NOOKY / 16500 Question

[Doug A]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like to take closeup pictures with my Barnack Leicas. Besides a Visoflex II with a 65/3.5 Elmar, I have an ADVOO I use with a 50/2.8 Elmar on a IIIg and a SOOKY / 16502 I use with a collapsible 50mm Summicron on a IIIc or IIIf. What I don't have is a way to take closeups with my favorite lens (50/2.8 Elmar) on my favorite camera (IIIf)..

All of the references say the SOOKY / 16502 works with the 50mm Summicron and the NOOKY / 16500 works with the 50mm Elmar, without specifying which 50mm Elmar. One reference, which I can't find now, suggested the SOOKY would also work with the 50/2.8 LTM Elmar. But I tried it, without forcing anything, and no go. The end of the lens tube that locks into the NOOKY or SOOKY looks the same to me on the Elmar and Summicron, but the Summicron twists right in and the Elmar doesn't turn at all..

I would buy a NOOKY / 16500 if I was certain it would work with the 50/2.8 Elmar on the IIIc or IIIf. They aren't very expensive, as Leica gear goes 🙂

Any help will be appreciated!

[Advertisement]

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

[Jerry Attrik]

Evenin' Doug,

Did a little mooch and found this MrLeica.com – Leica Blog & Film Camera Reviews (Ouch!! cannot alter the font size)

In which he says that he uses an f/2.8 50mm. collapsible Elmar with a SOOKY-M. 

This, I think, suggests that the fitting for this lens and both the SOOKY and SOOKY-M are the same.

The 1mm. difference between screw and bayonet mount is made up in the SOOKY-M flange as it is  with the screw/bayonet adapter.

Would be worth investigating the lens barrel bayonet lugs and the SOOKY.

Collapse both lenses, Elmar and Summicron, and turn them 'bum-to-bum'  (as it were) and check if the three bayonet lugs are the same dimensions.

An interesting poser.

D.Lox

Edited December 14, 2019 by Jerry Attrik
tried to alter font size

[a.noctilux]

Hello,

When I use the NOOKY with my IIIa or IIIf, I always use the Elmar 3.5/50.

I don't have the 2.8/50 anymore, so I can't try with nooky .

 

If your 2.8/50's three claws dimension is similar to Summicron 50mm, the 2.8/50 Elmar can't use the nooky.

Just try that with the nooky and the 16508 ring (device to mount unscrewed optical cell of rigid Summicron) which is too large in diameter.

I can't put the 16508 inside the nooky to lock it.

 

Don't you mount the 2.8/50 on your sooky to try out ?

There is kind of spring to push inside before turning the lens to mount it (not just turning, but push-turn).

So we would know that

16502 / SOOKY (not -M of course) may be fine for Elmar 2.8/50mm on LTM

Edited December 14, 2019 by a.noctilux

[luigi bertolotti]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 7:40 PM, Doug A said:

 

I would buy a NOOKY / 16500 if I was certain it would work with the 50/2.8 Elmar on the IIIc or IIIf. They aren't very expensive, as Leica gear goes 🙂

Any help will be appreciated!

Easy check for me : have a NOOKY and an Elmar 2,8 (s/n 1.699.835) : it DOES NOT fit into the NOOKY : for fraction of millimeters, the blades of the Elmar's lens tube are too wide for the mouth of the NOOKY :  btw, same is for the Elmar 50 3,5 in bayonet mount. My LTM Elmar 50 Red Scale, of course, fits fine into the NOOKY.

I have not the SOOKY, but have a SOOKY-M aka SOMKY... and the Elmar 2,8 does fit into : you have to apply a certain pressure after inserting the lens, and rotate right(as A.Noctlilux wrote, there is a spring to push) : it's exactly like I do to insert the UOORF ring : SOMKY + UOORF + Summicron head is a set i still use on M240... .

But, is a SOMKY... maybe the SOOKY is just a bit different… though this seems odd to me : btw I put face to face the tubes of the Elmar 2,8 and the Summicron collapsible : they look IDENTICAL to me (I mean, diameter and dimension of the blades) ,whilst isn't like this for ELmar 3,5 and Elmar 2,8.

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by luigi bertolotti

[Jerry Attrik]

I found another reference. Andrew Matheson, 'The Leica and Leicaflex Way' eleventh revised edition. june 1974. pp. 516 para. 4.

Quote:- "...There are three versions of the close-up focusing mount, one for the 50mm. Elmar f3.5,

one for the Summicron f2 and Elmar f2.8 and one for the 50mm. Summitar or Summar f2..."

Perhaps ....maybe?

D.Lox.

