LTM to M adapters

[tranquilo67]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Merry Christmas,

I'm becoming a bit mad with the LTM->M adapters. I know that, theoretically they're something extremely simple converting the M39 to M mount and raising their respective frames. The last aspect is the rangefinder coupling, where the adapter does nothing: the screw mount lens cam keeps being coupled to the arm in the body.

In the 6 frames bodies, when a lens is mounted, the frames are displayed in couples:

• 28/90
• 35/135
• 50/75

Of course, there are simpler configurations in the early models or based on viewfinder magnification.

So, to me it seems clear that the only thing to worry about is to choose and adapter that will rise the right frame or set of frames. Well, in fact there is another factor to consider that is the infinity lock, specially in those lenses that have it very close to the mount, so they will need a cut in the adapter ring (like collapsible Elmar 50, Summaron/Elmar 35 and Hektor 28).

So I cannot understand the following:

1. Adapter IRZOO marked: "28-50". In my observation it raises 50/75 frames. It doesn't raise the 28mm frame. What means that 28? It's really misleading. Link to wiki: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/File:IRZOO.jpg
2. In the Wiki, the information about IRZOO says "it indicates the proper framelines with 50mm lenses and 35 mm lenses" (and explicitly mentions Elmar and Summaron). In my observation once more, it raises the 50/75 frames (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/IRZOO) and it doesn't raise the 35mm frame.
3. ISBOO: Marked "9cm". It raises the 90/28 set of frames but none of them show the "28" mark.
4.  In the 1409 page of the wiki (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/1409%3F) it literally says: it indicates the proper framelines for 2.1cm f4!!!!!
5. There is an adapter shown that is marked "21-35 135" (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/0/0f/Leicathread-m-adapter_a.jpg) What does it mean? There are no 21mm framelines so every single adapter will exactly work in the same way with a 21mm.

So, according to my experience:

- For an Elmar/Summaron 35mm you should go for an adapter marked 135 (or 13.5). Not the IRZOO/50mm ones.

- For an Hektor/Summaron 28mm you should go for an adapter marked 90 (or 9cm). Not those marked "28-50"

- For 21mm lenses it really doesn't matter which adapter you get. All of them will give you the same: coupling but wrong frames.

So, my personal advice would be to take care the following marks only: 50, 90 and 135. The rest of the frames will display according (28 with the 90, 75 with the 50 and 35 with the 135).

Any help comment/correction on this will be really appreciated.

Augusto

Edited December 26, 2020 by tranquilo67

[Anbaric]

The early adapters make more sense when you remember that the M3 had 50/90/135 framelines and the M2 had 35/50/90. Neither camera had 28 or 75 (or obviously 21), and neither had both both 35 and 135 available in the same finder. For lenses where framelines weren't available, any adapter would do, but some possibilities would be more distracting than others. With the M3, the 50mm frameline was always visible, so the least distracting possibility with a wide lens would be to use the 50mm adapter, which at least didn't bring up the 90 or 135 framelines. Frameline pairs were a later innovation.

[Advertisement]

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

[tranquilo67]

7 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

The early adapters make more sense when you remember that the M3 had 50/90/135 framelines and the M2 had 35/50/90. Neither camera had 28 or 75 (or obviously 21), and neither had both both 35 and 135 available in the same finder. For lenses where framelines weren't available, any adapter would do, but some possibilities would be more distracting than others. With the M3, the 50mm frameline was always visible, so the least distracting possibility with a wide lens would be to use the 50mm adapter, which at least didn't bring up the 90 or 135 framelines. Frameline pairs were a later innovation.

Sure!! But why the 28mm mark in the 50? that makes no sense at all.

On top of that, it could have make sense from 1954 to 1981 (M4-P) but not since 1981.

 

Edited December 26, 2020 by tranquilo67

[a.noctilux]

8 minutes ago, tranquilo67 said:

Sure!! But why the 28mm mark in the 50? that makes no sense at all.

 

Very simple 😉.

Those markings (28-50 *) on Leitz adapters were there before the M4-P which is the first M with 28mm frame lines in VF.

