Jump to content

Winterized Elmar 50 3.5?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

I've just got a "new" Elmar 50 3.5 (in fact my third one) that is well documented wartime (1942) that is also well documented that went to the Russian front.

 

When focusing it, I've felt what it looks like a clear lack of grease/lubrication at all. Understand me, it focus really easy so no stuck or something like that but you can hear and feel the metal-to-metal slight friction. It even had a very stiff infinity lock for what I understand is the absolute lack of grease, also in the little piston of that infinity lock.

 

So my question is, do we know if it there was a kind of winterization of lenses by removing the grease? If so, what's your opinion on keeping it as it is or send it to get it relubed? I will use it for sure but given I have several other 50's the usage will far from intensive.

 

Thanks in advance and best regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well… the Leicas for military are a specific field of interest / knowledge / documentation for a number of collectors : the winterization of items has surely a sense… so I think that you could try to adress some real passionates on the WW Leicas, or to search in magazines like Viewfinder… I think is quite possible that some sure infos about can be found.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

An associate of mine who is well into his Eighties has photographed at both poles for decades. One thing is probably likely - your lens never had a period-proper lubrication for severe cold weather. A CLA is in order, and that is not a bad thing.

 

Historical aside: At one time affluent arctic and polar explorers and their precision instrument technicians used a lubricant they called 'black fish oil', which was a whale derivative. They do not like talking of that today.

Edited by pico
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So my question is, do we know if it there was a kind of winterization of lenses by removing the grease?

 

My understanding of 'winterisation' was not of removing the grease entirely but using a different specification grease for cold weather, in the same way that cameras can be 'tropicalised' by the use of different greases for hot weather. It is well known the German army suffered by the lack of winter specification oils, but a Leica isn't in the same league as trying to get a frozen Tiger started at dawn, it can be kept in a warm pocket. So I doubt leaving the grease out of the lens gives any advantage, particularly as that then opens up the possibility for ice to form between the components instead of the water being repelled by the grease. As a side note the Soviet forces did use 'Arctic' specification oils and greases on their winterised equipment and stayed mobile. I tend to think you have a lens where the grease has simply dried up over the years and it needs a CLA.

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of 'winterisation' was not of removing the grease entirely but using a different specification grease for cold weather, in the same way that cameras can be 'tropicalised' by the use of different greases for hot weather. It is well known the German army suffered by the lack of winter specification oils, but a Leica isn't in the same league as trying to get a frozen Tiger started at dawn, it can be kept in a warm pocket. So I doubt leaving the grease out of the lens gives any advantage, particularly as that then opens up the possibility for ice to form between the components instead of the water being repelled by the grease. As a side note the Soviet forces did use 'Arctic' specification oils and greases on their winterised equipment and stayed mobile. I tend to think you have a lens where the grease has simply dried up over the years and it needs a CLA.

 

Hi,

 

Thank you very much for your answer. I can tell you for sure that in that lens there is no grease.

 

I currently have 20+ Leica lenses from 1932 up today. Some of them had their grease dried in some degrees (even more, one of them was so-so in normal weather but became stiff in cold weather and recovered itself again in warm weather). I know that sensation and this is completely different. In this lens the focusing is really easy without being wobbling, and the slight metal friction is quite different from a lubed one (recently or dried).

 

It's like the bodies. The shutter sound and feel is clearly different from my II (kind of dry strike) to my IIIc (kind of smooth slide).

 

When you have tried some, you become familiar with those sensations and in this case is something completely different.

 

Best regards

Edited by tranquilo67
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know what you mean about the 'dry strike' v 'smooth slide' shutter action. I have about 40 LTM Leicas and as many, and possibly more, LTM lenses. With the LTM lenses there is a great deal of variation in the smoothness of focus, not always related to the type or age of the lens. There is no doubt that Leica improved its manufacturing techniques over time and that both cameras and lenses benefited from this. If an item received special lubrication 75 to 80 years ago in the form of special oils and greases, the chances of this still functioning as per the original specification today are very slim. It is much more likely that what you are detecting are the benefits of a CLA somewhere along the line.

 

Have you been able to determine whether the lens, which you suspect has been winterised, was military issue? Have you checked with the lists produced by Lager and Cane and other authorities? My understanding that the Tropen Summar was the only Leica lens which was specially designed for extreme weather conditions, but I would be interested to find if there is any evidence that certain lenses or batches of lenses were prepared for extreme weather conditions. I have always understood that the IIIcK has ball-race shutter bearings intended to make it work more effectively at low temperatures. I received a contemporary 50mm Elmar with my IIIcK, but I don't recall it being particularly smooth. I can look at it further and let you know if I notice anything.

