Leica Elmar 9cm F4

[Andor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello, 

Hopefully I can find some answers here. 
I was looking for a Leica Elmar 90mm F4 and bought one through our local Ebay. The seller sold it to me as the version for the LTM/L39. 
Since a couple of days I have it my possession but I think something is quite off. 

First of all, it doesn’t seems to be a LTM version at all, since it doesn’t fit my LTM to Fuji adapter. Also, the lens came with a weird sort of extension tube. This tube has a M42 screw mount but I don’t think this lens originally came in a M42 version. Also, with my M42 to Fuji adapter, it only focusses super close, almost like being a macro lens. 
 

I will add some photos and hopefully some of you can help me out. Basically I want to know what I bought and what this ‘extension tube’ actually is. I might sound like a dumbhead with this and I think I am. 
 

With kind regards, 

Andor

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!

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Andor,

Welcome to the Forum.

It would appear that you have a 90mm f4 Elmar that was made in 1954. 90mm f4 Elmar lenses were made for a long time both before & after that date.

Before we discuss it here:

You can find more about this lens & more about other things Leitz/Leica at the top of every page in a place called WIKI.

First "click" "WIKI".

Then "English"

Then Leica "M" lenses.

Then the "90mm f4 Elmar" with the "24" to the left hand side.

Back to this lens.

It would appear that someone has separated the base of a bayonet mount version of the lens from the rest of the lens. Please notice the red "dot" & the cut out in your bottom picture which are from a lens's bayonet mount. And that your lens shown in the next to the bottom photo (Nice photos, by the way.) is missing the part at the bottom of the lens that connects the lens to the camera. A part of that portion is the connecting piece with the red dot & the cut out that I wrote about just above. But there should be more.

So, I think that this was originally a bayonet mount lens, altho it might have originally been a screw mount lens, that was converted to do something else & it is possible that we do not have all of the pieces here to return it to its original condition. Whether it was originally a bayonet mount or a screw mount lens. The lens, as originally supplied, was the same lens mechanism, whether bayonet mount or screw mount. It is only the final attachment part, the part that is either partially or completely missing with this lens, that would be different.

The lens head, at the top of this lens, also unscrews for use with various accessories. This is a piece of academic information that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[derleicaman]

The lens as is is unusable. It is missing essential parts of the mount, which are needed to use it on a Leica or other camera with adapter. If you can, return it for a refund. The description is incorrect, as it cannot be used as is in M39 mount.

These lenses are rather common, and it will not be difficult to obtain one that can be used in nice condition.

[luigi bertolotti]

It must be returned, no doubt - it has been significantly modified for some sort of usage on M42 mount... the RF coupling is surely absent, as well as as the original mount for Leica LTM : Elmar 90 is a common lens, not costly even if in very good conditions (and can also be easily cleaned - adjusted by specialized labs, if necessary) and you surely can find a good one.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by luigi bertolotti

[qqphot]

For reference, it's supposed to look roughly like this:

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!

[Andor]

Hi all, 

 

First off all, thank you for replying to my questions. I really appreciate all the help I get from you all. Yesterday I was able to detach the extension tube from the actual mount. I noticed that the tube was glued on top of the lens mount. It didn't take too much effort to detach the two separate parts. Now I have some kind of tube that is useless and the mount part that perfectly fits on the lens. With 3 mini screws I should be able to put them together. This raises the question; Did this lens came with a M42 screw mount in the first place? Also, after adapting the lens with a M42 to Fuji X adapter to my fujifilm camera I wasn't really able to get it to focus properly. Is there something that I am missing? I noticed that there is some haze in the lens that I am trying to clean out one day. 

Thanks again for all the help! 

With kind regards, 

Andor Bastiaenen

 

IMG_1565.HEIC

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

49 minutes ago, Andor said:

Hi all, 

 

....This raises the question; Did this lens came with a M42 screw mount in the first place?....

Also, after adapting the lens with a M42 to Fuji X adapter to my fujifilm camera I wasn't really able to get it to focus properly. Is there something that I am missing? I

 

IMG_1565.HEIC 1.41 MB · 2 downloads

Elmar 90 was never made with M42 mount : the version you have ("large" E39 filter mount, different from the item posted by qqphot, though optically is the same lens) was made in Leica screw mount ("old" Leica cameras, frequently referred to as "Barnacks"... IIIa, IIIb, IIb... and so) and also in Leica bayonet mount for Leica M cameras (M3, M2, M4... and so) . 

