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

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

_{THANKS A LOT, MATHIAS !! Those are very interesting documents...  But, William, in the Vademecum you quote there is a sentence that rings an "alert" to my memory... (and re-drives us to the RED SCALE...)}

 

_"...

_{Many years later, Leitz were to redesign it again with "new rare earth" glass and show the change as the new}

_{red scale version.."}

 

_{Rare earth glasses on the ELMAR 3,5 ??  I seem to remember they were introduced with the f 2,8 version.... and this is said also in the Marco Cavina article I linked previously... (and he's usually VERY precise on anything related to glass formulas.... I'm very proud of my Telyt-S 800 expecially for having read what Marco wrote about its "arcane" glass formula for its 2nd element... )} 

 

_{(P.S. what hell is happening on my  browser ? Cannot anymore take control of font size... do you see damn SMALL text as me ?)}

 

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[wlaidlaw]

Is the modern Anastigmat used in my 0 Series replica, just a final version f3.5 Elmar or is it a coated version of the 1923 Anastigmat? it is rather flare prone and I use it with a FISON hood. Apparently Leica missed out the rear baffle, which Malcolm Taylor can put back in, along with painting the shiny bronze interior of the lens, matt black. 

 

Wilson 

[Advertisement]

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

[willeica]

_{THANKS A LOT, MATHIAS !! Those are very interesting documents...  But, William, in the Vademecum you quote there is a sentence that rings an "alert" to my memory... (and re-drives us to the RED SCALE...)}

 

_"...

_{Many years later, Leitz were to redesign it again with "new rare earth" glass and show the change as the new}

_{red scale version.."}

 

_{Rare earth glasses on the ELMAR 3,5 ??  I seem to remember they were introduced with the f 2,8 version.... and this is said also in the Marco Cavina article I linked previously... (and he's usually VERY precise on anything related to glass formulas.... I'm very proud of my Telyt-S 800 expecially for having read what Marco wrote about its "arcane" glass formula for its 2nd element... )} 

 

_{(P.S. what hell is happening on my  browser ? Cannot anymore take control of font size... do you see damn SMALL text as me ?)}

 

 

 

 

 

I did say that I was not sure if everything in the Vademecum was correct and this was one of the points I was thinking of. Leica was introducing new glass at around that time in the Summicron, but I thought that the Red Scale was just a redesign of the elements and did not contain new glass.

 

 

Is the modern Anastigmat used in my 0 Series replica, just a final version f3.5 Elmar or is it a coated version of the 1923 Anastigmat? it is rather flare prone and I use it with a FISON hood. Apparently Leica missed out the rear baffle, which Malcolm Taylor can put back in, along with painting the shiny bronze interior of the lens, matt black. 

 

Wilson 

 

They may have used the original design of the Anastigmat, some aspects of which were carried into the early Elmars. Light baffles within the barrel of the Elmar appeared around late 1928.

 

William

[M9reno]

I thought it was worth resurrecting this thread to report on an interesting lens I just bought from Leica Shop Vienna.

f/16 minimum aperture RS serial number 1066711, diamond index.  This would make it the third f/16 R.S. published on this thread.

Rather puzzlingly, the mount’s d.o.f. scale shows f/22, so there is a mismatch.

My assumption is that this is not a conversion of an older f/16 or f/18 Elmar, but really an f/22 lens with a mis-engraving (i.e. f/22 was omitted on the diaphragm by error).  The engraving of the indices below the apertures matches those of f/22 Elmars rather than older lenses.

Anyway, this “freak” Red Scale is now on its way to me.

This is the link to the listing and the photographs of the lens.

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F283463337386

Edited May 5, 2019 by M9reno

[M9reno]

And rather surprisingly the 1955 General Catalogue (cited in the Nicholson-Jones Viewfinder article) has a similar mount/front flange mismatch. Interesting that such a thing would appear on an “official” illustration of the product. 

 

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… the illustration of the catlogue makes me think to another detail : the 2 visible front screws… why some If have it an some others not ?

[jerzy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

switch from f16 to f22 was in 1949 while RS (with diamond) was introduced around 1953. Few years after, so it might be assumed that no RS 16 (except conversions) should exist.

Frontring on RS (diamond and triangle) has been sandblasted before applying chrome, is less shiny than on earlier lenses

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!

Frontring was one of mos often replaced parts of an Elmar, very often you may see Elmars with bents.
Engravings on the frontring were applied after chroming and engraving the last production step, so I can imagine that after 1953 Leitz was supplying frontrings which were blasted and f stops engraved as customer requested.
Here an example of blasted ring (not shiny) with the earliest f stops, I purchased it some time ago (as spare part) from retired repair person.

