Ur-Leica Lens on an M10

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently acquired a Leitz 42mm Mikro Summar, which is the lens used by Barnack on the Ur-Leica. It was intended for micro/macro photography, but Barnack used a custom focus mount to allow it to be used for conventional photography. The rig I used is shown below and it features the lens on an RSM ring mount on a Leitz Bellows which is mounted on my M10 with a Visoflex II. I used the back screen for focussing. I have that awful Viso EVF thing for the M10, but I could not get it to work satisfactorily and, so, I used the back screen instead. All photos were taken handheld with a wafer thin depth of field leading to a lovely soft look with nice bokeh from the uncoated lens. I have taken more photos, but since the software 'upgrade' it seems that I cannot post my full size allocation as a Premium Member. I will take it up with Andreas, but in the meantime I will put them into another post, so that members can see them. I had no problem posting all of the photos together on Instagram this morning. My Instagram 'handle' is also willeica. 

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!

William 

[willeica]

See post above for an explanation of these photos. I have also had the same trouble this time with the system applying the wrong size limits. This needs to be fixed.

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!

William

 

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

20 minutes ago, willeica said:

See post above for an explanation of these photos. I have also had the same trouble this time with the system applying the wrong size limits. This needs to be fixed.

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!

William

 

gorgeous!!

[sandro]

Very special, William! Thanks for sharing the explanation about the set-up and the photos with us.

Lex

[willeica]

7 minutes ago, sandro said:

Very special, William! Thanks for sharing the explanation about the set-up and the photos with us.

Lex

Thanks Lex and all. Paul (pgk) knew that I wanted one of these and drew my attention to one that was going on eBay some weeks ago. I still have not decided what to do with this lens. Some people, like George Furst, have put them on Ur-Leica replicas. I saw George's example at the LHSA Meet in Wetzlar in 2018 and even took photos of him with the camera at Barnack's grave. You were there too and probably saw it. 

 It is uncoated and with no hood it flares badly in the presence of too much sunlight which I found out today, as it is unusually sunny for March here in Dublin. It will focus depending on the distance from the subject to the lens on extensions of about 125mm to 220mm from the film/sensor plane giving different magnifications, of course.

I must ask George about what kind of focus mount he has used for his replica. All the experts who were present in Wetzlar, including Jim Lager and Lars Netopil, were astonished with the photos which George had taken with his camera. They were of excellent quality.

While I am thinking about what to do with this lens, I know that I have an important piece of Leitz optical history in my collection.

William 

[Ambro51]

The images are quite “pictorial”, and yes depth of field is very thin with macro....but im my mind it looks too “off”.  Are you certain the lens elements are correctly assembled?  Check with the lens off the camera, and view the inverted image as you rock the lens across its axis.  The image should remain the same as you rotate it.  If you see a radical change, or shift, suspect incorrect assembly.    In my experience with the UR, the image is as good as any normal camera lens.    The focal range of the UR is 3’ to infinity.  Can you rig up a temporary “mount” on the digital Leica with cardboard and masking tape to see what it’s infinity image looks like?••••. The 42 Summar on my UR #80 throws a great imagr

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 March 16, 2021 by Ambro51

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Ambro51 said:

The images are quite “pictorial”, and yes depth of field is very thin with macro....but im my mind it looks too “off”.  Are you certain the lens elements are correctly assembled?  Check with the lens off the camera, and view the inverted image as you rock the lens across its axis.  The image should remain the same as you rotate it.  If you see a radical change, or shift, suspect incorrect assembly.    In my experience with the UR, the image is as good as any normal camera lens.    The focal range of the UR is 3’ to infinity.  Can you rig up a temporary “mount” on the digital Leica with cardboard and masking tape to see what it’s infinity image looks like?••••. The 42 Summar on my UR #80 throws a great imagr

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!