Not strange that it does not focus properly on your Fuji X : it's all a matter of the lens' flange to sensor distance : a standard M42 lens has a 45,5 mm (45,46, precisely) flange to film (sensor) distance, a Leica screw mount lens has a 28,8 mm flange to film distance : if one mounts, it, through an adapter, onto a M42 body,  it will never focus to infinity... its behavior is like a std. M42 lens with an extension tube... will focus within a certain range of near distances , like a macro set. On the contrary, a standard M42 lens can be adapted to any camera that has a flange to film distance shorter than 45,5 mm (like the Fuji X - 17,7 mm) ; it is sufficient that the adapter is correctly long to compensate the 45,5 - 17,7 = 27,8 mm difference.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by luigi bertolotti

[Andor]

So if I understand correctly, this lens can still be fixed and used. After screwing the M39 mount piece onto the lens I should be able to get myself a M39 - M42 adapter ring to make it work. Initially I wanted to use this lens on my Canon P (LTM). 

With kind regards, 

Andor

[Pyrogallol]

The 90mm Elmar is a very common lens. I would say buy another one in good condition to use and then play about with this one just as a project to see what you can do with it.

[Junebat]

Even if fixing it is possible, unless you paid like absolutely nothing for it, I’d say get an un-tampered-with copy instead (sending this back if you can), especially if you were wanting to use it on a Canon P. You can snag deals for this, as everyone has noted, so it’s probably not worth keeping around one that you don’t trust. I haven’t shot as much with my little 90 but I am really happy with the ones I have (on film!) so I definitely would say it’s a fun thing to try on the Canon P!

[rfaspen]

I have to second the advice from Junebat...every part of it.  Get an un-modified lens and you'll have no issues using on Canon P,  and expected behavior on adapters.  The little 90 elmar can give excellent results.

[karthikrr]

I bought this lens from OP sometime last year with the intention of repairing it and making it usable again. Didn't have much time to work on it, but I think I have some answers now, over a year after the last post on this thread. 

My best guess, it was a bayonet mount version that someone decided to convert to a screw mount. The bayonet part was machined off and an m42 ring was glued on to it. This I am 100% sure of since I was able to get the m42 ring off to reveal a smooth surface on the mount ring. 

Further speculation, the above conversion done, they could not get anything out of this lens except very close focus images. They read about focal flange distances and incorrectly decided the solution is to add 27 something mm to get infinity focus (when in reality they needed to subtract). An extension tube was machined, which only made it worse. They cut their losses and sold it off. 

I got the glass cleaned professionally. No haze, but there are cleaning marks and its not pristine. I glued the m42 ring back on and picked up an l39 to m4/3 adaptor and a m42 to canon ef adaptor. Switched the l39 part with the m42 part from the canon adaptor and now have a way of correctly using the lens on an m4/3 body... almost. 

Two issues that remain: 1) the canon adaptor's m42 ring is not flush with the other adaptor, so while I have distance focus, I need to shave the ring some to get infinity. And 2) the lens flares like crazy, I always have a bright spot in the center of the frame when there is any light in the front or side of the lens. Using my hand like a hood, or shooting away from the light is okay, but obviously not ideal. Need to figure out how to get a hood on this thing next. And much more testing to do after that. 

Will post some pics when i get everything working properly. Hopefully it won't take another year. 

[TomB_tx]

The flare on a 90 Elmar is usually internal reflection off the inside of the lens barrel. It would have had a flat-black textured tube in it originally to prevent that, but this was a light friction fit and many get lost. I had two 90s and one flared terribly so I discovered this condition. I made a tube of flat black paper for the one without the baffle, and it suppressed the flare very well.

[karthikrr]

On 8/25/2023 at 1:22 AM, TomB_tx said:

The flare on a 90 Elmar is usually internal reflection off the inside of the lens barrel. It would have had a flat-black textured tube in it originally to prevent that, but this was a light friction fit and many get lost. I had two 90s and one flared terribly so I discovered this condition. I made a tube of flat black paper for the one without the baffle, and it suppressed the flare very well.

Is this the black tube you are referring to?

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!

[jerzy]

Your lens will not couple with rangefinder, one tube is missing. This tube is dull black inside, it screws into inner thread of M39 ring and hooks into two notches, one is visible on you photo. 

Edited August 26, 2023 by jerzy

[karthikrr]

On 8/26/2023 at 7:07 AM, jerzy said:

Your lens will not couple with rangefinder, one tube is missing. This tube is dull black inside, it screws into inner thread of M39 ring and hooks into two notches, one is visible on you photo. 

Hmm I see the notch. Is this the same tube that would also cut down the internal reflections?

I'm not worried about rangefinder coupling since I only intend to use this as an adapted lens with my ancient GH2s and a future mirrorless full frame body. My priority is to get infinity focus working (procedure is known, time is the issue) and cut down on the flaring. 

Took a few test shots on my old GH2 today. The raw images have been processed in lightroom to bring some contrast back. GH2 is not a great body for indoor shots today, so denoising was also required. Will test outdoors in a few days and post additional images then.

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!