 90/2, and 180/4. 

[ramarren]

 

 

I've known of Doug Herr and his work with Leica R system for many years so I tend to accept his information on the subject. If the lens flange is such that it will prevent an incompatible lens from seating, then I can perform a quick test and know for sure.

 

And it's just so: I did a test. Doug's comments were right on.

 

The Elmarit-R 24mm is the only one of my lenses that cannot fit the SL body, it won't even mount. All the others mount perfectly and work perfectly. I was hesitant to try for fear that incompatible lenses would fit the mount and then cause damage when I tried to operate the camera. This makes it easy. 

 

The Leicaflex SL is a solid brick of a body, but feels so nice in the hands. It's one of the few 35mm film cameras I've used that they had the wind lever stand-off just right for my hands such that I can use it as designed to wind frame to frame quickly and easily. And the viewfinder is amongst the best there is in 35mm SLRs... 

 

G

[gbealnz]

Yep, brick it is, but a nice brick.

I'm torn between my SL and the M6, each is different, but I actually prefer the SLR style, and as you say the finder is amongst the best.

Gary

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yep, brick it is, but a nice brick.

I'm torn between my SL and the M6, each is different, but I actually prefer the SLR style, and as you say the finder is amongst the best.

Gary

 

I find I use an M and and SLR somewhat differently.

 

SLRs are more technically oriented cameras. I almost always want a couple of macro lenses for them to do tabletop and similar work, and when in the field I tend to more extremes on focal length when using them ... the ultra-wide or longer telephoto lenses are what I usually want them for. I use them on a tripod a lot of the time.

 

The M is at its best with a 35, 50, or 75 mm lens and I tend to use it when I'm on a walk, taking photos of people, and similar more 'casual' shooting situations. The M and its lenses are lighter, handier, more amenable to use when I'm traveling and knocking about, particularly when on foot. 

 

Either camera can do 90% of most of what I do with a camera, and in truth an SLR (or suitable mirrorless now that that option exists) can do 100%. But I like shooting with an M a lot due to the lenses and the way the viewfinder works. And I certainly appreciate the lighter, smaller bag in the day to day world when photography isn't the primary point of things. :-)

 

G

Edited October 4, 2015 by ramarren

[TomB_tx]

In college I got an M4 in 1968, then added an SL with 50 and 135 in 1969. I added the macro-r 100 with bellows soon after. It made a kit that did all I wanted - the M4 for 35, 50, and 90, and the SL for close-up and longer.

It was much later that I tried ultra-wide and found it easier on the SLR. But I still prefer an M RF for 35 & 50.

[Hugh 38]

I  have  been  meaning  to  look into this  for  a  while  and  yesterday   tried  out  some  combinations   with  a  Leicaflex SL:

The 16mm  fish  eye  will   not  fit on .

The  Elmarit 19 does  fit  and  the  camera  appears to work  fin.  I think  the  19 is the early  version with a   detatchable  lens  hood .

[ramarren]

I  have  been  meaning  to  look into this  for  a  while  and  yesterday   tried  out  some  combinations   with  a  Leicaflex SL:

The 16mm  fish  eye  will   not  fit on .

The  Elmarit 19 does  fit  and  the  camera  appears to work  fin.  I think  the  19 is the early  version with a   detatchable  lens  hood .

 

Interesting that the Elmarit-R 16mm Fish-eye (11222 - 11327-ROM) doesn't fit. Can you tell what's blocking it? Is the one you tried to fit a two-cam or three-cam lens? I have tried one-, two-, and three-cam lenses on the R-Adapter M and haven't run into incompatibilities yet, so I'm curious about this.

 

The first series Elmarit-R 19mm v1 (11225) certainly does work, and works very well. That's the one I'm using.   

[Hugh 38]

The  Elmarit  16mm  fish  eye  I  have  is  a  3  cam one .

I put  the   Leicaflex  SL   on its  back  and tried  to put the   fish  eye  on .The  lens  will  not   sit  properly  in the lens mount.  There   is  an  element   at the  back of the lens  which sticks out   and  sits  on  something  inside  the  camera  .

 

The  mount on  the  SL   is   slightly  different to  the  more  modern SL2  and R's ,  which   can  accommodate   a  wider  range  of lenses .

[ramarren]

The  Elmarit  16mm  fish  eye  I  have  is  a  3  cam one .

I put  the   Leicaflex  SL   on its  back  and tried  to put the   fish  eye  on .The  lens  will  not   sit  properly  in the lens mount.  There   is  an  element   at the  back of the lens  which sticks out   and  sits  on  something  inside  the  camera  .

 

The  mount on  the  SL   is   slightly  different to  the  more  modern SL2  and R's ,  which   can  accommodate   a  wider  range  of lenses .

 

 

Ah, my mistake. I forgot this was a Leicaflex SL thread, not Leica SL.  

 

The SL2 and later gained clearance by changing the mirror mechanism to pull it back a little bit as it swung up.. Leica changed the mounting flange so you can't mount lenses that need the extra room onto the SL in order to prevent damage. As above, my Elmarit 24 won't mount either. 

[Hugh 38]

Good  point   !  

I  had  forgotten  about  the  new   Leica  SL  which  I  do not  have .  I   am  referring  to the   old  Leicaflex   SL   as  well.

 

I  can  see    further  confusion   with  the   Leicaflex  SL  and  Leica SL .