 

So the lens from M9Reno could be either misengraving or a lens with replaced frotring where the repair person had f16 on stock only.
Would be interesting to know if aperture goes beyond f16, this would be  prove that optics is the one with f22

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by jerzy

[jaapv]

It doesn't explain the image in post #85.

[M9reno]

Thank you, Jerzy. I called Vienna before the lens shipped out and was told that the diaphragm does indeed close down to f/22, and that the front ring is matte chrome (so blasted).

Vienna Leica Shop has not realised the peculiarity of the lens before I asked.

So I’m guessing that this is a case of mis-engraving.  The lens is on its way, and I’ll post a few pictures when it arrives.

Luigi, I was also wondering about the two front screws on the camera as well, but the difference exist as well in IIIf and IIf cameras.  I have not been able to find more information about this.

[jerzy]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

It doesn't explain the image in post #85.

explanation re Elmar could be the same as for the lens from M9Reno - either misengraving or front ring replaced

But, image in post #85 seem to me to be a fantasy drawing (or shows converted camera): the first digit of the camera is for sure "4", second and third could be "56".
the first If black dial is with SN 562293, cameras 455001-46000 is the first batch of Ic.
It is thus possible the the image shows Ic converted to If.

As to the other question from Luigi about the screws on top plate - first batch of Ic was produced in 1949,  screws were kept until end of 1952 approx. My black dial IIIf (581xxx) still has them. Screws may be found even on some red dial  type cameras - here is my If RD 576851 from 52/53

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!

 

[M9reno]

I notice that the three f/16-minimum aperture RS Elmars so far referenced in this discussion have a distinctive placement of the index marks below the aperture markings on the front rings, matching the normal RS f/22 version.  That is:

16:  with index mark under the 6

11: with index mark under the second 1

8: with index mark off-center, just to the right margin of the 8

3.5: with index mark under the 5

******

Whereas the f/16-minimum aperture lenses from before 1949 have:

16: with index mark under the 1

11: with index mark centred under the 11

8: with index mark centred under the 8

3.5: with index mark centred under the 3.5 (i.e. under the point)

*******

I’m sure this had been noticed by someone, but I didn’t see it elsewhere in this thread.

 

[jerzy]

interesting observation indeed. However the type of engravings (font, size) changed often in the lifetime of Elmar.

I have noticed confirmation of what M9Reno wrote but as well different engravings. Picture below is from article on Elmar variants from Vidom Nr 70.

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!

it confirms M9Reno observations to some extent: third to the left has mark under second 1 on f11 but under the dot on f3.5

Picture below shows some of my Elmars, first from the left is RS with no SN, conversion from IA Elmar done mid 50-ties. 

mark on 11 is under second 1, while it should be centered, the other 2 lenses would confirm the observations

I am not so sure, if the observations from M9Reno are the rule of just "directions". Anyhow, each rule has exceptions.....

[M9reno]

My new lens is not yet here, but I mentioned my story to a friend earlier today.  His reply was interesting.

He has a replacement part Elmar front ring with f/16 minimum aperture, in the Red Scale engraving style and matte chrome.

Of course my lens is not a conversion, because it has a Red Scale serial number 1066xxx.  It is also really f/22, apparently.

My guess is that my new lens had the wrong front ring put on by mistake at the factory, or was repaired with one of these f/16 RS front rings.

 

 

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 May 9, 2019 by M9reno

[jerzy]

most of the unnumbered RS which I have seen are f16, just few f22 only. On f16 aperture tab goes slightly beyond f16, this would indicate that the inner brass barrel is from original f18 lens.
on f16 RS the mount is engraved as well to up to 16.

Interesting thing is that f16 RS, unnumbered, have shorter barel (so called short mount) - this indicates again that the brass inner mount is from original lens.
I have no clear prove when RS started, some authors believe it was 905xxx.  The lowest SN I found was 967xxx. However non RS Elmars with higher number exist - highest non RS I have seen was in 998.xxx range.
With RS new type of glas has been introduced, with higher breaking factor, thus radius of some lenses has been reduced.

I never found RS with f18 both on ring and mount, but possibly they do exist. At least  a front ring in RS type with f18 exists (as shown above)

[M9reno]

The strange RS diamond 1066XXX has arrived.  It has joined its triangle scale older brother RS triangle 1456XXX and shiny chrome father 476XXX.

The two Red Scales are closed down to f/22. 

Sorry for the iPhone photo.

