Interesting Early Elmar 90mm f4

[bruceb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At least it's interesting to me, mostly because it has a 5 digit serial number which according to most sources are non-existent. I know that isn't true (at least according to the wiki associated with this forum): https://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Elmar_(II)_f%3D_9_cm_1:4 seems to show this serial number as a very early (1932) type II Elmar 90mm.

My question is related to that wiki description -- it says lenses in that serial number group are black/nickel but this one really looks like chrome to me. Although I love brass/nickel I don't want to mischaracterise this lens. Anybody have an idea or a way to determine if it truly is nickel?

 

 

 

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!

[luigi bertolotti]

Hum... could it be a "transplant" of a Fat Elmar lenshead onto a "slim" mount ? Fat does exist in 5 digits and (I tried with my items) lensheads are interchangable.

Edited December 10, 2022 by luigi bertolotti

[willeica]

59 minutes ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Hum... could it be a "transplant" of a Fat Elmar lenshead onto a "slim" mount ? Fat does exist in 5 digits and (I tried with my items) lensheads are interchangable.

I agree 100%, Luigi. There are also Fat lenses with no serial number. 

William 

[pgk]

Well, according to the wiki here on the forum the serial number is indeed from an early 'Fat' Elmar (https://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Elmar_(I)_f%3D_9_cm_1:4).

[luigi bertolotti]

8 hours ago, willeica said:

I agree 100%, Luigi. There are also Fat lenses with no serial number. 

William 

Right, and btw my Fat (unnumbered) has the front writing "Elmar 1 : 4 F = 9cm" ... the other writing is in later Fats, apparently.

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by luigi bertolotti

[alan mcfall]

I have 3 fat 9cm Elmars that do not have serial numbers.  The earliest one I have with a number is 94107. In the photos, the 2 lenses on the right are rangefinder coupled, while the lens on the left is not. This lens came with a seldom seen "thin" rear cap that was evidently the standard rear cap before rangefinder coupling was added to lenses. I cannot find any internal numbers, other than one which has, "91"  which is likely the focal length.

It is possible the unnumbered lenses with coupling were returned and the coupling added after the launch of the model D and the factory offer to do that upgrade.

I have recorded a small number of numbered of uncoupled lenses at the beginning of numbering, such as 94151,94178. 

There is an interesting lot of late fat 9cm, at 13600x-136160, in which nearly all of the serials are followed by an "a". These suggest a "mixed" lot in which numbers of non 90mm lenses were also built. In this case it was the 105/6.3 lens. Thiele, shows the completion of the fat 90 at 136040 and the start of the "thin" 90 at 165001. But what the sampled data of existing lenses shows is that there was  considerable mixing of lens lots during this time.  I have seen two possible "thin" 90 prototypes at 135864 and 135937 and there are a few "fat" 90's still at 140191 and 141982 (in a Lager book). It seems safe to say that all 90 elmars after 165001 are "thin", everyone I have ever recorded is.

I can not interchange the later thin head onto the early fat focus mount as the thread sizes are 32.9 vs 42.4mm. Thin 165597 head is on the right(still marked 9cm), last photo.

I have fat 90  128050*, which is duplcate number lens, likely a one-off and not a mixed lot as described above with the "a" after the serial.

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!

[Giuliobigazzi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

These are the thin elmar prototype serials I found when researching mine. 135864, 135884(my example), 135910, 135962,135925.

all late 135xxx, I’ve seen no fat ones in this range, so maybe these were all thin?

[Pyrogallol]

My fat one is 135386

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!

[Giuliobigazzi]

Has anyone seen an example of thin elmar in the 1358xx range earlier than 135864? So far it’s the earliest thin that I’m aware of 

[bruceb]

I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that my lens is made up of a fat Elmer lens capsule transferred into a thin helical mount -- if you look at the photos in my original post you see that the lens capsule doesn't have the larger ridge around the rear element like the fat lens capsules do. So I still think that this is an early thin 90mm possibly in the first serial number range as depicted in https://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Elmar_(II)_f%3D_9_cm_1:4

 

Elmar (II) f= 9 cm 1:4 Serial Numbers

Serial numbers compiled from known lenses and Puts Pocket Pod.pdf
* Lens 969262 is Elmar 3.5/5cm (Westlicht Lot 68/03)
** Lens 1010059 is M-collapsible
^ Lens 566204 & 566318 are Elmar 4 /9 cm
^^ Lens 450068* is a Elmar 4 / 9 cm (from the Fontenelle Archive)
 

SN Start	SN End	Product	Year	Total
-94181	unknown-	Elmar 90 mm 1:40 (black.nickel)	-1932	unknown

[bruceb]

And another question -- why was the lens capsule removable? What accessories were available that necessitated separating the helical from the lens? The PLOOT mirror reflex housing was only available starting in 1935 I believe, years after these lenses were first produced. Was there some kind of closeup or other NOOKY-like accessory or was this just Leica anticipating future developments?

[luigi bertolotti]

Afaik, the lenshead had been always unscrewable... probably for manufacturing reasons  : lens group and focusing mount were surely built in different departments, and a simple thread coupling was the simplest way to manage the final assembly : probably Leitz "capitalized"  on this assembly feature when the near focusing devices based on bellows were introduced.

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by luigi bertolotti

[bruceb]

On 12/14/2022 at 2:00 AM, luigi bertolotti said:

Afaik, the lenshead had been always unscrewable... probably for manufacturing reasons  : lens group and focusing mount were surely built in different departments, and a simple thread coupling was the simplest way to manage the final assembly : probably Leitz "capitalized"  on this assembly feature when the near focusing devices based on bellows were introduced.

 

Ah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.