[Doug A]

On 12/14/2019 at 5:00 PM, Jerry Attrik said:

Evenin' Doug,

Did a little mooch and found this MrLeica.com – Leica Blog & Film Camera Reviews (Ouch!! cannot alter the font size)

In which he says that he uses an f/2.8 50mm. collapsible Elmar with a SOOKY-M. 

This, I think, suggests that the fitting for this lens and both the SOOKY and SOOKY-M are the same.

The 1mm. difference between screw and bayonet mount is made up in the SOOKY-M flange as it is  with the screw/bayonet adapter.

Would be worth investigating the lens barrel bayonet lugs and the SOOKY.

Collapse both lenses, Elmar and Summicron, and turn them 'bum-to-bum'  (as it were) and check if the three bayonet lugs are the same dimensions.

An interesting poser.

D.Lox

Hi Jerry,

Thank you for the link to the MrLeica site. Lots of interesting material. I note, however, that he does not explicitly say that the fitting for the SOOKY and SOOKY-M are the same. I did compare the ends of my LTM 50/2.8 Elmar and 50/2 Summicron. They look the same, but see below...

--Doug

[Doug A]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/14/2019 at 5:55 PM, a.noctilux said:

There is kind of spring to push inside before turning the lens to mount it (not just turning, but push-turn).

I agree that it should work that way but I pushed pretty hard and could not get the lens to turn into place.

--Doug

[Doug A]

2 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Easy check for me : have a NOOKY and an Elmar 2,8 (s/n 1.699.835) : it DOES NOT fit into the NOOKY : for fraction of millimeters, the blades of the Elmar's lens tube are too wide for the mouth of the NOOKY :  btw, same is for the Elmar 50 3,5 in bayonet mount. My LTM Elmar 50 Red Scale, of course, fits fine into the NOOKY.

I have not the SOOKY, but have a SOOKY-M aka SOMKY... and the Elmar 2,8 does fit into : you have to apply a certain pressure after inserting the lens, and rotate right(as A.Noctlilux wrote, there is a spring to push) : it's exactly like I do to insert the UOORF ring : SOMKY + UOORF + Summicron head is a set i still use on M240... .

But, is a SOMKY... maybe the SOOKY is just a bit different… though this seems odd to me : btw I put face to face the tubes of the Elmar 2,8 and the Summicron collapsible : they look IDENTICAL to me (I mean, diameter and dimension of the blades) ,whilst isn't like this for ELmar 3,5 and Elmar 2,8.

Hi Luigi,

Thank you for checking. My observation of the ends of the tubes it the same as yours. It is starting to look like there might not be a 165xx solution for the LTM Elmar 50/2.8 with an LTM camera. It is not as if I don't have a number of other ways to take closeup pictures. 🙂

--Doug

[Doug A]

2 hours ago, Jerry Attrik said:

I found another reference. Andrew Matheson, 'The Leica and Leicaflex Way' eleventh revised edition. june 1974. pp. 516 para. 4.

Quote:- "...There are three versions of the close-up focusing mount, one for the 50mm. Elmar f3.5,

one for the Summicron f2 and Elmar f2.8 and one for the 50mm. Summitar or Summar f2..."

Perhaps ....maybe?

D.Lox.

Hi Jerry,

That's the reference that started my investigation. Thank you for finding it. Unfortunately, my particular SOOKY does not work with my particular Elmar 2.8.

--Doug

[a.noctilux]

Doug,

Sorry that we can't help.

Now we know that the set-up you wanted, SOOKY/NOOKY with Elmar 2.8/50mm, can't be done.

As side note, when I had some years ago Elmar-M 2.8/50mm, I wanted to mount it ( this one  ) on NOOKY, but could not,

a black rubber ring around the rear mount prevents to do that.

[luigi bertolotti]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 7:40 PM, Doug A said:

... but the Summicron twists right in and the Elmar doesn't turn at all..

 

 

Sorry to insist… but I find unexpicable the above fact … clearly the spring mechanism of your SOOKY is right working… trying to find a rational, I played a little with my SOMKY (after all, its lens' fitting mechanism can be well the same as SOOKY... no reason to be different) and indeed found some evidence that the tubes of Elmar 50 2,8 and Summicron 50 LTM can be NOT EXACTLY identical…

- there are 3 blades on lenses' tube, corresponding to 3 receptacles into the SOOKY : in theory, you could mount the lens in 3 different angular positions 

- in practice, when mounting the lens onto, you have to "feel", rotating by hand the lens, when the blades engage "right" and than push&turn

- BUT : trying with my Elmar and Summicron, I experienced different situations :

                   A) with the Elmar, I have TWO positions (see under) in which lens fits correctly; in the 3rd theorical position, blades don't engage smoothly .. I didn't insist

     

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!