* I have one with old marking in cm, 2.8 - 5cm on the adapter

Edited December 26, 2020 by a.noctilux

[tranquilo67]

4 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Very simple 😉.

Those markings (28-50) on Leitz adapters were there before the M4-P which is the first M with 28mm frame lines in VF.

Sorry but, to me it doesn't explain it.

Why including "28mm" engraving in the 50mm adapter? What that adapter provides to a 28mm lens?

Edited December 26, 2020 by tranquilo67

[a.noctilux]

I think it was to mount the Summaron 2.8cm, never offered in M mount until recently, hence the 2.8cm

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!

[tranquilo67]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, a.noctilux said:

I think it was to mount the Summaron 2.8cm, never offered in M mount until recently, hence the 2.8cm

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!

Sorry I'm not explaining myself properly.

Sure, it was for the Hektor and the Summaron 28, but why to mark an adapter with "28" when every single adapter would provide at that time the same? (Nothing). They could have marked that "28" in any of the other adapters, or in all of them, or much better in none of them

[Anbaric]

If you mounted a 28mm LTM lens on an M3, would you rather see the 90 frame, the 135 frame, or neither? (you can't get rid of the 50 frame with any adapter). You still have to use the main finder for the rangefinder, even though you are presumably using an external viewfinder to frame your shot.

[tranquilo67]

24 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

If you mounted a 28mm LTM lens on an M3, would you rather see the 90 frame, the 135 frame, or neither? (you can't get rid of the 50 frame with any adapter). You still have to use the main finder for the rangefinder, even though you are presumably using an external viewfinder to frame your shot.

In that case it wouldn't make sense any longer since 1957 (M2) from when, as far as I know, there's no permanent 50mm frame anymore.

Ok. It seems that for some of us, even when our beloved brand makes a mistake, they don't. Sorry, I cannot agree with it.

The 28 mark in the 50 (that I sincerely doubt that all the adapters wrongly marked with "28" were done between 1954 and 1957), is a clear mistake. There should be no "28" mark on it and from 1971 there should be that "28mm" mark in the 90 adapter. The "21mm" mark has no reason at all (or do we have here the same reason of "cleaner finder"?). The wiki is simply wrong in its 35/50 statement. Not mentioning the 28mm in the 90 adapter is also an error.

What's the problem of simply pointing and assuming errors? I'm absolutely amazed.

 

Edited December 26, 2020 by tranquilo67

[Pyrogallol]

It makes sense looking at these two adaptors.

They are saying that if you have an M2 this is the one to use with a 50mm lens, but if you have an M3 you use this one for any lens of 50mm or wider such as 21mm or 28mm. I guess the one with 28mm was made when that was the widest lens availability and the 21mm adaptor was made later. The 21mm f4 Super Angulon came out in 1958, four years after the M3 but only one year after the M2, so that would put the 28mm adaptor between 1957 and 58 then they amended the engraving to 21mm.

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 December 26, 2020 by Pyrogallol

[willeica]

24 minutes ago, tranquilo67 said:

In that case it wouldn't make sense any longer since 1957 (M2) from when, as far as I know, there's no permanent 50mm frame anymore.

Ok. It seems that for some of us, even when our beloved brand makes a mistake, they don't. Sorry, I cannot agree with it.

The 28 mark in the 50 (that I sincerely doubt that all the adapters wrongly marked with "28" were done between 1954 and 1957), is a clear mistake. There should be no "28" mark on it and from 1971 there should be that "28mm" mark in the 90 adapter. The "21mm" mark has no reason at all (or do we have here the same reason of "cleaner finder"?). The wiki is simply wrong in its 35/50 statement. Not mentioning the 28mm in the 90 adapter is also an error.

What's the problem of simply pointing and assuming errors? I'm absolutely amazed.

 

Augusto, I think I have that 28-50 adapter and I will test it and revert to you.. It was for use with 28mm LTM lenses in order to mount them on earlier M cameras. It deliberately would not bring up a 28mm frame line as that was not a possibility at the time and users would have used 28mm finders instead which is all logical. The 50mm frame was to make the adapter doubly useful, particularly as a lot of photographers would have used a 28/50 combo at that time. Hope this makes sense.

