Two rare Elmar 9cm f4

[tranquilo67]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good afternoon,

I know that the term "rare" is used and abused by many, but in this case I do think that the two Elmar 9cm f4 I've just got, at least qualify for that.

- The first is a 1933 black/nickel thin version with the serial number 135964. I've seen very few samples of this variation. I've read in the net that very few samples of this combination are known and most of them in the serial number range 165xxx. I also read a comment from Allan in this forum, speaking about two samples in the 135xxx serial range calling them "prototypes".

- The second one is a 1938 black/chrome with vulcanite ring and serial number 457827. This is the first and only sample that I've seen with the vucanite ring in a black lens. My first thought wast that it could be a kind of lens repaired or built from spare parts. What it makes me think that it's original is that, the thin black ring immediately on top of the vulcanite has is flat while all the ones that I've seen in black without vulcanite have a rounded edge and are more protruding.

Of course I've checked that both have their barrels with the last digits of their serial numbers engraved.

And now the pictures. I've included a detail of the DOF scale that it's quite different.

As commented, there is very little or nothing about this variations in the net so, any kind of information about these lenses will be really very much appreciated.

Best regards

 

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!

[sabears]

Interesting specimen: the 135xxx, as you see, was coated later. Regarding the vulcanite, the pattern is from 50ies (at least)

[luigi bertolotti]

What looks really strange is the international f scale on the 135.964  (and the infrared, someway) : I think is very uneven that in 1933 it left the factory as is now (coating, of course  is surely later) … maybe a wartime or next postwar rework made at the factory with available parts and/or spares ?

Edited September 11, 2019 by luigi bertolotti

[tranquilo67]

12 hours ago, sabears said:

Interesting specimen: the 135xxx, as you see, was coated later. Regarding the vulcanite, the pattern is from 50ies (at least)

 

11 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

What looks really strange is the international f scale on the 135.964  (and the infrared, someway) : I think is very uneven that in 1933 it left the factory as is now (coating, of course  is surely later) … maybe a wartime or next postwar rework made at the factory with available parts and/or spares ?

Hi,

Thank you very much for your comments.

Regarding the 135964 (I never thought that I was going to be challenged about this ), I've started to review it in detail. I'm not sure if it could be easily transplanted from other "regular" black lenses. The optical group (as you can see in the picture of the top) has a kind of surrounding ring. I've only seen that in the fat elmars and in the few pictures that I've been able to see in the net of thin nickel samples. The regular ones lack of that ring. But even more, the ring with the tick mark for the aperture, is thicker than in the regular ones. And the space between both rings (the one with the tick mark and the one for grabbing and unscrew the optical group) is narrower than the regular.

Without any further inspection of the barrel part, the above leads to the fact that even when similar, it's quite a different lens from the regular black when you compare 1:1. So I don't know if, in such different lens, the aperture ring (together with the DOF scale) could be transplanted from a regular one.

Regarding the one with the vulcanite, yes, I do know that there is no reference to it and that the vulcanite was not used till post war chrome version, but, once more, the ring where the vulcanite is supported, is black but with the square section. So my question is why?. I do understand that it can be a repair then, why not to keep that ring in chrome or even not to replace the vulcanite area as well as the retaining ring with the rounded one. There is something that doesn't make sense.

Once more, thank you and best regards

Edited September 12, 2019 by tranquilo67

[luigi bertolotti]

Without enetring in details (those items must be very interesting to disassemble-inspect… )   I keep my rough idea that the story behind is related to :

- Wartime or "poor" phase after

- Chrome shortage

- Many kinds of spares - semifinished parts in the factory 

- Labor organization troubled - uncertain 

- sales - orders organization not yet rebuilt-refocused

- Take any order that "comes in" and fullfill it as you can… with the usual precision but counting on what you have in house and can machine with what is available.

 

I remember to have read somewhere (Viewfinder magazine ?) that during America occupation several US personnel found the way to acquire Leica gear, good or less good, have it "refurbished" at the factory (Wetzlar was in the US occupied zone) and then taken it at home… odd items of that timeframe do appear time to time for sale in USA.