I’m glad you can see ‘off’ in these, because I can only see a tiny in-focus area in each of these images. All the rest is out of focus or ‘bokeh’ if you wish. This lens would only focus from 3 ft to infinity in a proper focus mount which I have not used here. I’d be interested to see what kind of a mount you have used. The bellows etc is only a quick rig up to use the lens. I am very pleased with the results which I have got here and on Instagram and among photographer friends, including a number of professionals. The reactions have all been positive up to this.

I have seen the results from George’s camera first hand and I have been very impressed with what he has got and your photo above is of a similar standard. So, I know that this is a good lens. 

My photos were taken handheld using the rear screen on the M10 along with my poor vision. It is a miracle that anything was in focus. I have plenty that are like that, of course, with nothing in focus.

William
 

 

 

[Ambro51]

Uhhhh.   The mount I used is a UR Leica Replica.....did you not catch on?    Well I’m not about to argue the matter.   There’s a LOT I have to learn about cameras....having only built 455 of them. 😀

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!

[willeica]

8 hours ago, Ambro51 said:

Uhhhh.   The mount I used is a UR Leica Replica.....did you not catch on?    Well I’m not about to argue the matter.   There’s a LOT I have to learn about cameras....having only built 455 of them. 😀

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. I'm not sure what your 'catch on' remark means. There is only one Ur Leica, of course.  Are you saying that you mounted a Leitz 42mm Mikro Summar onto a converted Ur Leica replica? You can take it that I really admire your camera building work. My question here, however, is specific. I don't collect replicas and I'm looking for a way of using the lens, not necessarily on an Ur Leica replica. I can mount the lens on any LTM camera and I have many of those, but it won't focus without some kind of focussing mount. The bellows which I have used is just a substitute for such a mount, but I need to bring the focus stage much closer to the camera to use the lens at normal distances.

That in a nutshell is it. I'm continuing to look around outside the forum, of course.

William 

[Ambro51]

George........HELP   🤪

[George Furst]

On 3/18/2021 at 1:52 AM, Ambro51 said:

George........HELP   🤪

We, Mr Kim and I used the focusing mount that is found on the UR Dummy camera. The 42mm Mikro Summar lens fits perfectly into the inner barrel of the dummy. One must adjust it back and forth within the barrel until one has the perfect focus at infinity and then lock it in place. I still do not know how Mr Kim locked it in place and do not have the language skill to ask. To do fine focusing, this Barnack provided a back on the UR that is removable and with ground glass and a magnifying lens we were able to find the perfect location within the dummy inner barrel. 
 

Later I was able to confirm that the focusing marks on the dummy barrel were spot on for all distances. You are right in that one can only focus up to 1 meter as the focus mount extends no further forward when one turns to focus. Your set up with viso and bellows has the lens so far forward that you are taking micro pictures. Remember this 42 mm lens was made to be used on a microscope. This was my introduction to the lens when I was a photographer working for an industrial company back in the 70s. I was worried that the lens would not function well at infinity as micro lens are designed for taking photos of multiple enlargements. But then I looked at the pictures that Barnack took with the lens and was convinced because of their quality, that it would work. It was my inspiration to encourage Mr Kim to take on the project. So it was Barnack, long dead, whose impressive pictures taken back in the early 20th century, who was my inspiration to not give up on a rather expensive project here in Korea. 
 

As an aside, I am surprised that Mr Obërlander did not use the same lens Mr Barnack used. At the time, he probably did not know which lens was on the surviving UR. We do not know the three element lens that Mr Obërlander used, but the photographs taken with his replica would never meet the quality of the 6 element 42 mm Mikro Summar lens that Barnack used in his ur camera. After all this 6 element lens with symmetrical elements is called a planar design, one of the great lens designs of the late 19th century. 
 

In order to have pictures at infinity, you must design a mount the allows the 42mm to be much closer to your detector of course.