William

[tranquilo67]

Ok. I'll try to put it in other terms. Try to explain to someone (without saying the word "ignore") the following:

- Which adapter is the right one for someone who wants to put an Hektor 28 in an M body.

- Which adapter is the right one for mounting a Super Angulon in an M body.

- Which adapter is the right one for mounting an Elmar 35 in an M body.

Am I the only one that can see there some issues?

[Anbaric]

49 minutes ago, tranquilo67 said:

In that case it wouldn't make sense any longer since 1957 (M2) from when, as far as I know, there's no permanent 50mm frame anymore.

Ok. It seems that for some of us, even when our beloved brand makes a mistake, they don't. Sorry, I cannot agree with it.

The 28 mark in the 50 (that I sincerely doubt that all the adapters wrongly marked with "28" were done between 1954 and 1957), is a clear mistake. There should be no "28" mark on it and from 1971 there should be that "28mm" mark in the 90 adapter. The "21mm" mark has no reason at all (or do we have here the same reason of "cleaner finder"?). The wiki is simply wrong in its 35/50 statement. Not mentioning the 28mm in the 90 adapter is also an error.

What's the problem of simply pointing and assuming errors? I'm absolutely amazed.

I could make rather a long list of mistakes I think Leica has made! And certainly if you were selling an adapter like this today, it would be misleading to put '28' on an adapter that won't bring up a 28 frameline on the many cameras that have it. But I think this was deliberate back in the day (I doubt they were selling many in the 80s, however they were engraved). Take a look at the IRZOO image. It says 'M3 28-50' (or 'M3 21-50'), but on the other side just 'M2 50'. On the M2, no frameline is fixed, so with any adapter you'll see one of the three (take your pick) but no more. On the M3, with any adapter except the 50, you'll see two framelines, neither correct. So with this camera, the 50 is the least bad option. Anything else is worse than the M2.

I have an M6 and the set of three adapters, and if I ever buy a 28mm LTM lens, I'll obviously use the 90 adapter (unless someone can think of a reason why I shouldn't). But if instead I wanted to use that 28 on an M3, I'd use the 50 adapter. Wouldn't you? Or would you just pick one at random?

[willeica]

1 hour ago, tranquilo67 said:

Ok. I'll try to put it in other terms. Try to explain to someone (without saying the word "ignore") the following:

- Which adapter is the right one for someone who wants to put an Hektor 28 in an M body.

- Which adapter is the right one for mounting a Super Angulon in an M body.

- Which adapter is the right one for mounting an Elmar 35 in an M body.

Am I the only one that can see there some issues?

Will test the adapter and let you know, Augusto, but the designation seems obvious to me.

William

 

[a.noctilux]

2 hours ago, tranquilo67 said:

Ok. I'll try to put it in other terms. Try to explain to someone (without saying the word "ignore") the following:

- Which adapter is the right one for someone who wants to put an Hektor 28 in an M body.

- Which adapter is the right one for mounting a Super Angulon in an M body.

- Which adapter is the right one for mounting an Elmar 35 in an M body.

Am I the only one that can see there some issues?

I have some adapter that may be used on those.

We may use some combinations on these lenses depending on which is the Leica M in use.

- On M4-P onward, "90" for Hektor 2.8cm , I have two "90" one with cutout for the "lock" the other no cutout if to be used with the imprecise M 28 VF (benefit of parallax corrected).

on M2/3/4 each adapter may be used

- my S-A 4/21 in M mount came with factory adapter which index 50 frames, so here also if we use aux 21 finder, we can use every adapter on every M

funny, I just try out my other 21mm in native M which mount came with "index to 28/90 frame"

- for the Elmar 3.5/3.5cm, maybe the "35" or "135" with cut out, I have one adapter marked "M2 21-35"  --- "M3 135" which I'd use with 35mm lenses

 

[tranquilo67]

16 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

I have some adapter that may be used on those.

