visoflex lens on M body mount

[gogopix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a series of cameras adapters and lenses, and have noticed an interesting anomoly; the leica "M" Visoflex M mount is too thick to fit into a regular M mount!

 

I can understand Leica didnt want Viso lenes accidentally maounted directly to the camera, but I have a situation (that I will explain whebn the test is done! :-) but i have to put a Viso lens on an adapter that has M body mount - and it doent go! (it is actiatlly the Leica 14596 bellows adapter with M mount) the release is in the way and even when I take that off the mount on the viso lens is too thick for the mount spacings.

 

BTW they DO work the right wany . No problem Viso on Visoflex III and M lenses on bellows adapter just fine.

 

Was this deliberate? Is there ANY adapter for Viso to M (other than the TzBOO that is too thick, or was it the TXFOO?)

 

any help welcome

[Advertisement]

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

[gogopix]

Robert ?

Carsten?

 

any ideas?

 

thx

[carstenw]

I can't find any mention of an adapter named 14596 anywhere. What does it do?

 

My Telyt-V 280/4.8 III fits directly on my M8 with no problems... This isn't so useful as it sits too close to the sensor.

 

The M8 has a little collar around the lens release button on the M8 which prevents the Bellows II from being mounted directly, and this is indeed good, because otherwise you could not reach the lens release button once it was on!

 

There is an M-to-M adapter which might help you out: 16469Y. As I don't have any of the "thick" Viso-M-mounts to test on it, I don't know if it would work, but it fits on the M8, and all my M-mount lenses fit on it, including the 280/4.8 III. It fits on both sides of the Visoflex III. It doesn't fit on my 16596G Bellows II-to-M adapter. The adapter has a diameter slightly too large, and is blocked by a (probably deliberately) raised lens release button collar. It also won't fit on the back of my Bellows II, being too tight to turn the last little bit, although it does start to turn.

 

Note that it looks like it may not work, visually, with a thicker M-mount. Instead of just flanges to catch the M-mount, it has V-shaped grooves, which look like they may stop the last bit of the turn from too-thick mounts.

[gogopix]

Thanks Carsten

I did mean the 16596G. It is M not Viso mount .

 

I have a little project that requires either an Viso to M39 (the latter the male) so I can use a special adapter that I have that has a M39 body mount (it is for screw Viso. For some reason they dont make in M Viso mount.)

 

Yes I too notice that Viso will go into M bayonet but only part way. Risky!

 

Maybe some "Dremel" work will help

 

Alternative is to find an Viso mount. If I can find a cheap Viso II or III I will buy and the just take out screw mount and put in the Viso bayonet. Tapping holes easier than shaving mount things with split in them.(Was ist dieses Ding auf deutsch, Anschlussklemme oder Fahne?)

 

Grüß

[jaapv]

I'm not quite sure I follow you correctly, but if you mean what I think you do: Zeiss will supply an M banjonet (male) for 26 Euro.

[carstenw]

Okay, I am hopelessly lost here

 

Let's take it one step at a time: you have the M8 with a female M-mount. You have a lens with a male Viso-M-mount, and want a Viso-M-mount - to - M39 mount, so that you can use your existing M39 (female) - to - M-mount (male) adapter?

 

Don't dremel anything yet. There is probably a good reason that Leica did things the way they did them... I cannot imagine how the Bellows II 16596 adapter would help you, because it has a male screw mount with a much larger diameter than the M-mount, and I am not aware of any adapters which take a male Bellows II mount.

 

(Ich habe keine Ahnung was so ein Anschluß heisst.)

[gogopix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

ok,

I have a camera and an adapter from a leice M39 lens to that camera. It is registered (that is the distance flace to sensor) is just right for viso SCREW lenses.

Now , I want to mount a bayonet Viso M lens to that camera!

 

there is no adapter for viso bayonet to the camera I want to use.

 

so, is buy a 39>52 and a 52> 67 step up rings (I cross nfingers on the pitch) This gives me a 67mm female mount on the camera (forget image circle stuff for now, doesnt matter it will turn out)

 

I then have a bellows mount with 67mm MALe and a M mount from the 16596.

 

SO, I can now mount Leica M lenses to my camera.

 

But I dont want that. The flangetosensor is too big for the M lens.

 

However, for viso, this combination is just right (except for afew MM due to step up.

Since MYCAMERA to L29 for viso distance is right, by changing to bayonet, likly bayonet Viso will work (I dont need infinity focus, just 100 ft or so

 

when I get working (or not) I will show. But for now everything works but the mount. I CAN use it as is, if I risk the viso on M (non Viso) M female mount coming loose.

 

still with me?

 

:-)

 

but bthe BEST is if I can find a THIN M39 male to VISO M female adapter!

 

regards

[ho_co]

Victor, you'd best skip this response because I have no idea what you're doing.

 

When you say M39--do you mean Leica screw mount? I know F39 is the pitch and diameter of the E39 filters. But that's just my curiosity.

 

The screw-to-bayonet adapters are 1 mm thick because the M body (flange-to-film plane) is 1 mm thinner than the screw-mount bodies.

 

I'm sure you know that, and I don't know what you're doing as I said, but it seems to me that that thickness precludes your doing what I think you're doing.

 

And I don't understand a distinction Viso M as compared to M. What product is made to fit a Viso M mount? There's only one M mount. (I know, you say the Viso M is thicker, but I don't know what that means or how it could be.)