     B )   With the Summicron, I find just ONE position where mounting is ok : in the other 2 positions, you can push, but can not turn :

I'd be curios to read the instruction manual of the SOOKY (surely it existed) about mounting the lens… have you tried , with your Elmar, all the 3 theorical angular positions ? In my opinion, is a matter of thight tolerances of the SOOKY, vs. the tight tolerances of the lenses' tube… something can work not so good... : but Leitz people were SMART designers… I'd be very surprised if there is really NO WAY to mount your Elmar…

(last observation from my  tests of tonight…  : Elmar 50 3,5 BM : fits fine in any of the 3 positions, and same is for the UOORF ring… it's the only device I use on my SOOKY-M and indeed I never observed any issue of "angular position" with it...never thought of this problem before this thread...

Edited December 16, 2019 by luigi bertolotti

[Doug A]

Yes, I did try to mount both the Elmar and the Summicron in all three positions. The Summicron turns easily into place in all three positions. The Elmar does not turn at all in any position. If I twist hard enough it feels like it is catching the end of the spring but even if I push it hard into the SOOKY it does not turn.

I found just one document for the NOOKY/SOOKY:  http://www.tripodplaces.com/wp-content/uploads/Leitz_sooky-m_manual.pdf

It does not have written instructions for mounting the SOOKY and the lens, just an illustration with arrows showing the direction to push and turn. But there is something else interesting about the document. It is not dated but it does mention both the M3 and the IIIg so it is no older than 1957. And the list of lenses supported by the three versions includes the Elmar 50/3.5, Summitar 50/2, Summicron 50/2, Summar 50/2 and Hektor 50/2.5, but not the Elmar 50/2.8. The 2.8 Elmar would have had to be backward compatible with the NOOKY or SOOKY and so far nobody here has reported an example that works with either one.

[luigi bertolotti]

I feel always intrigued when such small details of Leitz history do emerge  (and our forum is great to discover those hidden little misteries…)  : let's put ensemble the pieces...

-  The document you found states clearly that SOOKY is for Summicron : no other lens quoted

- And as you say, the doc dates at least to 1957 (IIIG) : a time in which Elmar 2,8 was available (even for not so a wide margin.. but anyway there were many BM 3,5 "in field")

-  While SOOKY-M is declared "for all 5cm lenses except Summarit" (implying  "all 5cm M Mount lenses" , otherwise there were several SM 5cm lenses not compatible)

- This means that Summilux didn't exist yet… otherwise it would be quoted as incompatible : so document is 1957 or 1958 (there is a "57" at the bottom of  the last page… identifier of the printing concern … maybe an allusion to the year  )

- So, which were those "all 5cm (BM) lenses" ?  : Summarit , Summicron (mainly collapsible, rigid  just entered),  Elmar 3,5, Elmar 2,8 (superseded it around 1956, again)  

- And my Elmar 2,8 DOES fit fine my SOOKY-M  (see above pic) , no doubt

- And accordingly to this trustable source ( http://www.wetzlar-historica-italia.it/accessorimacro.html ) SOOKY M was indeed made for the Elmar 2,8 (and SOOKY for the Summicron, period)

So i conclude that, contrary to what I thought, SOOKY and SOOKY M are not exactly the same about lens fitting mechanism… maybe even not on the drawing board… but, at least, the machining cycle was re-tuned for the SOOKY-M to fully accept the Elmars (hair splitting… this could even explain why my Elmar fits on my SOOKY M a bit "better" than the Summicron collapsible… btw my one is a SOOKY-M "younger" than the item of the brochure - see the Leitz logo)

Anyway, a document edited within a timeframe rich of new introductions… the IIIG, the Summicron rigid, the "switch" 3,5 to 2,8 of the Elmar, Summilux  almost "ready"...  so the brochure has some oddity related to product changes of the era : I do notice something strange on the picture of the M3 with SOOKY-M    : the lens mounted is a Summicron… but does not look like a collapsible Summicron… where is the focus knob ?...  it looks much more like the lenshead of a rigid Summicron mounted through the UOORF ring (a combo I do know well ) , a combination not quoted in the brochure itself… probabll yit was printed when the rigid wasn't yet available, or the UOORF ring not yet introduced…

 

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by luigi bertolotti

[a.noctilux]

Interesting topic.

Luigi, the document date is at last page, IX / 57 / LX , so printing date September 1957.

While searching for the first year 1957 of Elmar 2.8/50 , I read in my Pocket Book 8th Edition :

"...

The optical performance is independent of the magnification, which allows the lens to be used for macro and near distance photography

and as enlarger lens.

..."

 

Luigi I think you had found why the 2.8/50 can't be put in SOOKY, a small bit of change in fitting mechanism.

 

Another thing is the DOF table start at f/5.6 and "18mm" at 1:6.5 maybe too small for f/2.8 use ?

 

Out of topic following ...