[willeica]

These are interesting items. I've had a quick look at my 9cm f4s and I find the following:

SN 122913 Fat Elmar black and nickel with range f4 -f36 - has ring around optical element just like SN 135694 which is not present on later LTM lenses below

SN 413056 Thin Elmar black and chrome with range f4-f36 - (came with black and chrome III set)- last 3 digits of SN written inside mount

SN 450135* Thin Elmar black and chrome with range f4-f36- no triangle on chrome ring at base - (came in plastic keeper)

SN 576440 Thin Elmar black and chrome with range f4-f36 - (came in aluminium tropical keeper) -  full SN written inside mount

SN 1573511 Chrome M mount with range f4-f32- with vulcanite ring at bottom - lens head will screw into LTM mounts and vice versa.

To complete the picture I have looked at an early chrome and black 7.3cm Hektor and I find it stops down to f25 and an early uncoupled, but standardised, 135 mm Elmar and I find that it stops down to f36.

My conclusions would be that the international scale, stopping down to f 22/f32 was not used by Leitz/Leica when SN 135964 was made and that the aperture and markings were changed to the international scale when the lens was coated, probably post war. The original nickel parts did not have to be changed. As for 457827, it seems that the original chrome ring was replace with vulcanite. The other features on the lens look just like those on my examples.

William

Edited September 12, 2019 by willeica

[tranquilo67]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, willeica said:

These are interesting items. I've had a quick look at my 9cm f4s and I find the following:

SN 122913 Fat Elmar black and nickel with range f4 -f36 - has ring around optical element just like SN 135694 which is not present on later LTM lenses below

SN 413056 Thin Elmar black and chrome with range f4-f36 - (came with black and chrome III set)- last 3 digits of SN written inside mount

SN 450135* Thin Elmar black and chrome with range f4-f36- no triangle on chrome ring at base - (came in plastic keeper)

SN 576440 Thin Elmar black and chrome with range f4-f36 - (came in aluminium tropical keeper) -  full SN written inside mount

SN 1573511 Chrome M mount with range f4-f32- with vulcanite ring at bottom - lens head will screw into LTM mounts and vice versa.

To complete the picture I have looked at an early chrome and black 7.3cm Hektor and I find it stops down to f25 and an early uncoupled, but standardised, 135 mm Elmar and I find that it stops down to f36.

My conclusions would be that the international scale, stopping down to f 22/f32 was not used by Leitz/Leica when SN 135964 was made and that the aperture and markings were changed to the international scale when the lens was coated, probably post war. The original nickel parts did not have to be changed. As for 457827, it seems that the original chrome ring was replace with vulcanite. The other features on the lens look just like those on my examples.

William

Hi William,

Thank you very much for your answer.

I trend to agree with you. Only a couple of comments:

- In the 135964 if the aperture ring and DOF scale was changed it looks like it should be a kind of one off. I mean, the more I compare it with my other Elmars, the more I'm unable to see the possibility of getting parts from regular ones due to the sizes and shapes.

- In the 457827 the replacement of a chrome ring by vulcanite should be the obvious answer except for the immediate next ring. All that I've seen with a chrome or nickel collar have a different retaining ring (rounded) not flat. Even more, the vulcanite is wider than the regular chrome ring. So not only the chrome ring was replaced by vulcanite but also the immediate ring (at least). But, if so, that ring should be chromed and not black.

Two more pictures, one of the detail of that retaining ring and another one of my four thin Elmars. Interesting to note that the nickel one has the diaphragm in the other direction and it's slightly taller than the two other chrome ones that I have, what points again in the direction of a "one off" when changing it.

Hope this will help

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 September 12, 2019 by tranquilo67

[willeica]

3 hours ago, tranquilo67 said:

Hi William,

Thank you very much for your answer.

I trend to agree with you. Only a couple of comments:

- In the 135964 if the aperture ring and DOF scale was changed it looks like it should be a kind of one off. I mean, the more I compare it with my other Elmars, the more I'm unable to see the possibility of getting parts from regular ones due to the sizes and shapes.

- In the 457827 the replacement of a chrome ring by vulcanite should be the obvious answer except for the immediate next ring. All that I've seen with a chrome or nickel collar have a different retaining ring (rounded) not flat. Even more, the vulcanite is wider than the regular chrome ring. So not only the chrome ring was replaced by vulcanite but also the immediate ring (at least). But, if so, that ring should be chromed and not black.

Two more pictures, one of the detail of that retaining ring and another one of my four thin Elmars. Interesting to note that the nickel one has the diaphragm in the other direction and it's slightly taller than the two other chrome ones that I have, what points again in the direction of a "one off" when changing it.

Hope this will help

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. It is hard to judge these fully without handling them. Just a thought. Have you examined the bottoms of the mounts on the inside to see what differences may exist?