 

As I said, ignore it if I'm totally off base, as I imagine I must be.

 

 

--HC

[carstenw]

Howard, it seems that some Visoflex lenses (not my 280/4.8 III) have male bayonet flanges which are a little thicker that normal, to allow Leica to stop them from mounting onto certain cameras/adapters. The 16469Y adapter is one such adapter which rather than being open behind the flanges has a V-shaped notch into which the lens flanges mount, and the narrowness of the V is presumably tuned to disallow certain lenses.

 

Anyway, Victor apparently has a Visoflex lens with an M-mount with the thick flanges (65mm Macro?), and a camera with a screw mount of some sort, as well as an adapter to go from that screw mount to an M39 Leica screw mount. Now he needs the last step to be able to run his experiment: a male M39 to female M-mount adapter.

 

I don't know of such an adapter, I am sorry to say. It would mess up the register distances in all Leica-sanctioned cases, so I doubt Leica makes one.

[gogopix]

Yes, that is exactly it. The 16596 Leica "M" CAMERA mount does not accept the lens I have which is a visoflex M bayont (others are the Leica screw M39/L39 depending on whether Leica or someone elses lens is involved, THOSE are the same.

 

So it seems Leica was OK with screw lenses to screw bodies even for long Viso lenses, but 'helped' us not make that mistake with the M bayonet. I need to see which one is 'thicker'

 

For correct registry distance with my camera either I will fall withing focus range or I will shim out with extenders.

 

The 1mm discussion is also correc t, but only for the M non viso lenses. Registry distance for the Viso's is very large due to need for Visoflex in between. Hence there is the TXBOO and TZFOO which boggle my mind since even though they focus it is guessing.

Ever 'guess' with a 400mm lens, full open??? :-)

 

Well, I will keep you posted as I try this.

 

One last question. Can one buy a 'part' the visoflex body female mount from Lewica? I could then use my own

 

regards

[ho_co]

Carsten--

Thanks for the new info! As I said, I thought "M mount" is "M mount," and had never seen the need for making sure people who didn't know didn't mess up. Boy, Leica has been ahead of me forever! One of the reasons I like them, I guess.

 

Victor--

Thanks for raising the question; it gave me a chance to get fresh information.

 

Sorry I was no help with the problem.

 

HC

[gogopix]

ok

now another issue comes up.

I tried the 200mm f4 that I assumed was a viso lens (regular M39 lenses are REALLY short flange to film, so it wouldnt work on my adapters at all if it were not a VISO)

 

so without an adapter I set up the Visoflex 400mm 6.8 and just stuck it in the space of the M39 to hasselblad adapter that I had taken out.

 

It turns out, for infiniy focus (or any focus) the flange of the M Bayonet is farther into the throat of the lens opening than the 1mm difference that the M39 to M bayonet difference is.

That is why you cant use M lenses on screw mount, but it mean thet the registry distance for the screw VISO is MUCH bigger than that for the Bayonet VISO, by maybe 3-5mm.

 

Does anyone know about this?

 

regards

[robsteve]

Victor:

 

The Viso lenses for both the M and L39 have mounts that are shorter so there is space for the visoflex and still reach infinity focus. I think the 200mm you bought was not a viso mount lens, but just a normal rangefinder coupled lens. That would be another clue that it is not a viso lens. If there is rangefinder coupling, it is not a viso lens.

 

 

There is also an adapter to adapt Leica 39mm viso lenses to the M mount Viso specification. It is fairly thick and includes a tripod mount foot. To go the other way would be impossible because the M mount viso is already too long for the screw mount viso.

 

To see if your adaptations are possible, you need to find the lens registration of what you are trying to adapt to and make sure it is longer than the Viso M registration, plus adapter. Here is a table to start your research.

 

Camera Mounts Sorted by Register

Robert

[gogopix]

Dear Robert

 

I am pretty sure the 200/4 lens is a viso, since it focused perfectly on an adapter that coupled to a medium format camera! (pretty lomg reg distance.

 

The issue is that the 400mm with bayonet is off more than the 1mm LTM to M regular differece. It may have been that the older visoflex I for screw leneses had a longer reg distance (thru the viso) than the II and III Visos.

[gogopix]

BTW

Thanks for the reference. There are several of these. This one doesnt have the Contax 645 eg

 

but anyway you can see what I was saying that the Viso I was 62.5 and the Viso II and III are only 40mm. Now for the visoflex, the flange distance is the depth, NOT the distance to folm Since the camera is asame only the 22,5 mm difference matters.

 

Luckily I have enough depth in the camera to put the lens flange (that is, the body female flange) the right distance plus/minus a few mm (so I may lose infinity, but for birds I hope they are not there!

 

Anyway thank for the reference. I measured about an inch (not actually having a good infinity ref here in the house!)

 

so Now I know what I must do.

I just need to find someone to do it. It will be simpler. An aluminuim torus with an adapter on each side about 3mm thick!

I'll keep anyone posted who is interested

 

Maybe by now you can see what I am trying to do.

[intransit]

I have many a time learned much by reading posts here.

 

However I can not find one thread in respect to:

 

Adding a Visoflex I LTM + 200/f4.5 LTM lens To M mount (M6 or even an M8)

 

Can any of you shed any light as to whether this is a plausible idea, and what sort of mounting ring is available for male - LTM to female - M Bayonet

 

Thanks very much in advance for your advice.

 

Lawrence

 

whoyouknow @gmail.com