 

Out of curiosity,

yesterday, I mount the LTM Summicron 5cm on SOMKY and M10 to try out.

RF focus and check with liveview, some discrepencies when close focus about from 1:10 and f/2 to f/4.

More differences closer to 1:7.5 the lens must be closed to f/8 or f/11 to be in focus ( RF = LV ).

I understand now why the DOF table begins at f/5.6 in the 1957 printing.

Edited December 17, 2019 by a.noctilux

[luigi bertolotti]

12 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

….

I understand now why the DOF table begins at f/5.6 in the 1957 printing.

… and why the document writes (pag 3)  "... it is suggested that the lenses be stopped down to at least 5,6"

[UliWer]

I think there are two different factors why certain lenses do not fit into certain close focus devices:

1. construction of the lens tube‘s rear end. Even when they look similar, there are small differences in diameter and perhaps thickness of the three blades which fix the lens in the device. I have a Sooky-M. All versions of Elmars (3.5 LTM, 3.5M, 2.8LTM  and 2.8M) fit into it as well as the collapsible Summicron and the UOORF ring for the rigid Summicron‘s lens head. But the Summitar does not fit. The Summitar‘s rear end is slightly larger in diameter than the other lenses. That‘s also the reason why the Summitar will be more risky to collapse with the little wheel which activates the rangefinder in all Leica Camera bodies - be it a Leica II or any M up to the M10. It‘s not the length of the tube which restricts collapsing the old lenses but the diameter of the tube’s rear end. 
 

2. focal length. We know that the nominal focal length of „50mm“ or „5cm“ is not the real one. The real focal length varies a lot between 50.xx and almost 53mm. So if the focal length of a certain lens does not fit into the tolerance of the close focus device it makes sense that it will not fit mechanically to avoid user‘s frustration and „bad press“ about the the quality of close focus photos done with a Leica.

So there might be a chance that a 2.8 Elmar-LTM will fit in the NOOKY-HESUM which was made to fit the Summitar with the slightly larger diameter - though this is just guessing. But I have doubts that the Elmar‘s focal length will be the right one for this device.

Btw: there is no reason to use an 2.8 Elmar-LTM with a near focus device if one can also use a traditional 3.5 Elmar. The latter is certainly not worse - probably better - for close focus. Zeiss made their own close focus device, Contaprox, for the Contax which had an inbuilt lens: the 1:3.5/50 Tessar. In all their advertising - pre war like post war - they stated that the 3.5 version was the best solution for close focus. I am sure the same is true for the Elmar.

The 2.8 Elmar-LTM was made for the IIIg, which had it‘s own close focus device - the ADVOO.

 

[romualdo]

reviving this thread

I've just sourced a NOOKY & tried two Elmar 3.5's one a 1947 coated version & a the second a nickle 1933 uncoated

The 1947 lens (in collapsed form) locks properly into the NOOKY but unfortunately the earlier (1933) version won't lock in - it just spins

I've examined both lenses flanges (that should lock into the NOOKY) and they look identical ? there may be a marginal difference in their thickness (33 vers is possibly thinner)

Has anyone else experienced this? Am I doing something wrong during installation?

[romanus53]

got a NOOKY-HESUM but not all Summar or Hektor I tried fit properly, so you are not alone

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[roydonian]

I've just tried my SOOKY-M (which I normally use with a retractable 5cm Summicron) with an f/2.8 screw-mount Elmar and a late 1930s f/3.5 Elmar. Both can be mounted OK.

[luigi bertolotti]

On 3/10/2022 at 5:31 AM, romualdo said:

reviving this thread

I've just sourced a NOOKY & tried two Elmar 3.5's one a 1947 coated version & a the second a nickle 1933 uncoated

The 1947 lens (in collapsed form) locks properly into the NOOKY but unfortunately the earlier (1933) version won't lock in - it just spins

I've examined both lenses flanges (that should lock into the NOOKY) and they look identical ? there may be a marginal difference in their thickness (33 vers is possibly thinner)

Has anyone else experienced this? Am I doing something wrong during installation?

I have just tested my NOOKY with an Elmar that is even a bit older than the 1933 item you quote (is a 11 o'clock s/n 95.532 - 1932) : it can be mounted... but only in ONE of the 3 possible positions of the tube within the NOOKY... in the other two, the blades don't engage (at least, with "normal" hand force) : oh well... we are speaking of 90 years old lenses which can have been extracted-retracted hundreds times... 😉 : but, thinking well,  maybe from the intro of the NOOKY (1936) they "tuned" the manufacturing cycle of the Elmars' blades (maybe simply at tolerancing level, not changing the design in itself) to assure full compatibility (btw, my NOOKY is "old" - not the post 1939 version with the reproduction ratio scale).

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by luigi bertolotti