Elmar 5cm f3.5 early variations

[Jul]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, willeica said:

This may relate to the von Einem variations. I'd have to check all the serial numbers, but von Einem shows the second variant as commencing c 2400, this one says 2445, so more or less the same for that one. For what it is worth the changes between Variant 1 and 2 as regards the lens were - aperture ring is cropped and the lens mount now showed the 7 metre mark, which was missing from the first variant. These are mechanical rather than optical changes.

Thank you for the informations. It would be interesting to find out
whether the changes between Variant 4 and 6 (the dividing line according
to the japanese theory of the old Elmar) were only mechanical as well. 
 

[shirubadanieru]

Seems Marco Cavina also makes a very slight reference on this change (I just used google translate so not perfect but) http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/50mm_Leica_a_telemetro/00_pag.htm

“Apart from the new optical calculation taken over from the 905,000 grade, the Elmar was initially the subject of some "adjustments" never perfectly documented: after the transition from the Anastigmat-Elmax configuration to the four Tessar type lenses (thanks to the glass introduced by Goerz in 1925), the target underwent almost immediately at least one (either slight albeit) calculation It is known that, when Zeiss patented the Tessar again, the Elmar patent was already active (requested and obtained after the expiration of Rudolph's first patent), but Leitz did not object, obtaining from this blatant "do ut des" the guarantee for the future supply of the necessary optical glass.”

This seems to be in line with the Old Elmar VS New Elmar (at time of optical glass change from one company to other). 

[Advertisement]

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

[shirubadanieru]

As mentioned, the book from the author of oldlens.com was released and I have now translated the pages that refer to the Old Type Elmar. 

A few excerpts from the book in reference to the 'Old type' Elmar as there is no book until now that has made an attempt to identify and explain it. Hope this is useful. This is my best attempt at a translation from Japanese, so some things may sound weird. 

❶ Old-type Elmar 50mm & GOERZ glass
This lens is the so-called "Old type Elmar". I am not certain who started this expression and when, but it is a bit vague. Perhaps a little confusion could have been avoided if it had been called "Goertz Elmar. The old Elmar was a German Goertz-Elmar.

It may be a matter of common knowledge to true Leica fans that it is a lens made of Goertz glass, but given the vagueness of the description thus far, it is no wonder that it is accompanied by confusion with other versions, such as the short Elmar and nickel Elmar.

Görtz is not a very familiar lens manufacturer in Japan today, since it disappeared in Europe in 1926 due to a merger, but it is no exaggeration to say that its glass manufacturing technology was no less than that of Zeiss (SCHOTT). Zeiss was founded in 1846, but it was not until around 1880 that glass engineer Otto Schott joined the company, and industrial glass production probably began in the mid-1980s. Görtz, on the other hand, got off to a late start in 1888, but began glass production the following year in 1889. How did they get started so quickly? Carl Paul Gorz (1854-1923), the company's founder, had previously trained at Emile Busch, which was founded in the late 1700s and famous for its "Nicolas Perspeyde lenses. And Goertz was not to be outdone in technical ability. 

In 1900, Goertz produced the "Hypergon", an ultra-wide-angle lens for large-format cameras, which is said to be impossible to manufacture the same one even today. This jewel-like lens made of only two pieces of ultra-thin glass was the product of Goerz's outstanding design know-how and manufacturing technology at the time.

