Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pforde

LSM (M39) on M6 problem

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am using a 1954 Summitar 5cm f2 lens on my M6 with a screw mount to M mount adaptor. As carefully as I try to focus nothing seems sharp on my negatives at all f stops.

Could there be a problem with the adapter? Should I just use M mount lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is the only lens you have that problem with then it is either the lens or the adapter (not the camera). With a good adapter (one of the currently produced Voigtlander are about as good as they get) and a properly adjusted LTM lens (I've never purchased one that didn't focus perfectly on all of my M cameras) you should have zero problems with use on your M6.

 

My suggestion would be to buy a good adapter if you don't already have one, if the problem persists then it's probably the lens and it will need professional adjustment

 

Don't let this scare you away from all LTM lenses as they can be some of the best bang for the buck lenses out there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum!

 

 

Isn't the Summitar collapsible? You are using it in the extended position, right. (I mean, someone has to ask.

)

 

The rangefinder does track when you turn the lens, doesn't it?

 

What condition is the lens in? The diaphragm? The coating?

 

Remember that no 1954 lens, no matter its condition, is going to meet modern standards.

 

You don't say how unsharp the pictures are. Can you post a sample image, and maybe a picture of the lens with adapter?

 

If it's a Leica screw to bayonet adapter, I don't think it's going to be at fault.

 

Have you tried the camera with another lens? If that works, we can pretty much eliminate the camera as being the problem.

Edited by ho_co

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a 50mm lens at an aperture f/8 or smaller, there's enough depth of focus for minor errors from a cheap adapter to be pretty insignificant. (The adapter is about 0.9mm thick, and depth of focus about 0.48mm.)

 

So check everything else first. Is the lens clean? For various reasons lenses of that vintage can be hazy until cleaned.

 

Is the rangefinder out of adjustment? Focus the lens on infinity; are distant objects (more than 100m) sharp?

 

And - as Howard says - make sure the lens is properly extended. Everyone has forgotten that at some stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And - as Howard says - make sure the lens is properly extended. Everyone has forgotten that at some stage.

 

yes indeed, if even by a little. Note that you can only twist and lock it when it is fully extended so that's a sign that it is properly pulled out.

 

I got a Summitar with my LTM kit and absolutely love the lens (and its name, too). It is one of my more frequently used lenses, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 48 Summitar is a great lens, perfect focus on my M9 at f2.0. (Better focus than both my '60s-'70s Summicrons.)

 

I did pick up a Canon 50 1.8 Serenar from about '54 that is way off in focus. I suspect it has been poorly serviced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks all. I discovered it was my scanner (or use of) that was the problem. I shot a roll of Kodak BW400 CN and had it developed. I was quite pleased with the results. This is my first Leica and you could imagine my consternation when the results were not what I expected. I'm finally getting back into the darkroom after a 10 year hiatus.

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 nefarious
      Hopefully nobody minds me asking an ignorant question...
      I have an LTM Elmar 50mm f/2.8 and, reading the Ken Rockwell review, he recommends a Yellow #022 39mm filter for b&w photography with that lens.  However, what I am really unsure about is how the filters fit to my lens and, if I am not to buy an authentic Leitz/Leica filter, what I need to look for on eBay, etc.  I don't see any thread inside the collapsible lens so I am guessing that the filters either fit over the lens like the lens cap or somehow grip onto the inside of the lens.  
      Grateful for any insights plus suggestions re where I can get them!
    • By xanimo
      Hello,
      First to clarify and broaden the breadth of this inquiry, I am generally wondering what, if any significance smaller production batches have or reasoning behind such occurrences?  I.e. lack of resources or market demand, gifts for individuals/entities revered by Leica management, contracts at the request of certain 'connected' individuals, etc.?  Second to narrow the scope, my particular question is in regards to a production run of 50 spanning 193451-193500 for the Model IIIa, one of which I inherited from my grandfather several years ago in addition to 10/30/1957 IIIg GOOEL, 1/3700, and the most puzzling quagmire of them all and obviously not applicable, a 'model defying' Canon M39 screwmount from 1949-52(?) that I haven't been able to identify. 
      To provide some more context, I have recently found myself in a place where I am 'reconnecting' with my grandfather, roots, knowledge of self, et al. which leads me to this forum where I am hoping to learn more about where he might've purchased them, where they originated from, etc.  I have just heard back from a Leica Technical Advisor from the New Jersey branch who advised me to submit an inquiry to Leica headquarters, in addition to try this forum(!), which I did and am now awaiting response, but if any of you happen to know more specifics I'd be very grateful!  Or if you have any insights into the question generally please feel free to post!  Regardless, if you've read this I thank you for your time!  Also I've attached a more complete album below as oppose to upload only a few:
      https://photos.app.goo.gl/N5dSY7NC62MCYvJ37
    • 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 LikesLife
      Hi. Used a Leitz M39 to Leica m Adapter on my M10 with a summaron 35/2.8 lens. The rangefinder coupling is not working and my M10 terminates the liveview witin seconds and sets back the manual lens selection to ‚auto‘. Does anybody have an explanation/solution? Thx a lot!
  • 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