What's the true story surrounding the birth of Red Scale Elmars?

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Never seen any RS with scale to f16... but tracking all the Elmars that pass through marketplace is a though job... approximately, I'd say to have "seen" 200 or 250 in several years... a number that is a negligible percentage of all the RS (*)

 

(*)(I have track of 27 Telyts 800 - 109 made, 67 Tele Elmarit 180 - 350 made, 95 Elmarit 28 1st - 3000-3200 made... and nothing else to keep track of... )

Edited September 15, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[willeica]

The Nicholson Jones article refers to a line drawing in a 1955 catalogue as containing an image of a Red Scale Elmar with a minimum aperture of f16. We do know, however, from a recent thread here on images in Leica catalogues that Leica regularly 'updated' images in catalogues during that period eg with Summitars and Summicrons. I posted some examples in that thread. The Nicholson Jones article also refers to some overlap in the issue of Elmars with minimum apertures of f16 and f 22 around 1949/50. They also infer that there might be f16 examples of Red Scales around and even that some of those might be repair jobs, but they do not produce an example. Red scales came later than 1950 and should, if they are original, have a minimum aperture of f22.

 

William

Edited September 15, 2017 by willeica

[Advertisement]

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

[jerzy]

1. f16 - f22.  I never saw any RS with f16. According to Wagner f22 has been introduced with non RS in 1949. My research (sample as above) shows first f22 as 741850 with only 2 samples with f16 afterwards (840179 and 891728)

2. SN on converted lenses. Leitz kept strictly to the rule not to change the SN on upgraded lenses (and cameras). This is why you may find RS with no SN being a result of an upgrade of (most probably) model IA after 1953. 

3. coating lenses. Coating was standard for postwar production, Leitz was offering recoating for earlier lenses. During conversion lenses were polished and if all scratches could have been removed the old glass was coated. In case of deep scratched optics have been replaced. and this leads me to assumption (not confirmed) about shorter lenss barrel on some of RS with no SN. I assume that the shorter barrel means old optics (from lenses with no SN) has been polished and coated, while RS with no RS and barrell with "normal" length indicate that as well optics has been renewed.

4. Something happened to Elmar construction starting with SN 650 700 - spare parts list from 1950 indicate new dcontruction number (42-322 before and 42-287 after). Major spare parts, including lenses received new part number. I was not able to identify any visible difference around this SN, was it a new glass (and computation) or was it change in construction of brass lens mounting barrel (inside, not outside, chromed barrel) I do not know. Unfortunately I do not have spare parts lists when RS was introduced, this would help a lot in this discussion.

[jc_braconi]

I have 2 black scale coated f/16 from 1949 692xxx and 729xxx and 1 black scale coated f/22 from 1950 804xxx

[UliWer]

Thiele mentions no. 647.001 (1948) in his "Kleines Fabrikationshandbuch" for the change to f/22 for the smallest aperture of the Elmar.

 

This seems to be inaccurate. It is very probable that the change came with 650.701 - this was the number for changing spare parts of the Elmar according to a list linked above in my previous posting.

 

Edit: Sorry,  I misread jc_braconi's posting above. With his "692xxx" still having f/16, the change to f/22 was either later, or didn't occur for all models at the same time

Edited September 15, 2017 by UliWer

[Juan Valdenebro]

Have you read the Viewfinder article I referenced above? This represents the origins of the comment by Laney which is probably the cause of most of the rumours out there. I believe that you are looking for information beyond the best already available. Is there a reason why you are seeking this? Do you have concerns about the lens in your possession? On the basis of what you told us it would seem that the lens is probably a genuine original Red Scale model.

 

William

I didn't...

No concerns, as my lens hasn't arrived yet...

Before this thread I was told "all diamond elmars were adapted from older glass/elmars, and that's why triangle ones exist: because all triangle ones are new formula elmars, and all diamond ones ere adapted ones..."

I asked is that true? I asked it because I read adapted ones have no serial number.

Yet I'm not clear.

J.

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I didn't...

No concerns, as my lens hasn't arrived yet...

Before this thread I was told "all diamond elmars were adapted from older glass/elmars, and that's why triangle ones exist: because all triangle ones are new formula elmars, and all diamond ones ere adapted ones..."

I asked is that true? I asked it because I read adapted ones have no serial number.

Yet I'm not clear.

J.

 

Thanks for the clarification. The answer is clear. Original Diamond Red Scale Elmars have the new glass and optical formula. Your lens appears to be original. There is no evidence of a change in optical formula with the introduction of the the triangle mark. The references to an 'intermediate design' refers to the possibility that a version of the earlier black scale lens with flatter glass exists. I emphasised this by underlining the word 'prior' ( to Red Scale) in a post above. If you read the various articles and publications on the subject this will become clear. Adapted lenses will usually either have no SN or the original SN. This was the usual Leica practice, but nobody can say that applied in 100% of cases. The SN for your lens would seem to fall within the range for Red Scale lenses.

 

 

Thiele mentions no. 647.001 (1948) in his "Kleines Fabrikationshandbuch" for the change to f/22 for the smallest aperture of the Elmar.

 

This seems to be inaccurate. It is very probable that the change came with 650.701 - this was the number for changing spare parts of the Elmar according to a list linked above in my previous posting.