❷ Let us briefly summarize the transition regarding Elmar's design and glass.
- At the end of the 1910s, Max Berek returned from service in World War I and was instructed to design a special lens for Barnack cameras.
- In 1920, he designed a triplet lens with 4 elements in 3 groups and a rear group. Patent (DE343080) Obtained (similar to Tessar lens with front aperture).
- 1923 marks the development of the Leitz Anastigmat 50mm lens. 5 elements in 3 groups with 3 elements in the rear group laminated together.
- 1925: Leica A-type lens was introduced. Initially Leitz Anastigmat, soon followed by Ermax. The name was changed to 50mm f/3.5.
- Before this, a new glass with a high refractive index and low dispersion was developed at the Zentringer glass factory in Gurtz AG.
- From the end of 1925 to 1926, Leica-mounted lenses are changed to Elmar lenses with four elements in three groups. New glass from Goertz was used.
- In 1926, Gerz participated in the merger of four companies led by Zeiss. In 1927/28, Goertz glass stops being supplied to manufacturers. From there onwards the glass was supplied by Zeiss SCHOTT. Elmar lenses from that time onward are called "New Elmar" lenses, and the lenses up to that time are called "Old Elmar" lenses.

❸ What's so good about the Old-type Elmar? 
Why do so many people pursue this lens in the used market? There may be a few answers I can think about:

(1) Because they are rare and few in number due to the Goertz glass used.
(2) Because it is nickel and has a short barrel and looks cool.
(3) Because various books and Leica enthusiasts around them say that the "old" Leica is better.
(4) Because they like the lens rendering.

How about you, readers?
In fact, the answer (3) is quite common. When I look around on the Internet, I find several articles that say "I finally got the old Elmar," but I couldn't find any article that clearly explains what is good about the old type Elmar. But that's not the fault of the person writing the online article or anything. "This is made with Goertz glass" and "there are only a few made in the world,", this kind of description is the problem of our Leica connoisseurs' predecessors who have used the same expressions without taking a step forward to find out more. If you are a lens collector, (1) and (2) would also be a good reason. 

But what is so good about Goertz glass? 
Actually the characteristics of the old Elmar made with Goertz glass and the new Elmar made with SCHOTT glass are very different. When comparing the lenses side by side, the upper row shows lenses from No. 0 to No. 3, which are assumed to be the old Elmar numbers written at the bottom of the infinity lock, and the lower row from No. 4 to No. 6 are the new Elmar (nickel), and the rightmost is red dial Elmar, which is said to have been radically redesigned. Although the individual images may be too small, it is clear that the old Elmer is superior in depicting the ring zone.

(more coming soon when I'm done translating)

[nitroplait]

21 minutes ago, shirubadanieru said:

(more coming soon when I'm done translating)

Thanks for taking the time.

[shirubadanieru]

Part 2:

How to distinguish the Old Elmar from the New? 
I am aware that there are some characteristics of the old Elmar that have been passed down as "how to tell them apart" in some sort of urban legend.
I am aware that there are some characteristics of the old Elmar, so I will list them below.

(1) Nickel
(2) Short Elmar
(3) Knob numbers from 0 to 3 (and potentially an early small batch of 4?)
(4) The fixing ring of the front element is thin and is not screwed on. (hard to judge this though)
(5) The filter screw pitch is fine. (although there are exceptions) 
(6) The curvature of the front element is tight. (hard to see this though)

However, none of them paint the picture fully 100%. In particular, (2), short Elmars include not only old Elmars but also new Elmars, so care should be taken not to equate them. Around 1928, when the glass supply from Goertz stopped, Leica had not yet adopted the interchangeable screw mount system, so the Type A lenses also came with new Elmars. The new Elmar was also included in the conversion by Leitz to a removable screw mount, and not only the old Elmar. The best way to be sure of obtaining an old Elmar is to purchase it from an experienced and reputable dealer. Such dealers have maintenance technicians who have many years of experience and know the "internal construction differences" between the new and old Elmar. 

Number on the back of the focus knob
The number in the focus knob of Elmars has not been clearly explained by Leitz, but it has been used by Leica enthusiasts for many years with convenience and approval. I would like to summarize this information as a memorandum.