[willeica]

5 hours ago, George Furst said:

We, Mr Kim and I used the focusing mount that is found on the UR Dummy camera. The 42mm Mikro Summar lens fits perfectly into the inner barrel of the dummy. One must adjust it back and forth within the barrel until one has the perfect focus at infinity and then lock it in place. I still do not know how Mr Kim locked it in place and do not have the language skill to ask. To do fine focusing, this Barnack provided a back on the UR that is removable and with ground glass and a magnifying lens we were able to find the perfect location within the dummy inner barrel. 
 

Later I was able to confirm that the focusing marks on the dummy barrel were spot on for all distances. You are right in that one can only focus up to 1 meter as the focus mount extends no further forward when one turns to focus. Your set up with viso and bellows has the lens so far forward that you are taking micro pictures. Remember this 42 mm lens was made to be used on a microscope. This was my introduction to the lens when I was a photographer working for an industrial company back in the 70s. I was worried that the lens would not function well at infinity as micro lens are designed for taking photos of multiple enlargements. But then I looked at the pictures that Barnack took with the lens and was convinced because of their quality, that it would work. It was my inspiration to encourage Mr Kim to take on the project. So it was Barnack, long dead, whose impressive pictures taken back in the early 20th century, who was my inspiration to not give up on a rather expensive project here in Korea. 
 

As an aside, I am surprised that Mr Obërlander did not use the same lens Mr Barnack used. At the time, he probably did not know which lens was on the surviving UR. We do not know the three element lens that Mr Obërlander used, but the photographs taken with his replica would never meet the quality of the 6 element 42 mm Mikro Summar lens that Barnack used in his ur camera. After all this 6 element lens with symmetrical elements is called a planar design, one of the great lens designs of the late 19th century. 
 

In order to have pictures at infinity, you must design a mount the allows the 42mm to be much closer to your detector of course.

Thanks George. I had already worked out that conclusion through adjusting the bellows. My objective is to find a use for the early lens itself rather than to construct an Ur Replica which you have already done with great dedication and skill (yours and Mr Kim’s). There are a number of possibilities, including finding a suitable adapter or having one made. There are a lot of early Leitz lenses for micro/ macro work out there which could be adapted for a range of uses. I have already concluded that the 42mm Mikro Summar is a very fine lens indeed. Your example and the photos taken by Barnack’s Ur Leica also demonstrate that.

William

Edited March 25, 2021 by willeica

[pgk]

The problem that Barnack faced was that he needed a good general purpose small format lens but there was little demand for such lenses as the 35mm format hadn't yet been developed, so he had to fine lenses of appropriate focal length and which had performance levels which were acceptable for his requirements. About the only lenses then available may have been movie lenses or macro lenses, but the latter were really intended for use on larger formats. So he would have been trading off focal length, coverage and image quality.

I will have to look up the progression of smaller format lenses in the 1910/20s, but I seem to remember that most were developed for movie cameras (Taylor, Taylor & Hobson as an example were producing such lenses in the early 1920s) and it was not until Leitz started to produce small format, still camera lenses for more general usage that many specific designs were produced. I suspect that the Summar was more of a general design than the Milar and the 42mm would have been a good fit with regards to focal length, physical size and image 'quality', so would have been a good choice as a 'working prototype' lens.

I am awaiting arrival of a 42mm Summar and will mount it up somehow to use on my M digitals. I'd be interested to know which lenses Barnack tried in his prototypes - I've read about them somewhere but does anyone have a 'definitive' list? It would be really interesting to try these against an early bespoke design (Elmax or Elmar).

[Pyrogallol]

If you just want to use the lens on bellows you could make a simple wooden mount such as I use with my large format cameras. The lens threads bit into the soft wood of the mount and you don’t need to find a flange of the correct thread.

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!