William

[tranquilo67]

11 hours ago, willeica said:

Thanks. It is hard to judge these fully without handling them. Just a thought. Have you examined the bottoms of the mounts on the inside to see what differences may exist?

William

Hi again William,

Let me check and I'll comeback with any difference I could find (and pictures).

Once more, thank you!!

[luigi bertolotti]

Anyway, I seem to remember that black Elmars 90 with international scale - to f 32 - were indeed made in '46/47 (have to search.. maybe Lager depicts one) : so they could have used a "standard" (of the era) black focusing unit (scratching on it the 135964 s/n)  and the old 135964 lens cell with some modification : the thread for lenshead to focus unit was always the same (you can mount an E39 lenshead on a black focus unit… I did… ) , the different size/position of rings is a little mistery…   : I wonder even if it can be related to the short lived Elmar 90 "all chrome" (also a design of those '40s ) … which could suggest the remount of the 135964 lens cell on a factory lenshead, properly black painted… ???

A comparision in this picture can be useful… 2nd and 3rd from left

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 September 13, 2019 by luigi bertolotti

[tranquilo67]

Hi,

Here there are some pictures. To my eye:

- The 135964 is completely different from any other  in the internal number of rings/tubes as well as the internal diameter of them (there is a narrower one).

- Internally, the 457827 internally appears very similar to my chrome with vulcanite from  serial 1.410.365 even when the external lengths do not match.

So, in my opinion, weird combinations in both cases.

Here the 135964 (on the right) beside my regular black chrome from 1937 serial#372386

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!

Here the 457827 (on the right) beside my chrome with vulcanite from 1956 serial#1410365, the internals and the outer.

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by tranquilo67

[willeica]

Thanks. I will have a look inside my items and compare. The second set look similar to each other which may point to a mount transplant. I believe that lens SN 135964 was worked on during the early post-war period. Luigi's comments above point that way also.

William

[Giuliobigazzi]

This is my nickel 9cm elmar. Serial 135884, I’ve seen a few of these in the 135 range, ‘fat’ ones seem to be te early to middle part of this range, and thin ones the later part. Maybe a transitional period between the two.

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!

[Pecole]

As usually when discovering comments about specific lenses serials, I go to my Fontenelle collection archives. As for the 9cm Elmar - I have a total of 44 references ranging from nº 96833 (plus one unnumbered) to nº 2090766 - the only one I had in the 135 range was a black and nickel "fat" serialled 135185. Curiously, all references I had in the  454xxx-457xxx range were  E. Leitz New York Velostigmat, either 90 or 127 mm, and no one from Leitz Wetzlar.

Incidentally, I fully agree with Luigi Bertolotti's explanations.

I join photos of my unumbered "fat" Elmar 9cm and of one of the Wollensak in the 454xxx range of serials.

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!

     

[Pyrogallol]

5 hours ago, Pecole said:

As usually when discovering comments about specific lenses serials, I go to my Fontenelle collection archives. As for the 9cm Elmar - I have a total of 44 references ranging from nº 96833 (plus one unnumbered) to nº 2090766 - the only one I had in the 135 range was a black and nickel "fat" serialled 135185. Curiously, all references I had in the  454xxx-457xxx range were  E. Leitz New York Velostigmat, either 90 or 127 mm, and no one from Leitz Wetzlar.

Incidentally, I fully agree with Luigi Bertolotti's explanations.

I join photos of my unumbered "fat" Elmar 9cm and of one of the Wollensak in the 454xxx range of serials.

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!

     

My New York Wollensak 90mm is 469182 and the 127mm is 452326

i would like to get a 50mm to complete the set of lenses and a New York Standard (my local dealer has one but I don’t think he really wants to sell it.)

Edited November 14, 2019 by Pyrogallol

[Pecole]

Hi, PyrogallolJust for your pleasure, I went to my Fontenelle collection arechives, and found these two images illustrating both the ELNY Standard nº 355287 and 50 mm Velostigmat nº 487398. Wish you find both.

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!

[jc_braconi]

I think is a transitional example like my 105 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!

[Giuliobigazzi]

I believe James lager shows serial 135864 thin nickel Elmar in his volume II- lenses book . Another example in the late 135xxx range.

[Giuliobigazzi]

Recently noticed another Thin nickel Elmar (serial 135962) currently for sale out there. Making it 2 away from yours tranquilo67 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Giuliobigazzi
Addition

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Giuliobigazzi]

Also 135925 is a thin nickel recently sold