wlaidlaw Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share #21 Posted October 2, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) JC, If it was to fit the whole lens, I don't understand why the adapters are 63.5mm long. If they were a direct replacement for a Visoflex, would they not be 41mm long or is this to do replacing a Visoflex 1 about which I know absolutely zero. Did Visoflex 1's use lenses, with different flange to film distances (92.3mm = 63.5 + 28.8) Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here Flange to Flange distance of a Visoflex body?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jc_braconi Posted October 2, 2012 Share #22 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) JC, If it was to fit the whole lens, I don't understand why the adapters are 63.5mm long. If they were a direct replacement for a Visoflex, would they not be 41mm long or is this to do replacing a Visoflex 1 about which I know absolutely zero. Did Visoflex 1's use lenses, with different flange to film distances (92.3mm = 63.5 + 28.8) Wilson these adapters are substitutes of the Viso I and Visos II & III with OUBIO you can see on the different pics that the lens are complete on Visos and on the Tube 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 October 2, 2012 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/189144-flange-to-flange-distance-of-a-visoflex-body/?do=findComment&comment=2130911'>More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 2, 2012 Share #23 Posted October 2, 2012 Hey JC.... what about the TE 180 in your 2nd pic ? Recent acquisition? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share #24 Posted October 2, 2012 JC, Light dawns Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted October 2, 2012 Share #25 Posted October 2, 2012 Hey JC.... what about the TE 180 in your 2nd pic ? Recent acquisition? Luigi, you have already seen it years ago ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 2, 2012 Share #26 Posted October 2, 2012 Luigi, you have already seen it years ago ... Yes... ... but had to surf all my collection of your pictures to recall it... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdavis Posted October 2, 2012 Share #27 Posted October 2, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) JC - where's your TZOON? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckrider Posted October 3, 2012 Share #28 Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) this tread series is becoming camera porn, I enjoy! Thanks for the pics to JC! Is there more availiable? If it was to fit the whole lens, I don't understand why the adapters are 63.5mm long. If they were a direct replacement for a Visoflex, would they not be 41mm long or is this to do replacing a Visoflex 1 about which I know absolutely zero. Did Visoflex 1's use lenses, with different flange to film distances (92.3mm = 63.5 + 28.8) Wilson No, You adapted 200&400mm lenses on Viso 1 direct mounted, for Viso 2&3 You need a ring 16466= OUBIO. OUBIO plus Viso 2/3 = Viso 1= TZOON flange. Thomas ps.: question @all: I did internet recherche, but could not find a M to M 41mm = Viso 2/3 substitute. I'm sure I saw a Leitz ring with this dimension & usage, but can't remember. Edited October 3, 2012 by duckrider 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 3, 2012 Share #29 Posted October 3, 2012 this tread series is becoming camera porn, I enjoy! ........... ps.: question @all: I did internet recherche, but could not find a M to M 41mm = Viso 2/3 substitute. I'm sure I saw a Leitz ring with this dimension & usage, but can't remember. I am almost sure that such a tube never existed... the "long mounts" made for 90 f2 and 135 2,8 have a length in that range, but not M bayonet in front... the tube to adapt Viso lenses to R mount does exist, but of course different also... And after all, at the times of Viso 2/3 the lenses made only for it were all "long" (280 to 560/800 - the 180 is an "odd one"...) ... how should one use them without any focusing facility ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted October 6, 2012 Share #30 Posted October 6, 2012 ps.: question @all: I did internet recherche, but could not find a M to M 41mm = Viso 2/3 substitute. I'm sure I saw a Leitz ring with this dimension & usage, but can't remember. I have one of this tube 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share #31 Posted October 6, 2012 JC, Does it have a letter or number code? Meanwhile I have found a cheap Visoflex II body, which will work. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted October 6, 2012 Share #32 Posted October 6, 2012 JC, Does it have a letter or number code? Meanwhile I have found a cheap Visoflex II body, which will work. Wilson Wilson, I cannot answer soon as I am far from my stuff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckrider Posted October 10, 2012 Share #33 Posted October 10, 2012 I am almost sure that such a tube never existed... Ha Ha ! Even after so many bottles of cheap Bordeuax my brain is still working: Leitz General Catalogue of Photographic Equipment - Ernst Leitz (Firm) - Google Books Of course the only Leitz M-product with "preview" was able to use this adapter so long time ago! code was 543195 have fun Thomas Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share #34 Posted October 10, 2012 We have been discussing this on a couple of other threads. Here is a picture of the rare 543195 adapter. Wilson 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/189144-flange-to-flange-distance-of-a-visoflex-body/?do=findComment&comment=2138300'>More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 10, 2012 Share #35 Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) Ha