[Ambro51]

Sometimes I feel no one reads what I’ve posted.    Speaking in an empty room.   Oskar Barnack initially useda a Zeiss Kino Tessar, f 3.5 50mm. This was the fastest Tessar Zeiss made in 1911, only the Kino lenses were f 3.5.   Again, That was Barnacks first lens on the UR.  It’s not something you can speculate or theorize about, it is a recorded FACT.   He built the UR for THAT lens.  It was the same lens used on his experimental all metal Cine camera.  This is not speculation but a recorded FACT.   However,  Barnack found the Zeiss Kino Tessar “just” clips the corners of the 24x36 (and 38, his initial frame size).  This fact, which I have confirmed, led Barnack to use the 42mm Mikro Summer.    The timetable of Barnacks employment IS a factor here.  The was a time Oskar could use Zeiss lenses....and a time when he had to use Leitz lenses.  The UR barrel, as it exists now, is capable of using both lenses.  However, the 42 Summars aperature is only adjustable through an oval window cut into the second barrel.  Odd, eh?  This points to the 42 being second choice, which modifications made at the time to use it.       The The REAL inventor of the 35mm still Camera, Vilhelm Pacht, in 1898, used a brand new Zeiss f 3.6 Planar. So here we see even at the Birth of 35mm, they understood it need a vastly superior lens.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Ambro51

[pgk]

16 minutes ago, Ambro51 said:

Sometimes I feel no one reads what I’ve posted. Speaking in an empty room.

Sorry! I knew I'd read something somewhere but I couldn't remember where, and searches on vague queries don't yield much. So thanks for this. I'll look up the Zeiss Kino Tessar now too.

Looks like 35mm film first appeared in 1892 but formats (movie?) would have been widest across the format not as we know still film formats today (so ~half-framish?). Which in turn means that lenses were probably intended for smaller formats than 24x36mm, and by the sound of it the Kino Tessar as a result vignetted and probably had lower performance toward the edges. I look forward to trying the 42mm Summar which, whilst not designed for the format, might effectively have 'better' performance throughout the frame. It will be interesting to try it.  I'm interested in this side of things because lens design history moved rapidly forward from the 1890s which saw technical innovations such as Jena glass which resulted in improved lens designs by designers who had started to apply a much better understanding of design parameters to their work. The appearance of movie making also changed the lens design parameters but I'm just wondering if it was the combination of 24x36mm format and the resulting requirement for better lenses covering this format which Barnack innovated and tapped into.

Edited March 25, 2021 by pgk

[George Furst]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

The problem that Barnack faced was that he needed a good general purpose small format lens but there was little demand for such lenses as the 35mm format hadn't yet been developed, so he had to fine lenses of appropriate focal length and which had performance levels which were acceptable for his requirements. About the only lenses then available may have been movie lenses or macro lenses, but the latter were really intended for use on larger formats. So he would have been trading off focal length, coverage and image quality.

I will have to look up the progression of smaller format lenses in the 1910/20s, but I seem to remember that most were developed for movie cameras (Taylor, Taylor & Hobson as an example were producing such lenses in the early 1920s) and it was not until Leitz started to produce small format, still camera lenses for more general usage that many specific designs were produced. I suspect that the Summar was more of a general design than the Milar and the 42mm would have been a good fit with regards to focal length, physical size and image 'quality', so would have been a good choice as a 'working prototype' lens.

I am awaiting arrival of a 42mm Summar and will mount it up somehow to use on my M digitals. I'd be interested to know which lenses Barnack tried in his prototypes - I've read about them somewhere but does anyone have a 'definitive' list? It would be really interesting to try these against an early bespoke design (Elmax or Elmar).