Each number has a different lens length, as described below. I found two sources that complement each other:
Nb 0: 50.5mm
Nb 1: 49.6mm
Nb 2: 51.0mm
Nb 3: 48.6mm
Nb 4: 50.7mm
Nb 5: 51.0mm
Nb 6: 51.3mm
Nb 7: 51.6mm
Nb 8: 51.9mm

＊Is there even a knob back number "2" in existence? We have observed hundreds of Elmars so far, but have yet to find one. Several researchers are of the same opinion.
＊The number "8" on the back of the knob has never been seen on nickel Elmar's.
＊It seems there are two variations to the Nb 4 knob, I own two with different measures, showing that there may have been a change in production half way. Did two Nb 4. Elmars exist truly? Or when a Nb 3. got converted into L39, the Nb changed to 4? Or was it a 3rd party repairman who changed the lens? It's impossible to know.
＊Only the knob number "4" has a plate spring like a "stopper" inside the helicoid. It is a mystery why such an elaborate mechanism is found "only in No. 4".

[shirubadanieru]

Part 3

MTF Curves
Considering the age of the lenses tested, all Elmars of any Knob numbers are basically at a high level of measurement values that can be considered very excellent lenses. A detailed comparison of the MIF measurements revealed a significant difference in trend between the old Elmar's numbers 0, 1, and 3, and the new Elmar's numbers 4, 5, and 6.The old Elmar's has much smaller sagittal-meridional deviations. This has a significant impact on the actual image, and is most apparent in the depiction of the ring zone in the point source magnified image. While the old Elmar's depicts even the outlines of the light source lights quite clearly even in the ring zone, the new Elmar's depiction is blurred all over.

This may be somewhat imaginable considering the circumstances of Elmar's formation throughout the years: 
(1) Max Berek had already in 1920 patented the 3-group-4 Elmar type.
(2) However, for some reason, he had no choice but to use the 3-group/5-element anastigmat and Elmax configurations for mass production. The reason could be that the glass available at the time did not provide the required performance. 
(3) In order to compensate for this, the above lens was produced However, it was time-consuming and costly, and the yield rate was probably low.
(4) Less than a year after the Elmax was launched, Goertz completed their new glass. Immediately after this, Leica switched to Elmar with 4 elements in 3 groups. This was how the old Elmar emerged, and it was also the moment when the lens that was patented in 1920 could be made as conceived for the first time.
(5) However, in 1926, Goertz was absorbed by Zeiss Ikon, and the glass supply stopped after less than two years. The new Elmar was supplied by SCHOTT, but its performance was probably not completely the same as that of the Goertz glass. This was how the new Elmar emerged.
(6) The period of the new Elmar was long, lasting about 22 years, but around 1950, a completely redesigned Elmar appeared to coincide with the launch of the Leica WIF. This was the Red Elmar, and we can say that it was Leica's revival of the original idea patented back in 1920 without any restrictions.
 

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 February 20, 2023 by shirubadanieru

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, shirubadanieru said:

The best way to be sure of obtaining an old Elmar is to purchase it from an experienced and reputable dealer. Such dealers have maintenance technicians who have many years of experience and know the "internal construction differences" between the new and old Elmar. 

There is a lot here that may be getting 'lost in translation'. Up to 1930 50mm Elmars were only available fixed onto I Model As and this situation went through the change from Goerz to Schott glass ie was there before and after. So the concept of purchasing a so-called 'old Elmar' simply does not make sense, unless you are talking about buying one attached to a camera. The lenses will only be suitable for mounting on a I Model A and even then they would have to be matched using the hole at the back of the camera and shims if they were being fitted to a new camera. Tests to show that Goerz glass is better than Schott have never been done to my knowledge and the results of that would be of limited benefit, given the situation which I have already described.

 

14 hours ago, shirubadanieru said:

＊Is there even a knob back number "2" in existence? We have observed hundreds of Elmars so far, but have yet to find one. Several researchers are of the same opinion.
＊The number "8" on the back of the knob has never been seen on nickel Elmar's.
＊It seems there are two variations to the Nb 4 knob, I own two with different measures, showing that there may have been a change in production half way. Did two Nb 4. Elmars exist truly? Or when a Nb 3. got converted into L39, the Nb changed to 4? Or was it a 3rd party repairman who changed the lens? It's impossible to know.
＊Only the knob number "4" has a plate spring like a "stopper" inside the helicoid. It is a mystery why such an elaborate mechanism is found "only in No. 4".

