Jump to content

Unknow Nickel 11 o'clock 5cm Elmar


Perca

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a picture of the back of the 664 Elmar, perhaps the camera rangefinder roller is just running on the back of the lens focussing screw thread and not on a coupling mount, so it is not actually coupled?

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

your lens looks exactely the same as on my non-std set. For coupled lenses Leitz narrowed the inner diameter to provide better contact with the rangefinder cam.

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!

Info that you gave about how the rangefinder is off indicate that the mount is too short by cca 0,3-0,4mm (length marked with arrow).

At that time mount was not machined having rangefinder in mind. It can be adopted, I have done it once, but it took me 2 days to machine it.

If lens would have been rangefinder coupled by Leitz it would receive new mount, either 11 oclock with infinity lock or 7 oclock, depeneding when conversion would have been done.

Because of missing "0" on DIF I believe lens is not standardized, but by coincidence it may focus properly when focus set accoring to distance scale and not rangefinder. Test with film will show it. And if it will be out of focus it can be repaired, much easier than coupling.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, jerzy said:

your lens looks exactely the same as on my non-std set. For coupled lenses Leitz narrowed the inner diameter to provide better contact with the rangefinder cam.

If lens would have been rangefinder coupled by Leitz it would receive new mount, either 11 oclock with infinity lock or 7 oclock, depeneding when conversion would have been done.

Because of missing "0" on DIF I believe lens is not standardized, but by coincidence it may focus properly when focus set accoring to distance scale and not rangefinder. Test with film will show it. And if it will be out of focus it can be repaired, much easier than coupling.

Jerzy, your conclusions match my initial sentiments about this lens. It is for a non standardised I Model C (the numbers are a giveaway) and its design with milled helicoid matches that of the earlier I Model A lenses. It might just match the standardised lens focus parameters without being standardised. I doubt, however, if Leica would have standardised the lens without putting a '0' on somewhere. Although the lens is not coupled, which, as you say, would have required a new mount, it may cause a rangefinder patch to move, but this would neither be reliable or accurate.

William

Link to post
Share on other sites

correct, William. If James would like to use rangefinder, without modyfing the mount it can be done as well. He would need just to dedicte one body to this particular lens and adjust rangefinder horizontally to match on infinity. All other distances would match as well.

excersize which I mentioned in previous post was done on my Summar. Yes, all Summars were rangefinder coupled but one of the preious owners shorten (I do not why) the mount by 0,6mm. Otherwise lens was focusing properly when focus set on distance scale ignoring the rangefinder. I cut 0.7mm thick brass ring which I soldered to the mount and then lathed the mount to required length. Took me 2 days, lathing mount off in many steps - if I would take too much off that I would have to start from the very beginning :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My film test of the non-standard 664 Elmar was not very successful, most of the negatives were out of focus. It looks as if the lens is further out of standard than I was expecting.

After initially thinking I could use the camera rangefinder, as it was moving but not accurately, I changed to focussing using the distance scale on the lens, checking the distance using a FOFER clip-on rangefinder. Most of the pictures were taken at middle distance at f6.3 or close up at f3.5.

The only one that is useful is the one shown here, scanned from the negative. I set the lens to f3.5 and the distance scale to 1 metre, then used a tape measure from the back of the camera to the fishing reel and placed the tape measure in the picture at 1 metre.

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!

Result is that the best point of focus is around 800mm on the back of the old developing tray and pens. So the lens at its closest focussing of 1 metre is producing an image from about 20% closer.

I will assume that it should be about 20% out at all distances and do another film test on that basis.

 

The film was not all a failure as I should have my Barnack Challenge pictures to print, taken with my Summar.

 

Then this afternoon talking about the Elmar with a friend I thought that if I get a cheap Zorki or Russian "Leica" I could take out the paper shims from behind the lens flange and maybe file down the flange to make it into a non-standard body to fit the lens? If the focus had been too distant rather than too near I could have just put a spacing washer between the body and lens, all very similar to the way I set up the focussing on my homemade large format wooden cameras.

