Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone know when the infrared marks on Leitz/Leica lenses were not used anymore? I am checking my own lenses:

Hektor 13,5 cm (1956): yes; Elmar 135 mm (1962): no

Elmar 9 cm (1937): yes; Elmar 9 cm (1952): yes; Elmar 9 cm collapsible (1954): yes; Elmar 90mm (1962, new version or II): no

Summicron 50mm II (1960): no; Summicron 50mm III (1968): no

Summitar 50mm (1948): yes

Summar 5 cm (1937): yes

Elmar 5 cm (1939): yes

None of my 3,5cm/35mm lenses has the R-mark

Best, Lex

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lex, vor ein paar Jahren habe ich mich mit Varianten von 5cm Elmar beschäftigt und damals fand ich, dass ab cca 1934 Infrarot Markierung angebracht war und ist auch bei den Elmaren aus Ende 50-gen vorhanden. Ich gehe davon aus, dass auch andere Objektive ab 1934 die R Marke bekamen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe around 1956  - # 1.4xx.xxx ? Some of my personal items in that area are :

- Elmar 90 collapsible 1188412 : yes

- Elmar 50 RS 1243011 : yes

- Elmar 90 E39 filter, BM 1335403 : yes

- Elmar 90 A36 filter, SM 1409234 : no

- Summaron 35 M3 1555464 : no

- Summicron 90 SM 1681650 : no

... and I'd bet (didn't check all... too many 😎) that there is no R mark on any newer lenses... even in the ones with "critical" focusing like the 200 f4 (while is there in my old  200 4,5 ) or the 280 4,8 (while is there on my old 400 f5)

Probably it's even harder to define when they started to add the R index in the '30s ... No mark on my unnumbered fat Elmar 90  and my 5-digits Elmar 50 - no mark also on my Hektor 7,3 129.006... but the unnumbered Elmar 135 4,5 has the R...  as well as my Hektor 50 178256 and Alpine Elmar 300282 (but no IR mark on the Hektor 28 274691...)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry for my previous response in German language. 
When analyzing Elmars 5cm few years ago I found that R mark appeared early 1934, I assume that all lenses had it then.
Fast check of my newer lenses shows that R mark disappeared again around 1956/57, as Luigi wrote.

It is not u nusualk to find R mark on unnumbered lenses - many of them have been converted  (fixed Elmar/Hektor to interchangeable, adding rangfinder coupling, standartizing) so scale with R mark could have been added during conversion

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, jerzy said:

 

It is not u nusualk to find R mark on unnumbered lenses - many of them have been converted  (fixed Elmar/Hektor to interchangeable, adding rangfinder coupling, standartizing) so scale with R mark could have been added during conversion

And infact my unnumbered Elmar 135 (with R mark) looks to be a standard-uncoupled upgraded to coupled. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, this is interesting. I forgot to mention my Summarit 1.5/5 cm (1953) does have the R mark. So the R mark seems to appear in 1934 and disappears again around 1956/57. Now it would be interesting to know why the R mark was added in 1934, and why the apparent interest on the part of the users seems to have faded away around 1956/57.

Lex

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, sandro said:

...it would be interesting to know why the R mark was added in 1934, and why the apparent interest on the part of the users seems to have faded away around 1956/57...

No idea as to why it was dropped but the introduction is fairly simple to explain (I quote from Wiki);

"Infrared photography became popular with photography enthusiasts in the 1930s when suitable film was introduced commercially."

Having just checked some lenses the odd-one-out in terms of what has been discussed so far is that my first-series 35mm f3.5 Summaron (in M mount) from 1954 does not have an IR mark. Perhaps, though, this is down to the already quite overcrowded nature of the D-o-F markings on the lens not allowing sufficient space for such an IR marking to be engraved?

Philip.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

I still use the R mark, with Rollei 400 infrared film. I understand that the right hand f5.6 mark can be used if the R is not present.

Hi, the R mark on my Collapsible Summicron is right before the f/2 mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without wishing to go too far off-topic...

IMX the positioning of the IR mark can change for each different focal-length of lens and often for each different optical design. I suppose this makes perfect sense?

From the brief but informative tests I carried-out last year (although with Deep Red 4X filters and not true IR at all) "f4" seemed to be a common 'happy place' for a number of lenses but there were some particularly notable exceptions such as the 21mm f4 Super-Angulon which required 50% less adjustment that anything else.

Philip.

