Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gvaliquette

Summitar collapses safely into M9!

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

YES!

 

Leica says that the Elmar-M can safely be collapsed in the M9, and I have been collapsing mine without any problem.

 

So I compared the Elmar-M and the Summitar (SM, with an M ring). The diameter of the inner end of both lens tubes seems to be the same. The collapsed Summitar does not penetrate as deeply into the body as the Elmar-M. So I tried it, and the M9 came through unscated!

 

So, yes, the Summitar can be collapsed safely into the M9. Of course, always mount and dismount all collapsible lenses extended.

 

Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, yes, the Summitar can be collapsed safely into the M9. Of course, always mount and dismount all collapsible lenses extended.

 

Leica's M9 instructions warn against collapsing lenses into the body.

 

All Summitars are not alike.

 

My Summitar does not collapse into the M9 body.

 

Let's be careful of generalizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pico,

 

That is interresting. The Summilux lens serial number database dates my Summitar, sn 792xxx to 1950. It is a 10 diaphragm blades version. What about yours?

 

Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 1946 Summitar that collapses into the body without a problem. Like you measured it more out of interest than worry because it is clearly shallower than the Elmar M, and we know that collapses without any problems.

 

From the mounting flange to the fully collapsed end of the lens the Elmar is approx. 20.27mm deep and from the M adapter flange to the fully collapsed end of the Summitar lens its only 16mm. So there is 4.75mm additional clearance with the Summitar that should encourage anybody to try one, its a lovely fun lens with many quirky character traits, but very sharp when it counts. I doubt that the mechanical side of Summitar design fundamentally changed (at all), but if it did it would need to be a massive re-design to gain an additional 4.75mm on the back end. And even then it would only be as deep as an Elmar.

 

As an additional note. The M9 lens mount to shutter surround (the body casting which would probably stop most lens going further) is approx. 22.25mm deep. Which means there is already a massive 1.5mm gap that separates the back end of the Elmar from the body casting. Overall depth to the actual shutter is approx. 25mm.

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree - and collapsing my 1953 version into the M8/9 body is not an issue either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely distance of film from the flange in old Ms is the same as sensor from the flange in new Ms... so all bayonet lenses can collapse... just do not attach them or remove them in collapsed position

 

sensors are easily damaged as opposed to film (also protected by the shutter)

 

Leica is, I guess, just making sure we use our senses

 

... or did I got something wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surely distance of film from the flange in old Ms is the same as sensor from the flange in new Ms... so all bayonet lenses can collapse... just do not attach them or remove them in collapsed position

 

sensors are easily damaged as opposed to film (also protected by the shutter)

 

Leica is, I guess, just making sure we use our senses

 

... or did I got something wrong?

 

Actually, it's the distance from the flange to the shutter and the shape of the opening in front of the shutter that matter. But you are right: ALWAYS mount and dismount the lenses extended.

 

Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surely distance of film from the flange in old Ms is the same as sensor from the flange in new Ms... so all bayonet lenses can collapse... just do not attach them or remove them in collapsed position

 

sensors are easily damaged as opposed to film (also protected by the shutter)

 

Leica is, I guess, just making sure we use our senses

 

... or did I got something wrong?

The old Elmars have a rather sharp three-lug ring at the back. Leica is surely not talking about the length of the lenses, but about the chance of scratching the inside of the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right Jaap.

 

Even if you try to put the lens into the camera body fully collapsed and at a 45 degree angle I can't see how the rear element can reach the shutter. Simple geometry means its impossible because the mounting flange touches the body bayonet ring long before anything gets dangerous.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: Elmar-M - SN 3668xxx onwards are safe according to Leica customer service. I'd be very careful with earlier examples.

 

If it saves people from wasting a good lens that they could use on their M9 you don't need to be very careful at all, if in doubt you just need to measure how deep the lens is when its collapsed. If its less than 22mm its fine.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....surely distance of film from the flange in old Ms is the same as sensor from the flange in new Ms... so all bayonet lenses can collapse... just do not attach them or remove them in collapsed position

 

......

 

I just sold a collapsing 90mm M mount Elmar f:4.0. It collapsed only part way into the M9, much less than it collapsed into the M4 the buyer showed up with. Judging by the light mark it made in the M9, It is obstructed by the flat, horizontal flange at the bottom of the body cavity, 1/2inch deeper than the lens/body mating surface. That flat flange is part of the housing for the meter sensor. In effect, the older Ms have a larger cavity at the bottom. Careful! 2 pics attached, of M9 and M4

 

Larry

Edited by likalar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just sold a collapsing 90mm M mount Elmar f:4.0. It collapsed only part way into the M9, much less than it collapsed into the M4 the buyer showed up with. Judging by the light mark it made in the M9, It is obstructed by the flat, horizontal flange at the bottom of the body cavity, 1/2inch deeper than the lens/body mating surface. That flat flange is part of the housing for the meter sensor. In effect, the older Ms have a larger cavity at the bottom. Careful! 2 pics attached, of M9 and M4

 

Larry

 

Would that be the reason it says on page 110 of the English Manual 'Important - Cannot be used - retractable Elmar 90mm f4' (amongst others)?