Ha !Even after so many bottles of cheap Bordeuax my brain is still working: Leitz General Catalogue of Photographic Equipment - Ernst Leitz (Firm) - Google Books Of course the only Leitz M-product with "preview" was able to use this adapter so long time ago! code was 543195 have fun Thomas Shame on me.... .... damn, quoted only into the microphotograpy and into the Leicina catalogs only !!! Btw... Leicina is history... but microphotography gear is bound to long lifecycles.... could be that Leica is able to revitalize it as is... Edited October 10, 2012 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share #36 Posted October 10, 2012 Shame on me.... .... damn, quoted only into the microphotograpy and into the Leicina catalogs only !!!Btw... Leicina is history... but microphotography gear is bound to long lifecycles.... could be that Leica is able to revitalize it as is... I sent an email to Andreas about a week ago, asking is he could forward a letter from me to Jesko von Oeynhausen, enquiring if it might be possible to put a 41mm M extension tube back into production but I haven't heard anything back. I did have Jesko's email address from some years ago, when he was involved with the development of the SF58-D but it seems to have deleted itself from my email system when I upgraded from Entourage to Outlook. You would have thought that if the R to M adapter is €250, then this ought to be less. It is the sort of thing the Chinese can knock out for less than €30 but from Leica, I would guess €180. When you can pick up a broken Viso II for a fraction of this price, I am not 100% sure I would go for one, unless they can do it a bit cheaper. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted October 11, 2012 Share #37 Posted October 11, 2012 We have been discussing this on a couple of other threads. Here is a picture of the rare 543195 adapter. Wilson Yes Wilson, this is the one I have. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share #38 Posted October 11, 2012 The good news is that I have Amadeo Muscelli interested in making a short run of these. The only difficulty is the female bayonet, which is more complicated than you might think. Not only does it have to have the spring loaded latch but the actual camming slopes of the bayonet are sprung to hold the lens firmly in place. It may be that we have to approach Leica to supply these bayonets. They do hold spares for older M cameras which would work. It is best to get a single batch as they tend to vary in thickness from batch to batch (Information from CRR in Luton). This would alter the length of the tube slightly. See photo below of spring loading of bayonet slopes. Wilson 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/189144-flange-to-flange-distance-of-a-visoflex-body/?do=findComment&comment=2139157'>More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 11, 2012 Share #39 Posted October 11, 2012 The good news is that I have Amadeo Muscelli interested in making a short run of these. The only difficulty is the female bayonet, which is more complicated than you might think. Not only does it have to have the spring loaded latch but the actual camming slopes of the bayonet are sprung to hold the lens firmly in place. It may be that we have to approach Leica to supply these bayonets. They do hold spares for older M cameras which would work. It is best to get a single batch as they tend to vary in thickness from batch to batch (Information from CRR in Luton). This would alter the length of the tube slightly. See photo below of spring loading of bayonet slopes. Wilson I know a pair of Italian labs who ought to have a certain number of spare female bayonets (by sure I SAW some at one of them last year... most of the "body" type but also a pair of the "Viso II/III type"... slightly different latch I seem to remember...) : do you think is worth I try to contact them ? the slightly differences in thickness maybe are not a great issue... after all, the goal is to have direct control of focus on LCD/EVF... we haven't to deal with the delicate coupling to RF cam. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share #40 Posted October 11, 2012 I know a pair of Italian labs who ought to have a certain number of spare female bayonets (by sure I SAW some at one of them last year... most of the "body" type but also a pair of the "Viso II/III type"... slightly different latch I seem to remember...) : do you think is worth I try to contact them ? the slightly differences in thickness maybe are not a great issue... after all, the goal is to have direct control of focus on LCD/EVF... we haven't to deal with the delicate coupling to RF cam. Luigi, I agree on the dimensions. If for example we made the total flange to flange distance 40.9mm, the only effects would be a tiny reduction in the nearest focus distance and that the lens would focus slightly beyond infinity but at least we would be sure of getting to infinity. An error in the other direction of a flange to flange distance of 40.1mm would result in a failure to focus to infinity. Yes please do ask if they would have some bayonets for sale. Amadeo says he can make up the latching arrangements, so probably not important if we have body or Viso bayonets but it is the cam slope springing that worries him. You first have to cut the slot, then undercut the cam slope to free it to move, stretch the sprung slope to widen the slot at the open end and finally machine or grind the throat to ensure it is cylindrical. A lot of operations. If you look inside an M9 bayonet, you will see it is even more complicated with plastic anti vibration pads and hairsprings. Wilson 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.