 

I have some 120 Pan F in my Fuji 645 to finish next so may not get back to the Elmar right away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Pyrogallol said:

My film test of the non-standard 664 Elmar was not very successful, most of the negatives were out of focus. It looks as if the lens is further out of standard than I was expecting.

After initially thinking I could use the camera rangefinder, as it was moving but not accurately, I changed to focussing using the distance scale on the lens, checking the distance using a FOFER clip-on rangefinder. Most of the pictures were taken at middle distance at f6.3 or close up at f3.5.

The only one that is useful is the one shown here, scanned from the negative. I set the lens to f3.5 and the distance scale to 1 metre, then used a tape measure from the back of the camera to the fishing reel and placed the tape measure in the picture at 1 metre.

Result is that the best point of focus is around 800mm on the back of the old developing tray and pens. So the lens at its closest focussing of 1 metre is producing an image from about 20% closer.

I will assume that it should be about 20% out at all distances and do another film test on that basis.

 

The film was not all a failure as I should have my Barnack Challenge pictures to print, taken with my Summar.

 

Then this afternoon talking about the Elmar with a friend I thought that if I get a cheap Zorki or Russian "Leica" I could take out the paper shims from behind the lens flange and maybe file down the flange to make it into a non-standard body to fit the lens? If the focus had been too distant rather than too near I could have just put a spacing washer between the body and lens, all very similar to the way I set up the focussing on my homemade large format wooden cameras.

 

I have some 120 Pan F in my Fuji 645 to finish next so may not get back to the Elmar right away.

Your suggestion, discussed with your friend, is one possibility. This was what was done with the I Model A, but with a camera with interchangeable lenses putting in shims would put other lenses 'out'.  A good CLA person might be able to fix the lens itself by altering it, but you would need to discuss this with someone you trust and who has the requisite tools, including a ground glass screen for determining true focus etc.

William

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Distance scale at 1m, lens is focusing properly at cca 80cm, this is how I understood. This means that the optics shall be retracted, closer to film plane by approx 0,7mm. I am afraid that you will not be able to compensate it with paper shims, one layer is approx 0,1mm, metal shims are 0,2mm. But you would need to remove the shims which are under the flange on the camera. I rather think that the lens flange on the camera would need to be lathed off to make non std camera to fit the lens.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

in addition to above -  0,7mm is approx the distance how much optics travels between 1,25m and 1m on distance scale, number is just for orientation.

I am aware about 3 methods how to match lens to camera. Two of them require body with screw at behind )converted IA, IC of early II), but the rest what is needed everyone has at home, most probably.

1. rear side screw removed, ground plate inserted instead of film. Camera set on the object at known distance, projected image is observed through the hole with magnifying glass (10-15x). Advantage of this methid is that you may check focus in the whole range

2. rear screw remowed, test pattern (old microfilm or similar) insereted instead of film, camera illuminated from behind. Lens set to infinity. Using good binocular/moncular (set as well to infinity) you look into the lens. This method, however modified, is used by me when checking focus of the lenses. My modification requires parts which not everyone has at home, if you are interested send me PM. Focus check occurs at infinity, but due to mechanical construction focus shall be accurate in the whole range. 

3 the third method is more accurate and does not require opened camera back, but requires autocolimator. For interested forum mebers: autocolimator is optical device. It projects test pattern on the test object, reflected pattern is observed through the viewer in autocolimator (AC). Camera has a reflecting sheet inserted instead of film, lens is set to infinity. AC projects test pattern focused at infinity through the lens to be tested, it is reflected on film plane, goes back to AC, halfmirror directs reeflected pattern to the AC viewer. Advantage of this method is that the light travels twice through the combination camera/lens thus possible failures cumulates and is better to see.
AC is an expensive and rare device, not every repair shop has it.
As mentioned, I am using modified method 2, after calibration I checked the lens once on AC (at friendly repair shop here in Vienna) and test proved that my method is  good as well, there was no need for readjusting the lens after AC test.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Another picture of Elmar 664, with lacquered  brassed 90mm  Elmar and 270mm Tele- Xenar.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

I think I have found a body for my non-standard 664 Elmar.

