135mm f/4 on large format

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An interesting discussion: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?162531-Elmar-135mm-Will-it-cover-4x5-LSM-to-Copal-adapter

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

Interesting 😉,

I've saw a while back this Marco Cavina article for Tele-Elmar 4/135

Almost cover 4x5 ...in darkroom use.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Leitz_Tele-Elmar_135mm_4/00_pag.htm

 

[jankap]

What is covering a format? For the widest diagonal? Of course there can be picture data perhaps vignetted. The design is optimized for circle of 43,3mm.

[pgk]

30 minutes ago, jankap said:

What is covering a format? For the widest diagonal? Of course there can be picture data perhaps vignetted. The design is optimized for circle of 43,3mm.

Marco Cavina's article shows the coverage effectively. Some lenses are physically vignetted due to their mount as is the 135/4, but if removed its coverage is wider than might be anticipated. Just how good it is beyond 43.3mm depends on the final output (print size, etc.) I suppose.

[willeica]

Removing a lens head from a focus mount and adjusting via the bellows should always give more options as regards focus and coverage. Lenses for large format usage generally have no focus movement apart from that of the bellows behind the board on which they are mounted. The other issue, touched on here, is the shutter and Compur and Copal etc shutters are an obvious choice, but fitting this type of shutter around or on a lens designed to be used with a focal plane shutter gives rise to additional engineering issues. The Leitz 10.5cm Elmar with Compur mount was designed for use with medium format folding cameras. We know that Leitz supplied that lens for use on the 6x9 Nagel Recomar 18. I managed to acquire one of those lenses on its own a couple of years ago and I have mounted it on my 4x5 Intrepid where it gives full coverage with a bit of jiggling around of the bellows.

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!

The type of lens shown here was commonly available from other manufacturers, particularly Zeiss. Some of the linked material goes into the Sonnar antecedents of some Leica 135mm lens variants. The 10.5cm lens shown above has a direct Zeiss ancestor, a 10.5cm f4.5 Tessar. I have a 10.5cm f 6.3 (sounds like a familiar formula eg Berg Elmar ?) Zeiss Tessar on an early 1920s Contessa. I have other variants with 12cm and 18cm. Zeiss was the leader in lens design and it is not surprising that Leitz/Leica took its leads from the best in the business. Oskar Barnack had worked at Zeiss, after all.The other feature worth noting is that the Compur type mount became a 'standard' in the German camera industry for at least 20 years (1920-40) in respect of a wide range of film/plate formats. For a short time Leica produced its own Compur mount cameras and sold lenses 'into the trade', also for a short time. The company wisely decided to stick with and develop its own focal plane shutter models.

Finally, I cannot really understand why anyone would want to use a lens designed for a Leica when there are so many lenses in Compur/Copal mounts out there. If one cannot find a Leitz lens, then there are plenty of excellent alternatives from Zeiss, Schneider and Meyer etc available. I have posted my picture above on the large format site, where I am a member, and I'm waiting on a reaction.

William

[pgk]

13 minutes ago, willeica said:

Finally, I cannot really understand why anyone would want to use a lens designed for a Leica when there are so many lenses in Compur/Copal mounts out there.

I suppose that the question comes up "was this lens actually designed for a [35mm] Leica?'. The evolution of lens design is complex and lens derivation followed paths which are often unclear, but still show their ancestry well enough. If a 105 or 135mm lens designed to cover a larger format had good enough cental definition to allow it be utilied on 35mm format, then putting it into a suitable  focussing mount to do so makes excellent sense. As for using such lenses, well its just a bit of fun to find out what such lenses are actually capable of. There is much more to photography than just using the latest and greatest lenses currently available despite their extraordinary capabilities.

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, pgk said:

I suppose that the question comes up "was this lens actually designed for a [35mm] Leica?'. The evolution of lens design is complex and lens derivation followed paths which are often unclear, but still show their ancestry well enough. If a 105 or 135mm lens designed to cover a larger format had good enough cental definition to allow it be utilied on 35mm format, then putting it into a suitable  focussing mount to do so makes excellent sense. As for using such lenses, well its just a bit of fun to find out what such lenses are actually capable of. There is much more to photography than just using the latest and greatest lenses currently available despite their extraordinary capabilities.

Thanks, Paul. The 135mm Elmar was clearly designed for 35mm and the Leica B Compur models were likewise designed for 35mm, but were not successful and were soon dropped, hence the high prices for such models today. The Leitz camera lenses sold 'into the trade' were for various formats, mainly medium format from 127 upwards. The point I was making was that if someone want to use a Leitz Elmar for large format then they would be best advised to look at Leitz Compur Elmar lenses which were designed for formats which were larger than 35mm. I agree that this is just a bit of fun speculation and I am the last person to be interested in 'the latest and greatest' cameras and lenses. I also think that the recurring Zeiss progeny theme is an interesting point.

William