Jerzy and I have both posted many times here about the table of numbers behind the infinity knobs and how these were used for thread mount matching - see Jerzy's recent comments about pitch. We found none with a 2, but there is very little by way of a pattern as regards the other numbers. The only 8 we found was on a chrome lens from 1938.   As far as I can see all of this numbering commenced after the change from Goerz to Schott. I cannot see any relationship between the numbering and a so-called 'old Elmar'. 

The mechanical changes noted by von Einem are also fully known and the changes are shown in her book as between the different variants of the I Model A with Elmar. i.e. the book deals with changes both to the cameras and the lenses. About 7 or 8 years ago Jerzy and I started on a study of Elmar variations, but we never completed nor published it. 

In summary, some of what you have written is correct, but a lot of what you have posted above (I realise this is from a translation from Japanese) does not make sense and is at variance with the known facts. There were some slight changes in the optical construction at around the time the Schott glass was introduced, but I have never seen evidence that these made any significant difference. The photos which are shown above indicate changes in the physical construction of the lenses from 1925 to about 1933 and these were described a long time ago in books by van Hasbroeck and von Einem.

In order to avoid creating further confusion, can you say precisely (in a few sentences) what is being inferred here about a so-called change to the Elmar in the mid-late 1920s? I own about 8 I Model As which have characteristics of the various Elmar types described by von Einem. I also have many Elmars which came on I Model Cs , Standards and II Model Ds including the bell push item illustrated above.

In short, I had never heard of a so-called 'old Elmar' until your posts appeared here. This needs to be more clearly identified, if, indeed, it exists at all. 

William 

 

[shirubadanieru]

3 minutes ago, willeica said:

There is a lot here that may be getting 'lost in translation'. Up to 1930 50mm Elmars were only available fixed onto I Model As and this situation went through the change from Goerz to Schott glass ie was there before and after. So the concept of purchasing a so-called 'old Elmar' simply does not make sense, unless you are talking about buying one attached to a camera. The lenses will only be suitable for mounting on a I Model A and even then they would have to be matched using the hole at the back of the camera and shims if they were being fitted to a new camera. Tests to show that Goerz glass is better than Schott have never been done to my knowledge and the results of that would be of limited benefit, given the situation which I have already described.

 

Jerzy and I have both posted many times here about the table of numbers behind the infinity knobs and how these were used for thread mount matching - see Jerzy's recent comments about pitch. We found none with a 2, but there is very little by way of a pattern as regards the other numbers. The only 8 we found was on a chrome lens from 1938.   As far as I can see all of this numbering commenced after the change from Goerz to Schott. I cannot see any relationship between the numbering and a so-called 'old Elmar'. 

The mechanical changes noted by von Einem are also fully known and the changes are shown in her book as between the different variants of the I Model A with Elmar. i.e. the book deals with changes both to the cameras and the lenses. About 7 or 8 years ago Jerzy and I started on a study of Elmar variations, but we never completed nor published it. 

In summary, some of what you have written is correct, but a lot of what you have posted above (I realise this is from a translation from Japanese) does not make sense and is at variance with the known facts. There were some slight changes in the optical construction at around the time the Schott glass was introduced, but I have never seen evidence that these made any significant difference. The photos which are shown above indicate changes in the physical construction of the lenses from 1925 to about 1933 and these were described a long time ago in books by van Hasbroeck and von Einem.

In order to avoid creating further confusion, can you say precisely (in a few sentences) what is being inferred here about a so-called change to the Elmar in the mid-late 1920s? I own about 8 I Model As which have characteristics of the various Elmar types described by von Einem. I also have many Elmars which came on I Model Cs , Standards and II Model Ds including the bell push item illustrated above.

