Bellows II, 16598J & 280mm Telyt

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Again Everybody,

 

Just a small addition/clarification for my Post #20 above, this Thread.

 

The first version of the 280 was 11902 w/ 11901 being the # of the detachable lens head as it is in the second version. Interesting to note: Some aspects of the version 1 focussing mount of 11902 seem to be shared w/ the then contemporary version of the 400/5. Multiple utililization of components being a reasonable practice practiced by Leitz & others in optics & many other fields before & since.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited November 22, 2010 by Michael Geschlecht

[Advertisement]

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

[jc_braconi]

the three models illustrated here :

 

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Jean CLaude,

 

Nice photos.

 

Do you think because you need a 14112 to attach a 280mm lens head V2 to a Focorapid Mount but nothing to attach a 200/4 lens head directly to the same it might be possible to attach a 280 V2 to a Bellows II w/ a 14112 & 16598 together?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[luigi bertolotti]

JC, are you sure the V3 head screws into the Bellows II correctly? The second thread on the V2 head, which mounts the 14138 adapater, is a slightly different diameter and a different pitch (0.75 vs 1.0) compared to the Bellows II lens adapter thread. I don't have a V3, so I could be wrong and Leica may have changed that thread from V2 to V3..

 

Uhm... just to go deeper again... (and JC, who has all the versions, can confirm) I am not sure that the "large" thread has changed... this would mean that the 14138 adapter for Televit doesn't mount on both V2 and V3: you (and Michael) say it mounts on V2, and several books (Lager, Laney) say it mounts on V3...(a picture show it in Lager)

What is sure is that the V3 lenshead's "tube" (the part which emerges when one unscrews the head) is slimmer , in diameter, than V2's... otherwise it could not penetrate into the bellows: V2, without the 16598 ring, cannot anyway be mounted directly... thread or not, it simply interferes (few mm) with the bellows II circular entrance.

 

BTW... JC, what is the focusing range of the V3 head when on Bellows ? Looking at your pic of the combo, I have the impression that it doesn't focus to distances so shorter than the standard "complete" V3 on the Viso (which could mount also an extension ring - 16469), considering how deep is the protrusion inside the bellows.

Edited November 22, 2010 by luigi bertolotti

[zeitz]

If 14138 mounts to V3 lens head, then the head cannot correctly thread into the Bellows II directly. They simply are two different threads. Very close indeed, but different. The 14138 is a slightly smaller diameter. I can get the V2 head into the Bellows I without an adapter, and it looks like your photo, JC. But the threads are not correctly engaged.

 

JC, can you post pictures of just the three lens heads, without the normal focusing mounts?

[jc_braconi]

If 14138 mounts to V3 lens head, then the head cannot correctly thread into the Bellows II directly. They simply are two different threads. Very close indeed, but different. The 14138 is a slightly smaller diameter. I can get the V2 head into the Bellows I without an adapter, and it looks like your photo, JC. But the threads are not correctly engaged.

 

JC, can you post pictures of just the three lens heads, without the normal focusing mounts?

I do not have a 14138 so I cannot tell you if it threads on a V3 head

My photo is a V3 head into a bellows II and it screw on.

 

Uhm... just to go deeper again... (and JC, who has all the versions, can confirm) I am not sure that the "large" thread has changed... this would mean that the 14138 adapter for Televit doesn't mount on both V2 and V3: you (and Michael) say it mounts on V2, and several books (Lager, Laney) say it mounts on V3...(a picture show it in Lager)

What is sure is that the V3 lenshead's "tube" (the part which emerges when one unscrews the head) is slimmer , in diameter, than V2's... otherwise it could not penetrate into the bellows: V2, without the 16598 ring, cannot anyway be mounted directly... thread or not, it simply interferes (few mm) with the bellows II circular entrance.

 

BTW... JC, what is the focusing range of the V3 head when on Bellows ? Looking at your pic of the combo, I have the impression that it doesn't focus to distances so shorter than the standard "complete" V3 on the Viso (which could mount also an extension ring - 16469), considering how deep is the protrusion inside the bellows.

Luigi your post in not very clear for me

for focusing shorter you have to increase the distance from lens head to the film plan, so the inside protusion is not a problem.

 

Hello Jean CLaude,

Nice photos.

Do you think because you need a 14112 to attach a 280mm lens head V2 to a Focorapid Mount but nothing to attach a 200/4 lens head directly to the same it might be possible to attach a 280 V2 to a Bellows II w/ a 14112 & 16598 together?

Best Regards,

Michael

 

Sorry as I do not have Focorapid & 14112 in hands I cannot answer your question but may be if you think about in a methodic mind you will find the answer by yourself.

[david werbeloff]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello, All,

 

Well, who would have thought...?! Michael, your post prompted me to look at the catalog numbers again: So are we to understand that V3 lens head, as removed from the focus helical of the Viso lens #11914 is NOT the same as the v3 lens head supplied separately for Televit and Bellows II use as #11904? As I look at the illustrations on p.48 of the 1973 catalog, I can see a large diameter thread almost directly behind the aperture ring on 11904. The lens head of 11914 does not have this thread. It uses a much smaller diameter thread which is visible on 11904 much further away from the front element, "proximal" in medical terminology, to mount via 16598 to the Bellows II. This may explain why JC's V3 lens head mounts directly to the Bellows II, but mine, which came off of the Viso lens, 11914, does not.

 

When I have my lens head mounted on the Bellow, its closest focus is around 2.7m or 9ft.

At infinity, the bellows is extended roughly half along its travel. The smallest object field is about 10"x7"

 

Best wishes,

David

[luigi bertolotti]

....My photo is a V3 head into a bellows II and it screw on.

 

 

Luigi your post in not very clear for me

for focusing shorter you have to increase the distance from lens head to the film plan, so the inside protusion is not a problem.

 

 

 

Yes, not so clear... was late night...: I meant : when you dismount the V3 lens head and screw it on the bellows 2, this length :

 

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!

 

is probably shorter (in the pic) than the length of the 280 V3 complete: I wonder if even with the Bellows 2 fully extended the minimum focusing distance is lower than with the lens mounted onto Visoflex in the standard way... with 280V2 it is surely so (I verified) but, obviously, its front lens is much more far from the Bellows 2 front flange, given that you mount it through the 16598 and the lens head's assembly does not protrude into the bellows

[luigi bertolotti]

Hello, All,

 

Well, who would have thought...?! Michael, your post prompted me to look at the catalog numbers again: So are we to understand that V3 lens head, as removed from the focus helical of the Viso lens #11914 is NOT the same as the v3 lens head supplied separately for Televit and Bellows II use as #11904? (*) As I look at the illustrations on p.48 of the 1973 catalog, I can see a large diameter thread almost directly behind the aperture ring on 11904. The lens head of 11914 does not have this thread. It uses a much smaller diameter thread which is visible on 11904 much further away from the front element, "proximal" in medical terminology, to mount via 16598 to the Bellows II. This may explain why JC's V3 lens head mounts directly to the Bellows II, but mine, which came off of the Viso lens, 11914, does not.

 

When I have my lens head mounted on the Bellow, its closest focus is around 2.7m or 9ft.

At infinity, the bellows is extended roughly half along its travel. The smallest object field is about 10"x7"

 

Best wishes,

David

 

Damn... this thread is a lot intriguing... how I wish to have a V3...:

(*) I don't think so... but... isn't maybe there something related to the diaphragm preset mechanism.?... In JC' pic of the head mounted on the Bellows 2 it SEEMS to me (not sure) that the lens has NOT the presetting... is it possible that it is removable on the standard (11914) lens (after all, it is so for the preset mechanism of the Summicron 90), so revealing ANOTHER thread, which FITS the Bellows 2 directly...???

[jc_braconi]

Hello, All,

 

Well, who would have thought...?! Michael, your post prompted me to look at the catalog numbers again: So are we to understand that V3 lens head, as removed from the focus helical of the Viso lens #11914 is NOT the same as the v3 lens head supplied separately for Televit and Bellows II use as #11904? As I look at the illustrations on p.48 of the 1973 catalog, I can see a large diameter thread almost directly behind the aperture ring on 11904. The lens head of 11914 does not have this thread. It uses a much smaller diameter thread which is visible on 11904 much further away from the front element, "proximal" in medical terminology, to mount via 16598 to the Bellows II. This may explain why JC's V3 lens head mounts directly to the Bellows II, but mine, which came off of the Viso lens, 11914, does not.

 

When I have my lens head mounted on the Bellow, its closest focus is around 2.7m or 9ft.

At infinity, the bellows is extended roughly half along its travel. The smallest object field is about 10"x7"

 

Best wishes,

David

 

David, I unscrewed the lens head from the complete lens # 3 on the picts (linked from an another website and where you can see most of my lens, bodies and accessories : www.summilux.net) and next screwed directly on the bellows 2 front flange now all the items are stored and if I have time I will unscrew them again .

[jc_braconi]

Damn... this thread is a lot intriguing... how I wish to have a V3...:

(*) I don't think so... but... isn't maybe there something related to the diaphragm preset mechanism.?... In JC' pic of the head mounted on the Bellows 2 it SEEMS to me (not sure) that the lens has NOT the presetting... is it possible that it is removable on the standard (11914) lens (after all, it is so for the preset mechanism of the Summicron 90), so revealing ANOTHER thread, which FITS the Bellows 2 directly...???

Luigi, the diaphragm preset is in place, you cannot remove it by hand.

[luigi bertolotti]

Hello Jean CLaude,

 

Nice photos.

 

Do you think because you need a 14112 to attach a 280mm lens head V2 to a Focorapid Mount but nothing to attach a 200/4 lens head directly to the same it might be possible to attach a 280 V2 to a Bellows II w/ a 14112 & 16598 together?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Well. let's think of it in a "methodic mind" as suggested by JC... :

 

a) 200 f4 lenshead screws directly onto Focorapid (I haven't, but accept is as true)

200 f4 lenshead screws onto 16598 (sure, I have)

----> Focorapid and 16598 have the same female thread

c) 280 V2 lenshead screws onto 16598 (sure, I have, see my previous pic)

----> 280 V2 lenshead screws directly onto Focorapid (mechanically)

d) 280 V2 lenshead needs 14112 to be mounted on Focorapid (true, have docs about)

----> It is for focusing reasons (probably without it you couldn't focus at infinity, 14112 is rather "long" : see for instance https://www.leicashop.com/vintage/focorapid-14111-outfit-p-942.html?language=en)

----> SO : 14112 is a simple "spacer - extension ring" same male female threads at its ends

 

SO... you can mount, in series : 280V2 lenshead+14112+16598----> Bellows 2+Viso 2/3+M body... and get a complex macro set based on 280... with the 14112s that can be stacked "at infinity"... performances to be verified... I think the planarity of Telyt 280 is not such to allow decent microphotography...

Edited November 23, 2010 by luigi bertolotti

[luigi bertolotti]

Luigi, the diaphragm preset is in place, you cannot remove it by hand.

 

Ok, wrong hipotesis... .. so how do you explain David's statement ?

 

"...on p.48 of the 1973 catalog, I can see a large diameter thread almost directly behind the aperture ring on 11904 (that's "yours", clearly). The lens head of 11914 does not have this thread (???)..."

[jc_braconi]

Luigi, here are the pages from the 1973 french edition catalog : hoping this will help

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!

[luigi bertolotti]

Thanks, JC... very clear... the lenshead illustration shows also that it is indeed slimmer at its back end than the V2 (as I wrote in my post of yesterday night) and the statement about 16598 is not updated... from the same illustrations, looks that 11904 has anyway another smaller thread towards its end...

So... let's wait for David pics of his 280 head... I wonder HOW it can't have the "large" thread, if its lens head does dismount...

 

btw... interesting (I did not remember)... V3 has two versions... is the knurling finishing the only difference ?... This thread has got such complicated that adding something more is even funny...

Edited November 23, 2010 by luigi bertolotti

[jc_braconi]

btw... interesting (I did not remember)... V3 has two versions... is the knurling finishing the only difference ?...

This thread has got such complicated that adding something more is even funny...

It needed a lot of energy...

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

Version I & version II 280/4.8 - 11902 & 11912 respectively - both have removable lens head #11901.

 

The difference in the removable lens heads seems to be a removable baffle on version I and none on version II.

 

This seems to be the same as the difference in the two lens heads both listed as 11852 for the two removable head focussing mount versions of the 135mm Tele Elmar both catalogued as 11851.

 

As to your French Catalogue Jean Claude; I also have a 1973 catalog, in English, given to me @ the factory in Wetzlar in 1973 which is the same as yours p 48 & 70 except it has additional english system approximations following metric entries. Also it does not have the notation or box yours does on p 70 referent the 280 as per 16598.

 

An additional note: My 1968 catalog from Schmidt Hong Kong shows a version II & it appears from pictures & text the lens head simply unscrews & fits the bellows directly w/ no adapter. I am not yet competent enough w/ computers to display a picture. It is p 39 & the Schmidt catalog is simply a reprint of the Leica catalog w/ Schmidt date April 1968 on the front cover. Leica rear cover w/ date removed when I received it from Schmidt in 1968.

 

As to two versions of version III I only know of one. Could someone clarify please?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited November 23, 2010 by Michael Geschlecht

[jc_braconi]

As to your French Catalogue Jean Claude; I also have a 1973 catalog, in English, given to me @ the factory in Wetzlar in 1973 which is the same as yours p 48 & 70 except it has additional english system approximations following metric entries. Also it does not have the notation or box yours does on p 70 referent the 280 as per 16598.

Michael

I also have the 1973 German edition catalog and it is exactly the same as the French one.

It was also like this in 1971 p73 and in 1976 too..p98 for the adaptors.

I made the box and notation.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[luigi bertolotti]

Hello Everybody,

 

....

As to two versions of version III I only know of one. Could someone clarify please?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

That's simple... look at the picture of JC item and at the image of the catalog he posted: both version 3, but the finishing of the aperture and focusing rings is different: maybe this is the only difference, indeed...

Btw... in our wiki section the picture of the V3 is misleading.... I think it shows the lens mounted onto a Televit...

Edited November 23, 2010 by luigi bertolotti

[jc_braconi]

That's simple... look at the picture of JC item and at the image of the catalog he posted: both version 3, but the finishing of the aperture and focusing rings is different: maybe this is the only difference, indeed...

Btw... in our wiki section the picture of the V3 is misleading.... I think it shows the lens mounted onto a Televit...

Luigi, you find this difference on quite every telelens Summicron 90, Tele Elmar 135, Elmarit 135 etc, it is just a cosmetic evolution.