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 May 10, 2019 by M9reno

[luigi bertolotti]

Thanks for the picture : I suppose you have checked that the "over-closure" of your new item closes indeed to f 22 (it's like this, apparently, from the picture) : in this case in my opinion a factory misengraving is the most probable hipotesis… unless your inspection on the finishing brings to some other hint. I mean, supposed that the front ring has been replaced… why  replacing it with a "wrong" one ? The lens dates to a timeframe in which f22 was standard… and a spare, by logic, should be made accordingly, so much if the replacement was made some years after the lens' delivery.

Anyway… I think you made a good deal…  : LeicaShop is not famous for low prices, and you said that they did not notice the oddity… I suppose that should they had, they had asked more…    It's years and years I follow them with care, and anytime they put for sale some item with "oddities" (but original, of course) thay evidence it in the description and the price goes up compared to the mean for similar items.

Edited May 11, 2019 by luigi bertolotti

[jc_braconi]

I have 7 Elmar RS all with f /22 the first with rombo 1952 and 1953 with triangle 2 others 1953 and 3 from 1955

[M9reno]

12 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Thanks for the picture : I suppose you have checked that the "over-closure" of your new item closes indeed to f 22 (it's like this, apparently, from the picture) : in this case in my opinion a factory misengraving is the most probable hipotesis… unless your inspection on the finishing brings to some other hint.

Thank you, Luigi.  Yes, the closure is exactly f/22, and indeed it goes a little beyond, just like the other RS. Nothing in the finish is strange. The little aperture setting ring is more brassed, which I guess happened by use. The glass is good although there are a few cleaning marks. But there’s no haze, so it is still nice and contrasty. A good lens.

12 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

I mean, supposed that the front ring has been replaced… why  replacing it with a "wrong" one ? The lens dates to a timeframe in which f22 was standard… and a spare, by logic, should be made accordingly, so much if the replacement was made some years after the lens' delivery.

I guess it depends on how the front ring is made.  Do you think the ring is engraved before or after assembly?  I rather think before, and that there were both f/16 and f/22 rings available at the factory, just like the part my friend showed me in post #93.  The mistake came either during initial assembly or repair on a “Friday afternoon,” perhaps by a workman who had just finished one or more upgraded pre-RS f/16 Elmars, and took a ring for this RS from the same box!

This must not have been a unique mistake, given the line drawing in the General Catalogue making it again.

12 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Anyway… I think you made a good deal…  : LeicaShop is not famous for low prices, and you said that they did not notice the oddity… I suppose that should they had, they had asked more…    It's years and years I follow them with care, and anytime they put for sale some item with "oddities" (but original, of course) thay evidence it in the description and the price goes up compared to the mean for similar items.

Thank you - I was rather proud of myself, too. They were a bit startled when I pointed it out over the telephone, after I bought the lens.  But as if to equalise things, they sent the lens with the most horrible third-party caps imaginable!   Into the trash they went!  😄

Edited May 11, 2019 by M9reno

[luigi bertolotti]

12 hours ago, M9reno said:

 

I guess it depends on how the front ring is made.  Do you think the ring is engraved before or after assembly?  I rather think before, and that there were both f/16 and f/22 rings available at the factory, just like the part my friend showed me in post #93.  The mistake came either during initial assembly or repair on a “Friday afternoon,” perhaps by a workman who had just finished one or more upgraded pre-RS f/16 Elmars, and took a ring for this RS from the same box!

 

By any industrial logic, the front ring was a part completely machined/engraved before lens final assembly ; it doesn't bear s/n nor other kind of lens' specific identification (like the real Focal Length) : so, a standard component like, for instance, the focus knob… made in big batches (not distinguishing between "for new" or "for spare") loaded into the "assembly parts warehouse". So, the mistake probably happened as you wrote… f 16 rings were still present in the warehouse… some worker took one, the final QC didn' notice (expeciallly in the case it was not a "line production" but a repair/replacement by Service Dep.) 

Edited May 12, 2019 by luigi bertolotti

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Fefes]

On 9/14/2017 at 5:19 PM, willeica said:

Your conclusion about RS lenses having a new optical formula and there being no difference between original diamond and triangle RS lenses fits with all of the available evidence.

I don't know if they have a different optical formula, but my Red Scale renders as Marco describes, sharper, somewhat higher contrast, seems to have less astigmatism or clarity of detail all over. The extent to which I look at detail is often looking at 200%, 400% 42MP images, which is quite obsessive. Given my own experience, I am not sure if the lens is different, maybe it's my sample. The Summicron v1 is excellent too, and I have two copies, one is almost perfect. It's a completely different experience, and it's hard to compare them. They are too different.