 

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would that be the reason it says on page 110 of the English Manual 'Important - Cannot be used - retractable Elmar 90mm f4' (amongst others)?

 

 

Steve

 

Steve, I guess that would be the reason. I posted the photos because of the statement made in post #8 "... so all bayonet lenses can collapse..." I think many of the people on this thread, or those reading it, are referring to the length of the lens, collapsed, being the deciding factor, when actually there are additional factors. I'm glad you found it useful (or maybe that was sarcasm?). Hopefully it was helpful.

 

Larry

Edited by likalar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pico,

 

That is interresting. The Summilux lens serial number database dates my Summitar, sn 792xxx to 1950. It is a 10 diaphragm blades version. What about yours?

 

Guy

 

My Summitar is 669xxx from 1948 and has 10 diaphragm blades as well.

 

Mine imposed upon the same point that Larry posted.

Edited by pico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My Summitar is 669xxx from 1948 and has 10 diaphragm blades as well.

 

Mine imposed upon the same point that Larry posted.

 

Well OK that is worrying. Can you measure the depth of the lens when collapsed from the bayonet adapter to the rearmost part of the lens tube and report back?

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the summicron 5cm collapsible?

 

The tube of the Summicron is the shortest of all collapsible lenses (before the Makro-Elmar), so it protudes least into the body. You can find some measurements of collapsible lenses - especially the Summitar in this thread:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/102865-screwmount-elmar-50mm-m9.html#post1086292

 

Besides the old collapsible 4/90mm Elmar I should certainly rule out the 2.5/5cm Hektor for collapsing in a digital M, for the tube measures more than 22mm, which I call the very limit. The Hektor already hit the shields for the shutter of a Leica II.

 

If you don't use the Hektor (who does???), take care, that you only fix or loosen the lens, when it is not collapsed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Jim J
      I have a 1936 IIIa (s.n. 184223) that is in need of a lens, and I am now in a position to purchase one.  I am leaning towards an f3.5 Elmar, as I think it complements the design of the camera beautifully both in compactness and in general appearance.  The other lenses that are possibilities look a bit heavier and some even a bit too modern (even though some of them are not) for an 85 year old camera.  I do have some points that I would appreciate comments on from those who know more about things Leica than I do, before I part with my cash.
      Firstly, condition.  Quite a few lenses of this age have either dust or haze in the optics, and others have light marks.  Would I be correct in assuming that dust or haze (provided the haze is not excessive) could be fixed with a CLA, as could a stiff aperture ring or focusing ring, but marks would generally not go away?
      Secondly, coatings.  I see that, as a rule, Pre-War lenses are clear, and Post-War lenses are coated, and I understand the basic reasoning behind coating lenses is to cut down internal reflections but, in lenses of this quality, is there really much of a difference between the two?
      As for the lenses that I’m looking at:
      Elmar f3.5:  My preferred option, as it is so light and compact and just looks so right on a Barnack Leica;
      Elmar f2.8: Aside from the extra f-stop, is there any reason for preferring this over the f3.5 Elmar?  I find it does not have quite the same visual appeal as the f3.5 Elmar, but it could be useful in low light situations.
      Summar f2:  Maybe another lens to consider.  Again, not quite the same visual appeal as the f3.5 Elmar, but it could also be useful in low light situations.
      Summitar: From what I can see, it appears to be an updated and improved version of the Summar.  Compared with the Elmar, and even the Summar, it looks a trifle bulky (yes, I know it isn’t really).
      Summicron: I’m not so keen on this one, as I find the appearance of the earlier lenses more appealing.  I would also prefer to fit my camera with a lens that’s a bit closer to what it originally had.  I have heard that the front element is made of an unusually soft glass, which means that these lenses are often badly scratched.  Is this so?
      Thank you in advance for helping a newcomer to the world of Leicas.
    • By max.mlzr
      Hallo Freunde der analogen Fotografie,
      seit einer Weile fotografiere ich nun schon analog, erst mit einer Canon AE1 und jetzt mit einer Olympus OM1, da ich vollmechanische Kameras mehr mag, so kommt es auch, dass ich mir jetzt eine alte Leica zulegen will. Da mein Budget als Schüler begrenzt ist und ich Schraubleicas bald schöner als dass M-System finde, habe ich meine Suche auf die IIIF, IIIC und IIIG eingegrenzt, wobei die IIIG auch schon fast zu teuer ist. Dazu soll es noch ein schönes Elmar, Summitar oder sogar Summicron sein.
      Da ich Händlern generell mehr vertraue bin ich auf 2 Angebote gestoßen:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Leica IIIC mit Summitar 50mm f/2 und Beli für 500€: https://www.meister-camera.com/de/gebraucht/5297/leica-iii-c                                                                                                                                                          Leica IIIF VLW mit Elmar 50mm f/2 für 445€: https://www.leica-store-muenchen.de/de/gebraucht/15166/leica-iiif-vlw-3550mm
      Ich weiß wirklich nicht, welches Angebot ich nehmen soll, da beide Kameras ziemlich gleich sind (Der Blitzanschluss der IIIF ist mir egal).
             Die IIIC hat halt noch einen Belichtungsmesser und das bessere Objektiv für Naturlichtfotografie, jedoch, hat Sie kein Rückgaberecht, der Zustand ist schlechter (das Chrome blättert ab), sie hat                 Selbstauslöser (eigentlich ein cooles Feature, was jedoch kein Muss ist) und ich habe von vielen gehört, dass es nur selten ist, dass man ein Summitar ohne Kratzer findet, da dass Glas sehr weich           ist. Objektiv und Kamera sind beide von ca. 1949/50.
             Die IIIF hat an sich ein (licht-)schwächeres Objektiv (ist das ein großer Unterschied?), keinen Belichtungsmesser (welchen ich eigentlich nicht wirklich brauche, jedoch ist dieser ganz nett) und ist ein         Umbau (was nicht unbedingt schlecht ist?). Jedoch hat der Body einen besseren Zustand, die Kamera hat ein Rückgaberecht und ist 50€ günstiger. Der Body ist auch so von 1949/50, von dem                    Objektiv kenne ich aber Jahr, was auch bedeuten könnte, dass es keine Vergütung hat.
      Ich gehe bei beiden Kameras davon aus, dass ich sie noch justieren lassen muss, dazu will ich sie für 120€ zu  Oleg Khalyavin schicken, hat da jemand Erfahrung?
       