 

I bought a 1939 FED 1 at a local camera auction. I put a film through it and the camera seems to be running OK, but the FED lens was so fogged that the negatives looked as if they were actually taken on a foggy day.

 

I attached a different lens on it, but the rangefinder was a long way out, the lens needed to be racked out to quite a close focussing distance to get the rangefinder to register at infinity.

 

After some research I discovered that in the pre-war period (if you were Russian you were still friends with Germany in 1939 !) FED had not standardised on the 28.8mm Leica standard film/lens register and that bodies and lenses were just matched up to each other I at a time. I tried to measure the flange/pressure plate distance and it does seem to be a bit short.

 

So I tried out my non-standard 50mm f3.5 Elmar that focuses closer than it should at infinity on a standard Leica body.

 

The next test negatives with the 664 Elmar on the FED body have given results that are much closer in focus than the Elmar did on a standard Leica body. The pictures below are scanned from A4 size darkroom prints, reduced in file size to fit here.

 

Meanwhile I think I have fixed the foggy FED lens. I bought one of those "lens Wrenches" with pairs of adjustable prongs for unscrewing lens mounting rings. And again after some internet research on "cleaning FED lenses" I unscrewed the front element block and cleaned out the fog on the glass surface behind the aperture blades.

 

So the next test is to try the FED lens alongside the 664 Elmar.   

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Coming back to this old topic after a year. Two more 50mm Elmars arrived in the post this week. Both nickel, standardised, un-numbered and 11 o’clock. Pin push infinity catch one is coupled and no infinity catch one is not coupled. I guess they are about 1931 and 1932.

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, jerzy said:

Are you sure about non-coupled? Did you check with with rangtefinder?

Yes, I just checked it again. The rangefinder is not correct and the back rim of the lens does not have the smooth machined edge for the rangefinder roller to run against.

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!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Leitz maybe sell a version of the Elmar for enlarging, given that L39 was a pretty standard thread for enlargers? My father used to use my grandfather's somewhat ratty 1935 5cm Elmar as an enlarging lens until he bought a new Wray enlarger lens in the mid 1950's. I later used that Elmar on my M4 until I had worked enough hours to afford a second hand 50 Summilux. The Elmar was not good, with a front element looking like it had been well scrubbed and of course, no coating. 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

Yes, I just checked it again. The rangefinder is not correct and the back rim of the lens does not have the smooth machined edge for the rangefinder roller to run against.

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!

I suspect that the coupled pin push was for a II Model D or produced during the period for that camera and that the other lens was for a standardised I Model C and would be standardised but not coupled. I have two such standardised but uncoupled lenses which came with standardised I Model Cs. The only surprising thing is that the pin push lens does not have a serial number as I have got two of those lenses on II Model Ds and both have SNs. Maybe the one shown above was made just before serial numbers commenced or was coupled in anticipation of the II Model D. The changes in the Elmar were happening at a very fast rate at that time and lenses a couple of months apart could be quite different. I also have a couple of lenses that were converted from 11 O'Clock non standardised lenses for a I Model A to 7 O'Clock standardised and coupled lenses. I suspect that if the lens shown on the right above had been coupled it too would have been converted to 7 O'Clock. I hope this is not as difficult to follow as it is for me to explain. Apologies if it is. Perhaps, Jerzy would like to comment. 

William

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 10/15/2020 at 2:27 PM, Pyrogallol said:

Coming back to this old topic after a year. Two more 50mm Elmars arrived in the post this week. Both nickel, standardised, un-numbered and 11 o’clock. Pin push infinity catch one is coupled and no infinity catch one is not coupled. I guess they are about 1931 and 1932.

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!

Just made some prints from the uncoupled Elmar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And two more

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And another picture of the lens. With suitable background.

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!

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.

×
×
  • Create New...