You are correct that the only lens available in the early part of the century were either the movie lens designed for a smaller frame size, or the micro lens, used on microscopes. I believe an important criteria for Barnack was a very compact camera and a small light weight camera. He had an asthma condition and wished to have photographs of his adventures in the mountains (don’t we all!). He did try the Zeiss movie lens but this did not cover his revolutionary 24x36 mm format. Then he tried the 64 mm Micro Summar lens but as I remember, that lens did not collapse into the camera. He ended up with the 42 mm Mikro Summar lens because it was small (it certainly is that!) and was able to collapse into the small camera body that he had prior designed (or did he design the camera partially around the lens?). My instinct is that he modified the UR Body to fit his final lens, the 42. Working close with Mr Kim, we realized that even with the tiny 42 mm lens (a little larger than you thumb nail), there is little space within the camera body to put the film, two curtain rollers, film guide, spring adjuster gear, and shutter curtain. This lack of space is what I believe limited the lens that he could use. Also this was an experimental camera! Leica did make lens for cameras at the time, large format lens that is. He could not go to Ernest Leitz and say “ Please have our optical engineer design a lens for my experimental camera?” (He did that almost a decade later!) Well I guess he could have but we all know the answer! He had to use an ‘off the shelf’ lens, and probably one made by his bosses company too! That he did and the 42 fit the Bill. It has all the features that we desire in a camera lens except one, speed. After taking 100s of pictures with this lens, I really love it, and it is my favorite lens and a reason for me to always take the UR with me into the mountains or for street photography. Above it is mentioned that this lens flairs easily. I think this is less of a problem with the UR because the lens has a built in lens shade. Take a close look at the UR Leica and you can see that the lens glass is partially hidden. I believe that is the reason that I seldom have problems with flair!

I commend anyone who wishes to adapt this lens to their digital or otherwise camera. The real challenge is the short focal length. I also feel that considering its optical excellence it is under priced at what it is sold at presently. Where else can one find a planar lens for under $400 that does what this lens does with light!

My greatest regret is that Barnack did not write more during his life time. I would have loved to know his thoughts and struggles when making his first UR. I would have loved to go through his waste paper basket. No designer cuts metal without diagrams on paper. In the end he planted a new product. I love it’s size that can fit in my pocket. Its solidity, it is really tough with an impressively strong case. Also the excellence of the final photographs. His few UR pictures proved to me that I am sure that he was surprised at the excellent photographs from this little camera. I am sure that had not the WW I intervened, Leitz would have produced a camera, and maybe with the 42  mm Mikro Summar lens, and it would have shocked the large format community. Of course this is hind site and the films of the period would not have been able to allow the lens shine as the emulsions were not fine grained enough. But we are in the now, and we have the films that do make this lens sparkle. When you think about it, it is the cheapest planar lens on the market! 

[zwieback]

Hallo Willeica, in case you are willing to sacrifise a 50mm Industar or similar cheap LTM mount lens, I might have a solution for you. Once time allows, I can do a quick fit adapter for you - not nice a shiny brass but rather plastic unfortunately... Just give me some time and I will come back to you.

[willeica]

4 hours ago, zwieback said:

Hallo Willeica, in case you are willing to sacrifise a 50mm Industar or similar cheap LTM mount lens, I might have a solution for you. Once time allows, I can do a quick fit adapter for you - not nice a shiny brass but rather plastic unfortunately... Just give me some time and I will come back to you.

Thanks. I am thinking about that possibility, but I have already contacted someone who is thinking of providing universal mounts for the use of the early Leitz macro/micro lenses. They are just looking into this possibility at this stage and nothing is available to buy. As I have mentioned before, I am not looking to replicate the Ur-Leica. Others such as George Furst and Ambro have done a great job in that respect. What I am trying to establish is how good a lens the Mikro Summar was and what other uses it might have. What I have seen so far has been impressive both from my own photos and the ones which George Furst has taken which I saw at the Leica HQ in Wetzlar.

William

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Anbaric]

On 3/17/2021 at 1:18 AM, Ambro51 said:

Uhhhh.   The mount I used is a UR Leica Replica.....did you not catch on?    Well I’m not about to argue the matter.   There’s a LOT I have to learn about cameras....having only built 455 of them. 😀

 

I bet the first 454 were the hardest. 🙂

I might one done aspire to building a shoebox pinhole camera by carefully following a Youtube video.

Edited March 31, 2021 by Anbaric