      Schon mal vielen Dank im Vorraus für eure Antworten!
       
      Max
       
    • By Baybers
      Hi,
      I'm looking at getting a Summitar and was wondering whether anybody can shed light on the two variants, namely the round aperture bladed version approx. pre 1950 and the later type with the hexagonal arranged aperture. Generally the latter version seems to be a little less expensive and less sought after if my observations are correct. 
      Both lenses opened at f2 there is clearly no difference in aperture shape but any smaller setting then does the hexagonal opening perhaps provide a little less appealing bokah for instance? Or perhaps there may be other discernible differences?
      Thanks in advance.   
    • By lynnb
      hot day outside a tyre centre, Sydney, summer 2016
      IIIf Summitar 5cm f/2 LTM Agfa APX100 in Rodinal
    • By Imar
      I've recently bought a Summitar in very good condition (I hope) from an Austrian Leica specialised shop. It is the ten aperture blade version instead of the six aperture blade version. Overall condition looks very good. 
      No visible scratches on the front element or back element and focus is smooth. 
       
      While scanning the first results I noticed that the centre of the frame has less contrast and is lighter than the outer portions of the frame. First I thought this is internal reflections or incoming light from the side. I didn't use a hood.
      But looking at more frames it also shows while the sun is coming from behind me so flare is not so likely. 
       
      Does anyone has an idea about what this could be?
       
      I’ve attached some unedited scans. The are shot with Tri X / TMax 400 @ 250, developed for 6 min. in HC-110 at 20C.
       
      It is not in every frame. I used the sunny 16 rule (lens only goes to 12.5 so I compensated for that). 
       
      Hope to find out if it is the lens, light conditions or something else. 
       
      Thanks!

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! /applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4446/37515080780_5bd10f554b_o.jpg&key=c48bf3617b3fabed5ab860780caaa1030b1ef6f3563f4a3543424582581c10d1">  

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! /applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4446/37741494632_054785b078_o.jpg&key=8ee285bd6bc4f8c568a621ba5c0ef1d4423594079d9214305b3cf0f9caaddfd9">  

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! /applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4506/37515083850_f5ef8db392_o.jpg&key=c9da5e213ea20966488b915416c29cb2734d151c65f906a0e4221ebdaf31d8b9">
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy