Jump to content

What mount does the Elmar 65mm have?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

30 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Yes, indeed the 16465 seems to exist - and is treated as a really rare bird....😲
.https://www.ebay.de/itm/353917327488?hash=item52671dd880:g:J8sAAOSwTp5idBmr

So my recommendation was not to ask too loud for the "65mm Elmar reverse adapter" - Leicashop Wien might have more cupboards..

Shame on Leica Shop.  16465 is a cataloged in the 1960 catalog.  It is not a prototype.  And it is not that rare.  I paid the equivalent (2022 dollars) of about $265 for mine in 2008.

I had never heard of the "65mm Elmar reverse adapter".  I hope someone on the Forum can provide some information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, zeitz said:

Shame on Leica Shop.  16465 is a cataloged in the 1960 catalog.  It is not a prototype.  And it is not that rare.  I paid the equivalent (2022 dollars) of about $265 for mine in 2008.

I had never heard of the "65mm Elmar reverse adapter".  I hope someone on the Forum can provide some information.

Bah... comparing the Leicashop picture with the 16465 depicted by Lager, apparently the only difference is that Lager's item has the OTZFO* writing... the " * " looks to be absent in the highly priced Leicashop item... and the position different...  if this is what qualifies it as a "prototype" I can't say... 🙄

Scratching my mind... I am almost sure to have seen, somewhere, a picture with an Elmar 65 mounted reversed... (maybe a page of LHSA Viewfinder mag ?)  but don't remember any detail and, vaguely, remember only the typical "conical" shape with the back lens in front... 

An old discussion on the matter did not clarify the question...

 

Edited by luigi bertolotti
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, luigi bertolotti said:

comparing the Leicashop picture with the 16465 depicted by Lager, apparently the only difference is that Lager's item has the OTZFO* writing... the " * " looks to be absent in the highly priced Leicashop item... and the position different... 

The engraving on my unit is the same as that in Lager's book.  On the front face, the outer screw is a little smaller in diameter on Lager's unit and my unit.  On the back side, mine has slightly different details inside the M bayonet.  So maybe there was a prototype or at least some differences in production.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Scratching my mind... I am almost sure to have seen, somewhere, a picture with an Elmar 65 mounted reversed... (maybe a page of LHSA Viewfinder mag ?)  but don't remember any detail and, vaguely, remember only the typical "conical" shape with the back lens in front... 

An old discussion on the matter did not clarify the question...

Yes Luigi, that was my post back in 2018 - I'd read that information in Laney & it didn't make sense. When I posted there wasn't much of a response. Intriguing indeed!!!

Maybe it did only refer to the original version (I have the black one)

 

Edited by romualdo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

I  have had an Elmar 65 1st for years... and indeed wasn't my preferred macro lens for film Ms (the Elmar 135 lenshead was my best choice) ; few years ago (don't remember exactly... but I already was using M240 as "normal" body...) I found a nice black 65 + 16464 and bought... I was surprised by the difference from the old one : it's really a modern sharp lens fully enjoyable on digital : stands up au pair with Elmar 135 lenshead and also with the excellent Elmar R 100 f4 for bellows.

About 16464... I have always read that also a 16465 (formerly OTZFO*) does exist... a 16464 with 90° rotation facility (with tripod mount OUBIO-style) not that I have chased for it, but seems to me to have never seen one... do someone have one ? Is it a rare bird ?

 

 

Hello Luigi,

There is a nice photo of a bright chrome 16464 & a bright chrome 16465 on page 48 of Jim Lager's "Leica Illustrated Guide II". This page also has a  bright chrome 16471 & bright chrome 65 mm f3.5 Elmar.

Page 49 adds a Visoflex II & a Visoflex IIa. Along with a bellows II.

There is a black 16464 & a black 65 mm f3.5 Elmar on page 26 of Jim Lager's "Leica Illustrated Guide III". Along with a Visoflex III.

I would send photos to the Forum but I do not have the equipment to do so. Hopefully someone else will be able to do this.

Best Regards,

Michael 

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Speaking of Elmar 65 and odd rings... 😉 : Laney makes an assessment that looks unclear to me : he says that Elmar 65 could be mounted reversed for better macro performances... and this was achieved through a filter on the Elmar (and this sounds OK - you get a well accessible E41 female thread) and mounting it - reversed - onto the 16471 tube (which in turn fits the 16464/OTZFO) 

Now, i know well the 16471 : is the simplest way to extend macro capabilities of Elmar 65 without a bellows :

... but it has only its recessed A33 thread to mount the Elmar... its front mouth is "clean"... how can one fit the E41 filter thread ? was there some odd adapter ? The inner diameter of the 16471, anyway, is just 41mm... 

(btw, if such an adapter exists, it's probably only for the 1st Elmar 65... the black one fits series VII filters and this would make even more complicated the reversing, I think...) 

 

Hello Luigi,

The bright chrome 65 mm f3.5 Elmar takes an E41 filter. The black 65 mm f3.5 Elmar takes a Series VI filter beginning with 2378901. It also takes a 14160 filter retaining ring which means there is a screw thread there for it.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but Luigi is right when he remarks, that fitting any reducing ring into the very recessed and small thread of the 14171 seems to be impossible without a special adapter. Perhaps Laney thinks of the 14172, which has larger thread on the very front of the device. Though a reversed lens on the long 14172 does not seem really practical to me: you would have to be very near to the object to get any sharp results. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, UliWer said:

Yes, but Luigi is right when he remarks, that fitting any reducing ring into the very recessed and small thread of the 14171 seems to be impossible without a special adapter. Perhaps Laney thinks of the 14172, which has larger thread on the very front of the device. Though a reversed lens on the long 14172 does not seem really practical to me: you would have to be very near to the object to get any sharp results. 

Uli, I think you are on the right track !! 😃  14172 is surely a typo (is a cap) but 16472 aka OTSRO , not by chance a code so close to 16471, I'd say that surely is fit for function : the male thread engages perfectly on 16464 and on front the thread (made for the lenshead of 135mm lenses) is in the range of 41 mm in diameter : i cannot measure it in detail, but to me is clear that an E41 filter, maybe with a small intermediate ring, can well be engaged into.

I almost forgot that I had one.... As you say, it's indeed very long (much more than 16471, and you can even stack the two...) : I'd be curios to verify its focus range with the 65 reversed... with my M240 and EVF, so without the length of the Viso in the middle, surely  is more reasonable... 

Edited by luigi bertolotti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes, it' called 16472! (will always mix up the number even when they are written on it...)

I tried a 41mm Filter - it is too small; 43mm is just a little bit too large. If it really is 42mm and the thread mount fits, there might be a chance to find a reverse adapter from the old M42 Pentax or Praktika times - though my search on ebay wasn't successful yet. 

i forgot about the posssibility to attach an 16464 immediately to the camera, so to spare the Visoflex extension. With the 16472 and the 65mm handheld immediately in front I get this result at f/11 with the minimal extension of the 16464 and approx. 10cm distance lenses front to object:

It's certainly more than 1:1, though apart from the vignetting caused by the lenses position I am not too impressed by the overall contrast. I think apart from all the reverse adapter problems, a proper lens head on a bellows is the better solution. 

And another quick test from the scale of a ruler (the dust is almost invisible on the real ruler)

:

 

 

Edited by UliWer
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, UliWer said:

If it really is 42mm and the thread mount fits, there might be a chance to find a reverse adapter from the old M42 Pentax or Praktika times

Uli, it is not just the diameter, but also the pitch of the threads.  The Pentax M42 thread is 42mm x 1.0mm pitch.  I measure the 16472 thread as 42mm x 0.70mm pitch.  That is a big difference.  There is also the Tamron T-mount adapter that is 42mm x 0.75mm.  (This is why saying "M42" or "M39" is incomplete because the metric thread specifications allow for different pitch values on any given diameter thread.)  Even if I measured the 16472 thread wrong and it is really 0.75, I don't ever recall seeing any lens reversing adapters for the T-mount system.

I sure can't find such a reverse adapter in any Leica catalog.  Laney's quote is a mystery to me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, UliWer said:

i forgot about the posssibility to attach an 16464 immediately to the camera, so to spare the Visoflex extension. With the 16472 and the 65mm handheld immediately in front I get this result at f/11 with the minimal extension of the 16464 and approx. 10cm distance lenses front to object:

 

 

 

Uli, here's my effort with an M240, the 16464 (OTZFO) focusing mount, the 16472 (OSTRO) extension ring & Elmar 65 head in reverse - no visoflex in this setup

that's a box of Australian Redhead matches - very sharp around the MATCHES but a bit OOF further north (box was not flat but at an angle)

twas a trifle tricky hand holding the whole setup then holding the Elmar lens head in reverse

now to find an adapter that will connect the 16472 inner thread & the thread (filter) of the Elmar 65 - I wonder if that was what Laney was referring to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, romualdo said:

....

now to find an adapter that will connect the 16472 inner thread & the thread (filter) of the Elmar 65 - I wonder if that was what Laney was referring to?

 

Yes, I think Laney confused 16472 with 16471... an easy mistake : it's clear that such an adapter (ring with E41 female - 42x0,70/0,75 male) is elementary to make (even if unclear if Leitz made and listed one)

This of course for the Canadian/chrome Elmar... and for the black Wetzlar ? I am not aware of what exactly means "series VII".. how is the thread to mont the series filter adapter ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Yes, I think Laney confused 16472 with 16471... an easy mistake : it's clear that such an adapter (ring with E41 female - 42x0,70/0,75 male) is elementary to make (even if unclear if Leitz made and listed one)

This of course for the Canadian/chrome Elmar... and for the black Wetzlar ? I am not aware of what exactly means "series VII".. how is the thread to mont the series filter adapter ?

... sorry ; E41 must be male too, obviously... 🤒

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...