We may use some combinations on these lenses depending on which is the Leica M in use.

- On M4-P onward, "90" for Hektor 2.8cm , I have two "90" one with cutout for the "lock" the other no cutout if to be used with the imprecise M 28 VF (benefit of parallax corrected).

on M2/3/4 each adapter may be used

- my S-A 4/21 in M mount came with factory adapter which index 50 frames, so here also if we use aux 21 finder, we can use every adapter on every M

funny, I just try out my other 21mm in native M which mount came with "index to 28/90 frame"

- for the Elmar 3.5/3.5cm, maybe the "35" or "135" with cut out, I have one adapter marked "M2 21-35"  --- "M3 135" which I'd use with 35mm lenses

 

Thank you!!!

It seems we're reaching the point:

- If you have a 28mm lens and any M after the M4-P (basically any camera from the last 40 years): don't use the one that says "28mm". Use the one marked "9cm" and says nothing about 28 instead.

- If you have a 28mm lens and you want to have a less crowded finder in the M3, use any that says 50mm (marked as 28, 21 or just 50).

- If you have a 28mm lens and none of the cameras above, use any adapter. It doesn't matter.

- If you have a 21mm lens use the one that says 21-50 or the one that says 21-35 (both will behave completely different) or simply ignore that 21 mark and use any adapter. It really doesn't matter except if you have the M3 where the finder will be less crowded if you use a 50mm one (independent if it says 21, or 28 or just 50). And of course, ignore the wiki. None will provide you 21mm frames.

- If you have a 35mm lens use the one that says 135 (it doesn't matter if it says "35") and of course ignore what the wiki says about the IRZOO. That's not your adapter.

So, it must be just me, but the above sounds like if it was done to mislead the enemy.

[Pyrogallol]

No, there was no misleading or mistakes. As I said earlier the engravings were correct at the time they were made. 

[romualdo]

12 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

It makes sense looking at these two adaptors.

They are saying that if you have an M2 this is the one to use with a 50mm lens, but if you have an M3 you use this one for any lens of 50mm or wider such as 21mm or 28mm

 

This is the way I have always seen it - I have the three types of Leica adapters & use all of them (on M3, MP & M240)

For the M3 due to it having only three framelines (50/90/135), any lens below 50 could be used (21mm & up) but you would always require an external viewfinder for the appropriate lens as there are no framelines below 50

[willeica]

8 hours ago, tranquilo67 said:

Thank you!!!

It seems we're reaching the point:

- If you have a 28mm lens and any M after the M4-P (basically any camera from the last 40 years): don't use the one that says "28mm". Use the one marked "9cm" and says nothing about 28 instead.

- If you have a 28mm lens and you want to have a less crowded finder in the M3, use any that says 50mm (marked as 28, 21 or just 50).

- If you have a 28mm lens and none of the cameras above, use any adapter. It doesn't matter.

- If you have a 21mm lens use the one that says 21-50 or the one that says 21-35 (both will behave completely different) or simply ignore that 21 mark and use any adapter. It really doesn't matter except if you have the M3 where the finder will be less crowded if you use a 50mm one (independent if it says 21, or 28 or just 50). And of course, ignore the wiki. None will provide you 21mm frames.

- If you have a 35mm lens use the one that says 135 (it doesn't matter if it says "35") and of course ignore what the wiki says about the IRZOO. That's not your adapter.

So, it must be just me, but the above sounds like if it was done to mislead the enemy.

Augusto, you are looking backwards at this from 2020. You have to look at this from the perspective of the period in which the adapters were made and the frame lines for Ms which were available at those times. Users accepted which frame lines were and were not available at those times and used external finders instead. I cannot see any attempt to mislead in this. Anyone using a variety of LTM lenses on M cameras today needs a box of adapters to choose from and also another box with external viewfinders. I have never had difficulties choosing and using an adapter that works or with viewfinders. When I get some time I will check out what works for what lens and send the results to you.

William 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tranquilo67]

Ok. It's clear that I'm the only one that see a mess there.

Thank you to all of you for your time.