Jump to content

Some details on the early 105 f/6.3 Mountain Elmar


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 hours ago, sandro said:

As I discussed in another thread I am interested to find out when the infrared sign R appeared on Leitz lenses. That was around 1933/34 and it would be nice of some of you could check on your 105mm Elmar lenses of approximately those years if the R indication appears or not. I am trying to make a list with serial numbers of several lenses and it seems to move around a bit.

So any information about the Mountain elmars in this respect is welcome.

Lex

Lex, I have SN 136617 from 1932. No R mark, but it has coating which would have been done much later.

William 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2016 at 7:08 PM, Susie said:

Hi Everyone,

 

I recently got a second Mountain Elmar.  This one is pretty well in mint condition with caps and hood.  My other one is rather battered about - it must have had quite a hard life when in regular use.  They are from the same year's batch - 1933.  It just goes to show what can happen with two different owners!

 

My question is: were there any filters made to fit it?  There are none mentioned in the Leica Accessories book I have, even though other one-off lens sizes are.

 

In expectation of either JB or Alan presenting us with a photo of the complete collection...

 

Best wishes,

 

Susie

Just found that the filter screw size is 20mm. I have a 20mm Kenco UV filter that came on an early Canon 35mm Serenar lens. Tried it on and it fits. The hood just about fits over the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do folks feel the Mountain Elmar compares with the slightly later National Optical/G B Montgomery- Stewartry 105mm/f3,5 Trinol lens? I am interested in acquiring one of these to use on my Reid and Sigrist Model 3, given the links between National Optical and Reid & Sigrist and the Scottish links with Montgomery of Glasgow. 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 15 Stunden schrieb wlaidlaw:

How do folks feel the Mountain Elmar compares with the slightly later National Optical/G B Montgomery- Stewartry 105mm/f3,5 Trinol lens? I am interested in acquiring one of these to use on my Reid and Sigrist Model 3, given the links between National Optical and Reid & Sigrist and the Scottish links with Montgomery of Glasgow. 

Wilson

Inspiring question, your interest indicates that you are curating your collection - in that case I'd buy one and try it out. Comparing: "slightly later" - well the Mountan-Elmar is at least 10 years older, Trinol is much faster, Tessar/Elmar vs. Triplet; comparing in real world condition is everything. My Mountan-Elmar is of pretty decent condition concerning the glass and even coated, results are good for it's age. I do not own a Trinol but TTH is a lensmaker of some reputation so it will be not that bad ;-) I have some experience with PAM Britar 4.5/105, triplet too, a bad one I sold years ago, the two actually on board (LTM + Exakta) perform astonishingly well and about on same level as Elmar; the late 3-element Elmar 4/90 shows better results. The Trinol was offered for Contax and Exakta too, looks like they changed the rear part depending on customs demand and that doesn't look very elegant to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried both. They are both older designs, uncoated (not all Trinols have coating) and performance is only about adequate by today's standards, and nothing more. Both will flare and good hoods are an absolute must - I made one for my Mountain Elmar out of an internally blackened cardboard toilet roll cardboard tube inner and the lens benefitted immensely from this. Given the choice I would probably opt for the Leitz lens because its slower design is less demanding and it produces pleasant images although contrast is low. The Trinol feels marginally less effective somehow - I can't quite pin this down but it seems to me that the spread of colour is marginally less even and contrast seems variable within its colour output. This might not be a precise explanaton but the Mountain Elmar does seem to produce slightly smoother tonality albeit with marginally muted colours and micro detail drops off more subtly. My observations are not scientific though, they are just based on the images I've taken. Both lenses are surprisingly capable with appropriate subject matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting the Trinol or a Mountain Elmar would be a total indulgence if I bought one, as I already have what might be the best 105mm LTM coupled lens around, the Nikkor-P 105/2.5. These are absurdly cheap given just how good they are. I think I paid around £100 for a mint example, 3 or 4 years ago. This was the lens used by Steve McCurry for his famous green eyed "Afghan Girl" cover photo for National Geographic. 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The money to buy another 105mm LTM lens, ME or Trinol is gone anyway. I just bought a MOOLY-C at a very reasonable price from a German trade Leica specialist seller who I have dealt with before. I love the MOOLY winders and have a 2 Speed MOOLY on my IIIa but wanted a -C for my wartime red blinds IIIc Stepper. It looks to be in lovely condition and is described by the seller as in good mechanical order. It was a quarter of the price some people are asking for these. Picture is of actual one I bought. 

Wilson

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My second Trinol arrived this morning. A bit rougher than the first one and different finish in the black/chrome. The first one 035843 is coated but the new one 035164 is not. The first one, on the right in the picture, looks taller as it has a filter holder jammed or glued on top. The front of the Trinol is A42 clamp on size.

Edited by Pyrogallol
Link to post
Share on other sites

That would probably be a G B Montgomery filter holder. They were well known for making filter holders for all different lenses, including the TT&H/National Optical/Stewartry Trinol lenses plus others from Leica, Zeiss, Cooke, Dallmeyer, Ross and Wray. I wonder if Montgomery made the metal work of the Trinol lenses under their Stewartry brand name and TT&H or National Optical just supplied the optical components? Anyone know the answer to this? 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

I wonder if Montgomery made the metal work of the Trinol lenses under their Stewartry brand name and TT&H or National Optical just supplied the optical components?

This is what I believe was the case. The lenses themselves were TTH designed/built but made under the wartime name NOC (a 'daughter' factory in Leicester created when production was split for wartime security of supply) and then were placed into mounts marked  'Made in Scotland' and manufactured by Montgomery at 95 Bath Street, Glasgow, under their brand name "Stewartry". Trinol apparently referes to TRIplet National Optical Ltd.and may have been a wartime design for dial recording. The Stewartry brand included other lenses, flasguns, viewfinders and filters and more. Most seem to have been built from aluminium which it looks as though Montgomery were good at working with. Quite straightforward although tying up the various bits and pieces takes a bit of detective work!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a set of Periflex L39 extension tubes, which I thought I might need for the BEOON but the standard tubes worked just fine with my S-K Componon S 50/2.8. The Corfield Periflexes are wonderfully weird cameras. 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a link to the Trinol I have decided not to buy having spent the money on a MOOLY-C. Elle who is selling this can send a link to a Flickr album showing results taken with it and she confirms it is a coated example. Just in case anyone else is interested in what looks like quite a nice example: https://tinyurl.com/kbu3sate 

Wilson

Edited by wlaidlaw
Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 8 Minuten schrieb wlaidlaw:

This is a link to the Trinol I have decided not to buy having spent the money on a MOOLY-C. Elle who is selling this can send a link to a Flickr album showing results taken with it and she confirms it is a coated example. Just in case anyone else is interested in what looks like quite a nice example: https://tinyurl.com/kbu3sate 

Wilson

the polished shiny finish does not look original to me, others show more black paint

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wlaidlaw said:

This is a link to the Trinol I have decided not to buy having spent the money on a MOOLY-C. Elle who is selling this can send a link to a Flickr album showing results taken with it and she confirms it is a coated example. Just in case anyone else is interested in what looks like quite a nice example: https://tinyurl.com/kbu3sate 

Wilson

I had looked at that one. It does look very shiney compared to the two I have but the finish does seem to vary. The serial number is earlier than my un-coated one.

The price looks a bit high, they usually seem to go for about £100-150.

There is some information about the serial numbers and coating here https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/details-of-trinol-lens.143685/print

Edited by Pyrogallol
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...