 

William

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you mean about the 'dry strike' v 'smooth slide' shutter action. I have about 40 LTM Leicas and as many, and possibly more, LTM lenses. With the LTM lenses there is a great deal of variation in the smoothness of focus, not always related to the type or age of the lens. There is no doubt that Leica improved its manufacturing techniques over time and that both cameras and lenses benefited from this. If an item received special lubrication 75 to 80 years ago in the form of special oils and greases, the chances of this still functioning as per the original specification today are very slim. It is much more likely that what you are detecting are the benefits of a CLA somewhere along the line.

 

Have you been able to determine whether the lens, which you suspect has been winterised, was military issue? Have you checked with the lists produced by Lager and Cane and other authorities? My understanding that the Tropen Summar was the only Leica lens which was specially designed for extreme weather conditions, but I would be interested to find if there is any evidence that certain lenses or batches of lenses were prepared for extreme weather conditions. I have always understood that the IIIcK has ball-race shutter bearings intended to make it work more effectively at low temperatures. I received a contemporary 50mm Elmar with my IIIcK, but I don't recall it being particularly smooth. I can look at it further and let you know if I notice anything.

 

William

 

Hi William,

 

Leica records confirmed the name of the of original recipient together with his military degree and it was sent to field post address with a "strange order number" (once more according to Leica) .

 

The lens has no engraving at all and sorry but I haven't checked any of the sources you mention. At the end, I'm a user that simply likes old stuff and its history and enjoy very much this type of researches.

 

Best regards

Edited by tranquilo67
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 The shutter sound and feel is clearly different from my II (kind of dry strike) to my IIIc (kind of smooth slide).

 

This is due to different construction of shutters in II/IIIa,b and IIIc . Additionally early II do not have curtain brake yet. And CLA may lower the noise level of dry shutter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Thank you very much for your answer. I can tell you for sure that in that lens there is no grease.

 

I currently have 20+ Leica lenses from 1932 up today. Some of them had their grease dried in some degrees (even more, one of them was so-so in normal weather but became stiff in cold weather and recovered itself again in warm weather). I know that sensation and this is completely different. In this lens the focusing is really easy without being wobbling, and the slight metal friction is quite different from a lubed one (recently or dried).

 

It's like the bodies. The shutter sound and feel is clearly different from my II (kind of dry strike) to my IIIc (kind of smooth slide).

 

When you have tried some, you become familiar with those sensations and in this case is something completely different.

 

Best regards

 

So somebody, maybe not even a camera technician, cleaned it out sometime in the past and omitted grease or used oil that has since evaporated. Leica could and did 'winterise' cameras for expeditions, this never amounted to them omitting grease. If you think logically about it, instead of trying to add bogus history to the piece, for it to be true a camera body would also have needed to be similarly 'winterised' by leaving the grease out, and a camera body without grease would last a few rolls. So it just does not make sense to imagine the lens has had the grease left out of it by Leica when it would be used under the same winter conditions as a greased/oiled camera body.

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too much hard for me (I know, I'm limited) :) : if you want an opinion please put a photo, complete shipping informations with serial number, etc... otherwise we talk about fried air... :ph34r:

 

Hi,

 

The serial number is 582416 and the order number 01160/29999 delivered to Lt Hills, all of that according to Leica books.

 

Best regards

Edited by tranquilo67
Link to post
Share on other sites

The lens that came with my IIIcK is 568412 from 1941. I have not noticed anything special about it, but I am seeing an expert Leica repair guy the week after next and I will show him the lens and get an opinion. I also have a Summitar with SN 585995 from 1942. My IIIcK is from 1941/42. None of the above items has proven military usage.

 

William

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

The serial number is 582416 and the order number 01160/29999 delivered to Lt Hills, all of that according to Leica books.

 

Best regards

This is interesting: according to German Military Abbreviations (1943 edit.) the acronym for Leutnant rank is Ltn: lieutenant, abbreviated Lt, was used in the Us.Army.

I see moreover the name "Hills": again, it's not a german surname but of English origin (first found in Worcestershire).

The number of the delivery is also interesting, as doesn't match to the numbering system used for the Wehrmacht.

My guess is that this delivery may be a post capitulation one, addressed to the occupation forces. A photocopy of the delivery page could reveal if the date matches (it is not always easy to read).