 

Edit: Sorry,  I misread jc_braconi's posting above. With his "692xxx" still having f/16, the change to f/22 was either later, or didn't occur for all models at the same time

 

I think that you are right, but others suggest later SNs for the start. Thiele should only be used as an indicative guide rather than definitive proof.  Some evidence exists to show that there was some overlap between the issue of black scale f 16 and f 22 lenses. This is mentioned in a number publications and articles. Now that the matter has been raised, I must check my collection to see what I have by way of f16 and f22 examples of the Elmar. Anything my collection would show would be purely anecdotal, of course.

 

William

[jerzy]

correction of my own posting from above:

" My research (sample as above) shows first f22 as 741850"

Today I received yet another Elmar with SN 729236 - it has f22 and thus is the lowest SN with f22 that I have seen.

And commenting UliWer remark about 647 001 as switch to f22 - all Elmars with SN above 647xxx and below 698598 that I have seen are f16

[jc_braconi]

 

Today I received yet another Elmar with SN 729236 - it has f22 and thus is the lowest SN with f22 that I have seen.

 

Mine lately f/16 is 729022

we are step by step reducing the gap

[willeica]

Having checked through my collection, I cannot find any f16 items. I have two from 1950 772xxx and 833xxx which are both black scale with f22. The front elements don't look (to my bad eyesight) any flatter than those on the earlier Elmars in my collection with f18 minimum aperture but they are, of course, coated. I have one from 1941 SN 568xxx with f18 which came with my 1942 grey IIIcK, so f16 must have been those two. van Hasbroeck says that f16 came after coating was introduced in 1945 with SN 598201, first with f18 and then with f16 models.

 

I agree with Marco, quoted above, who said that it would be necessary to dismantle any black scale Elmar with f22 to determine whether it had flatter elements.

 

William

[jc_braconi]

If the second digit is a 2 we are in trouble...on an Ic from 1949/50

 

 

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!

[luigi bertolotti]

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!

 

Maybe a "7", too ? ... the last digit looks an "e" letter but is probably an 8...

Edited September 15, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[Juan Valdenebro]

William,

Thank you very much for your explanation...

What you said, adapted lenses having the original lens' serial number, or simply having no serial number, and in the other hand only "new" lenses" having "new" serial numbers, makes sense to me thinking of a serious firm like Leitz...

I apologize if in any of my previous posts I didn't explain myself well: it's possible, es English is not my native language...

I agree, as you said, I have no need to try to find more small details in a distant past, and I'd better use the lens as soon as I get it: for sure it was well made.

Finally, right or wrong, I have decided to have my own opinion on diamonds and triangles: I imagine it all had to do with types of glass, and maybe with small variations on spacing if that was necessary, but I guess both red scale elmars perform equally more or less...

Thanks everybody for the deep information shared!

J.

[willeica]

If the second digit is a 2 we are in trouble...on an Ic from 1949/50

 

 

Elmar_f22_old_a.jpg

 

Maybe a "7", too ? ... the last digit looks an "e" letter but is probably an 8...

I'm glad to see that I am not alone in having difficulty in reading Elmar SNs. I had to photograph mine with an iPhone and then blow them up in order to read them. Even then I had to do a bit of guesswork.

 

William

Edited September 16, 2017 by willeica

[luigi bertolotti]

I'm glad to see that I am not alone in having difficulty in reading Elmar SNs...

.. and some very old have engravings better than more later ones : this year I got a "5 digits" Elmar whose number was much better readable than a RS of mine...

[romanus53]

A couple of Elmars, in the middle two with red scale, the left one a new one, the right one a remounted older lens. For comparrson on the side of this pair left original with older scale and on the right a remounted older one. Some other Elmars in the background are for decoration only. The remounted ones are both shorter.

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!

[luigi bertolotti]

Thanks Romanus... so at the end we see a Red Scale with closure to f16 only : as you say, is surely an "old" lens cell inserted in a new mount at the times of RS (and "diamond") ... surely a factory job... is an interesting item : I never saw one.

[willeica]

Going back 20 years before this, I have a remounted lens on a I Model A which had been converted to a Standard. The lens, which has no SN, started out as an 11 O'Clock lens, but when it was remounted as a 7O'Clock it ended up being very short. Indeed it is by far the shortest Elmar that I have in my collection. I suspect that this has something to do with the remounting process.

 

Moving on to the remounted lenses above, could romanus53 say whether they have any SNs and, if they do have them, what the SNs are or to what range do they belong?

 

William

[jankap]

At what time the distance scale changed to the (rotating) barrel of the lens?

 

Did the actual focal length stay the same over the time?

Jan

Edited September 17, 2017 by jankap

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[romanus53]

Going back 20 years before this, I have a remounted lens on a I Model A which had been converted to a Standard. The lens, which has no SN, started out as an 11 O'Clock lens, but when it was remounted as a 7O'Clock it ended up being very short. Indeed it is by far the shortest Elmar that I have in my collection. I suspect that this has something to do with the remounting process.

 

Moving on to the remounted lenses above, could romanus53 say whether they have any SNs and, if they do have them, what the SNs are or to what range do they belong?

 

William

I have a couple of Leicas which got a factory upgrade like Leitz offered to their customers. And I think the upgrade included some service on the lenses too. The remounted Elmar with red scale and diamond belongs to a I A body converted to an II synch, body no 19687. The other remounted Elmar belongs to a I C converted to Standard body nr 24115. Both lenses stayed uncoated and do not show any serial number outside. They belong to the mentioned bodies which can be dated to 1929 resp 1930. Especially the I C looks totaly different today after first converted to changeable lenses about 1935 and later got a chrom body with small plate instead of long-time expousure dial. You can see them in the background here https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/95318-kaviar/page-84