EDIT : OK; I know it's been posted before but I suppose it might be of help here, too? Post #8 for some rough'n'ready examples shown at 150% magnification;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/313352-monochrom-type-i-and-color-filters/?tab=comments#comment-4047525

Edited by pippy
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, pippy said:

Without wishing to go too far off-topic...

IMX the positioning of the IR mark can change for each different focal-length of lens and often for each different optical design. I suppose this makes perfect sense?

From the brief but informative tests I carried-out last year (although with Deep Red 4X filters and not true IR at all) "f4" seemed to be a common 'happy place' for a number of lenses but there were some particularly notable exceptions such as the 21mm f4 Super-Angulon which required 50% less adjustment that anything else.

Philip.

EDIT : OK; I know it's been posted before but I suppose it might be of help here, too? Post #8 for some rough'n'ready examples shown at 150% magnification;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/313352-monochrom-type-i-and-color-filters/?tab=comments#comment-4047525

f/4 in IR on 35 mm film or sensor plane corresponds to about f/5.6 in IR light. The longer wavelength of infrared provides one additional stop in depth of field. That's why shooting with f/4 on a 35 mm camera in IR light nails the focus very often even without IR mark focus adjustment. This said, the location of the IR mark depends on the focal length - it is further to the right of the regular focus mark when looking top down on the lens with wider lenses and closer to the visible light focus mark with 50 mm or tele lenses. 

To my knowledge newer Leica M lenses are built that there is a negligible difference between visible and infrared focus marks. I tested this recently with my 50/2 Summicron pre-ASPH which has no IR focus mark. The IR film photos nailed the focus wide open by not even changing it from the visible focus mark. As mentioned above, this is different with older M and LTM lenses which have the IR mark. I don't own a wide Leica M lens to run the same test that the focus doesn't need to be adjusted for IR light - it would be interesting since there the IR focus mark is in theory located further right on the scale if the lens is not designed to remediate this. 

Edited by Martin B
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, pippy said:

there were some particularly notable exceptions such as the 21mm f4 Super-Angulon which required 50% less adjustment that anything else

It might be worth pondering that with the fact that the marks on the f4 Super-Angulon are more optimistic than on other lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CV 25/4 Snapshot Skopar LTM lens works excellent in IR. Taken with Leica M6, Rollei IR 400 film, and Hoya R72 filter (which stands for 720 nm cutoff). I estimated a slight focus shift and turned the focus a tiny bit clockwise to adjust for some IR focus shift (the lens also has no IR mark). The photos were taken at f/5.6 which corresponds approx. f/8 in IR light. 

 

 

 

The photo below was taken with the Leica 50/2 Summitar LTM lens with adapted Hoya R72 (58mm) filter. I used the IR mark on the lens to adjust for focus difference at f/2.8 or f/4

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add some numbers:

Elmar 3.5/50 no 203935 from 1934 is the oldest in my list with IR-mark, Summicron 2/50 DR no 1465825 from 1957 is one of the last. Curiosly a 6.3/105 Elmar no 162370 from 1933 has that mark but looks also coated so it may have been modiefied at some later time; same for 4/90 Elmar no 165920 from 1933 which shos some numbers inside the barrel but not the serial number.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pippy said:

 

Having just checked some lenses the odd-one-out in terms of what has been discussed so far is that my first-series 35mm f3.5 Summaron (in M mount) from 1954 does not have an IR mark. Perhaps, though, this is down to the already quite overcrowded nature of the D-o-F markings on the lens not allowing sufficient space for such an IR marking to be engraved?

Philip.

 

Also the older Summarons 3,5 (the A36 LTM) have not the mark, and neither the Hektor 2,8 cm : I think that for such focals Leitz evaluated that DOF was sufficient to ignore the IR issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the famous Leica Handbuch by Fritz Vith I don't see mention of IR. In Morgan & Lester's Leica Manual and data book (13th edition, 1956) it is noted that all but the 28 and 35mm focal length lenses have an IR index mark. And Hans Windisch in his "Achtung-Aufnahme!". Kleinbild Jagd auf Dinge und Menschen (1st ed. 1937) mentioned that Leica recently ("neuerdings") has indicated the IR index point on lenses.