Hope this helps, best wishes!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting: according to German Military Abbreviations (1943 edit.) the acronym for Leutnant rank is Ltn: lieutenant, abbreviated Lt, was used in the Us.Army.

I see moreover the name "Hills": again, it's not a german surname but of English origin (first found in Worcestershire).

The number of the delivery is also interesting, as doesn't match to the numbering system used for the Wehrmacht.

My guess is that this delivery may be a post capitulation one, addressed to the occupation forces. A photocopy of the delivery page could reveal if the date matches (it is not always easy to read).

Hope this helps, best wishes!

 

 

My fault.

 

The name is Hils, with just one "L", the abreviation that appears in Leica records looks like "Ltu." and, as according to Leica it was sent to "Feldpostadresse", after investigating a bit, at least one of those five number codes must be the Felpost code (FPN) for sending it to the troop where ever it would be (l've seen some FPN with code 011xx and they are five digit numbers)

 

Sorry for not been so precise. I thought it wasn't so important.

 

Hope this will clarify the doubts.

Edit: And the delivery date for it is 27.06.1942

Edit 2: Located online the FPN 01160

Edited by tranquilo67
Link to post
Share on other sites

The lenses just before and after your lens (582415 and 582417) were delivered to the Luftwaffe on 01.10.42 in Berlin with delivery number 9160 according to Luigi Cane's list. I have been advised by Lars Netopil, who helped Dr Cane with this list, that lenses and cameras not on the list may also have been used by military personnel, but that separate provenance is required. You seem to have that, but this does not really assist with the issue of special lubrication or construction for low temperature conditions.

 

William

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My fault.

 

The name is Hils, with just one "L", the abreviation that appears in Leica records looks like "Ltu." and, as according to Leica it was sent to "Feldpostadresse", after investigating a bit, at least one of those five number codes must be the Felpost code (FPN) for sending it to the troop where ever it would be (l've seen some FPN with code 011xx and they are five digit numbers)

 

Sorry for not been so precise. I thought it wasn't so important.

 

Hope this will clarify the doubts.

Edit: And the delivery date for it is 27.06.1942

Edit 2: Located online the FPN 01160

Ok! FPN 01160 belongs to the 335th Infantry Division that from mid 1941 was posted to a position near the border between occupied France and Vichy France. By this time it had reached a strength of over 13,200 personnel. Following the Allied invasion of French North Africa in November 1942, German forces moved into Vichy France. As part of this, the 335th,  seized the port of Marseilles.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The lenses just before and after your lens (582415 and 582417) were delivered to the Luftwaffe on 01.10.42 in Berlin with delivery number 9160 according to Luigi Cane's list. I have been advised by Lars Netopil, who helped Dr Cane with this list, that lenses and cameras not on the list may also have been used by military personnel, but that separate provenance is required. You seem to have that, but this does not really assist with the issue of special lubrication or construction for low temperature conditions.

 

William

 

Thank you very much, William!! That is a very interesting information about my serial number.

 

Anyway, as you mention, I have still pending the "lack of grease" mystery.

 

Ok! FPN 01160 belongs to the 335th Infantry Division that from mid 1941 was posted to a position near the border between occupied France and Vichy France. By this time it had reached a strength of over 13,200 personnel. Following the Allied invasion of French North Africa in November 1942, German forces moved into Vichy France. As part of this, the 335th,  seized the port of Marseilles.

 

Thank you very much!!! The only question is that, as I mentioned I have documents about my lens (and his owner) was in the Russian/Eastern front. So my question comes from that second number in the FPN. Do you have information about it or what it could mean? (29999)

 

Once more, thank you both and best regards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much, William!! That is a very interesting information about my serial number.

 

Anyway, as you mention, I have still pending the "lack of grease" mystery.

 

 

Thank you very much!!! The only question is that, as I mentioned I have documents about my lens (and his owner) was in the Russian/Eastern front. So my question comes from that second number in the FPN. Do you have information about it or what it could mean? (29999)

 

Once more, thank you both and best regards.

The second n. is the Leitz delivery one, so no connection with an outside address...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much!!! The only question is that, as I mentioned I have documents about my lens (and his owner) was in the Russian/Eastern front. So my question comes from that second number in the FPN. Do you have information about it or what it could mean? (29999)

 

 

Solved!! The 335th Division was sent to Ukraine in February 1943. So everything confirmed.

 

Still pending the original question about the winterization but seems there is no documentation about it.

 

Best regards

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...