Lex

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

 

... and I'd bet (didn't check all... too many 😎) that there is no R mark on any newer lenses... even in the ones with "critical" focusing like the 200 f4 (while is there in my old  200 4,5 ) or the 280 4,8 (while is there on my old 400 f5)

my 1955 Telyt 200 f4.5 (SN 1256658) has no R mark (well I can't find one?)

but my 1951 Summitar 50 f2 (SN 846113) has one

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romualdo said:

my 1955 Telyt 200 f4.5 (SN 1256658) has no R mark (well I can't find one?)

but my 1951 Summitar 50 f2 (SN 846113) has one

That confirms what we discussed, that the IR marks were used between 1934 and 1956/57. My Telyt 4/200 (1963) and Telyt 4.8/280mm (1961) don't have the marks, since they date from after the moment the IR marks were not used anymore.

Lex

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, romualdo said:

my 1955 Telyt 200 f4.5 (SN 1256658) has no R mark (well I can't find one?)

 

That's curios... by chance Lager in his books displays a Telyt very close to yours (1256534) which has the R mark... in its usual location...

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.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By willienelson
      I haven't used my Noctilux in quite some time.  I'm wondering if this is a normal issue wide open with point light sources or if there is something wrong with my lens.  I've seen it from other light sources like neon signs wide open at night.
       

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
    • By shirubadanieru
      Hi everyone, I’ve recently acquired a Leica III and I’ve been enjoying this camera so much that I have not touched my M3 at all for over a month now. I was wondering if there are any Barnack Leica users here who could recommend me their favorite lenses for the system. I currently own: 

      - Nickel Elmar 5cm f3.5 (elmar, uncoated from 1933) 
      - Chrome Elmar 5cm f3.5 Red scale (coated from 1954)

      I’m thinking of getting rid of one of the Elmars (still have to decide which one) and get another 50mm that is compact / light but a bit brighter and a 28/35mm as well. 
    • By frame-it
      What is the Curved lever attached to the lens for?

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
    • By chris_tribble
      I'm currently wrestling with which lenses to keep / sell  / add - and wonder if others are dealing with similar issues.
      At the moment I'm using two systems.  L mount and M mount. 
      The L mount system is one SL2 body and the following lenses:
      VE 24-90
      VE 90-280
      Sigma 45 f2.8 DG DN
      The M system is two M10 bodies and:
      15 Voigtlander Super-wide Heliar III f4.5
      28 Summicron Asph
      35 Summicron Asph
      50 Summilux Asph
      50 Summarit f2.4
      75 Summarit f2.4
      90 Macro-Elmar + macro adapter
      135 M Apo-Telyt f3.4

      In the current circumstances, my daily carry everywhere is the SL2 + 24-90.  I never thought it would be so easy to manage - but it is.  Because of how life is at the moment, I'm hardly using the VE 90-280.  This means there is a large lump of money sitting in a lens that is little used.  However, I got it for a good price used and I'll hold on to it for a year or two and then review.  I don't use the Sigma 45 so much since I got the VE 24-90 (which is SUCH a good, well behaved lense), but I still like the images I make and I am happy to retain it for now.  I'm also not using the M's much at present. This isn't a reason for getting rid of them - but the retained lenses are another issue.  If I look back through thousands of images in my Lightroom archive, the three M lenses that dominate are 28 / 35 / 50.  The others account for only about 5% of images.  I loved the 90 Macro when I first got it - but I was mainly using it as a compact medium telephoto on the M10, and not really using it for macro!  AND The Sigma 45 (with its near macro capability)  on the SL2 was so much easier to work with!  Likewise, I've had the 135 A-T for a long time, and it's a flawless lens (which works great on the SL2), but how much do I use it? Very little at the moment.  I use the Voigtlander 15 Super-wide Heliar very little too - but I know that it's essential for certain kinds of interior and landscape
      Now that I have the SL2, the lenses that are really redundant are the 50 & 75 Summarits + the 90 Macro-Elmar.  Off to Ffordes they will go.  But then what.  What am I lacking.  My current feeling is that it's a really good portrait lens and (possibly) a dedicated medium telephoto / macro lens.  Which leads me to Sigma.  It seems that the new 85 1.4 DG DN is a candidate as is the 105 Macro DG DN.  I'm also tempted by the 35 f2 DG DN - though this overlaps with the 35 Summicron (which works beautifully on either M or SL).
      SO - does anyone have experience with the two Sigma lenses mentioned above (85 / 105).  Does anyone have other thoughts?  I'm toying with the Sigma 14-35, but I'm not sure if I'd use it that much.  Heigh ho - I suppose this is all to do with too much time on my hands during the pandemic - though I did get out this morning in beautiful sunshine and snow (with the SL2 and 24-90!). Examples here: 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!  
       
      Thanks for any thoughts...
×
×
  • Create New...