In short, I had never heard of a so-called 'old Elmar' until your posts appeared here. This needs to be more clearly identified, if, indeed, it exists at all. 

William 

 

Hi William,

The pre 1930 lenses can be used today as they were factory converted by Leica upon the release of leica standard. My Elmar has no serial & is one of such conversions. 

It also has a 1 in the knob showing that pre-standard the numbers were there. 

As he stated in the book, the old/new Elmar definition in Japan can be confusing, but it is widely used in Japan, that's why I found curious this was not the norm in Europe/US. But as he said, a better name / distinction would've been 'Goertz Elmar' and 'Schott Elmar'.

Also, the writter is the most famous lens researcher in Japan and this is his forth book, to which he spent years researching and performing lems testing, with all validation and data (including MTFs etc) present in the book. it's quite a thick book I just translated 3 pages as this kind of research / info is lacking in the English language. 

In the book lauch ceremony he actually mentioned that one of the reasons as to why he focused on 50 3.5 was because to his knowledge there is no book in Japanese or English that has done this level of research and provided a consistent take on the history & production of lenses such as the Elmar (he researched all 3.5 50mm not just Elmar). 

It would be awesome if this book would be available in English one day, but doubt it as his other 3 are only in Japanese and are now collectable items sold on auctions. 

[shirubadanieru]

By the way here are a few online posts in Japan about this topic (goggle translate should work to understand what's written), including from reputable stores in Japan such as flashback & mapcamera. 

Also FYI the Early Elmar here sells for double the New Elmar nickel (roughly 230k vs 120k JPY).

https://flashbackcamera.jp/brand/leica/lens/019679-leica-elmar-50mm-f35-l-early/

https://news.mapcamera.com/maptimes/【premium-collection】leica-a型-新旧エルマー/

https://maenomeri.tokyo/old-elmar/

https://aremo-koremo.hatenablog.com/entry/gorz-elmar-5cm-f3.5

http://koten-n.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2007/08/1_4a2c.html

Edited February 20, 2023 by shirubadanieru

[willeica]

9 hours ago, shirubadanieru said:

The pre 1930 lenses can be used today as they were factory converted by Leica upon the release of leica standard. My Elmar has no serial & is one of such conversions. 

It also has a 1 in the knob showing that pre-standard the numbers were there. 

The idea of taking a 4 or 5 digit I Model A and removing the Elmar lens from the camera today would be lunacy of the highest order, as the loss in value would be huge. Some lenses were converted to 7 O'Clock  and standardised 'in period'. I have one such lens on a I Model A camera from 1930 that was later converted to Standard. I have another one that came on its own which I spotted as an unusual item in an auction. Both of those lenses (with Schott glass) are noticeably shorter than other 7 O'Clock lenses and Jerzy has explained the reason for this here recently. 

As I said above, something is getting lost in translation here.

William 

[Jul]

3 hours ago, willeica said:

with Schott glass

Is the serial number on the I Model A the way to infer whether it is
Goerz or Schott glass? If so, from which number is the change?

[pgk]

12 hours ago, willeica said:

Tests to show that Goerz glass is better than Schott have never been done to my knowledge.....

There were some slight changes in the optical construction at around the time the Schott glass was introduced, but I have never seen evidence that these made any significant difference.

I would also suggest that if a lens needed redesign due to the loss of supply of one of the glass types it is far more likely that the lens designers would take the opportunity to upgrade, even if only marginally, a design rather than produce a lens equal or less able than its predecessor. After all they have the benefit of all the design work done in creating the previous design and spending more time on a redesign will if anything be beneficial rather than be counterproductive and produce a poorer lens.

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Jul said:

Is the serial number on the I Model A the way to infer whether it is
Goerz or Schott glass? If so, from which number is the change?

That is not known exactly. This was a supply issue associated with the closure of the Goerz Sendlinger-Glaswerk and I don't have an exact date for that event. It is likely to have happened in or around 1927 after Goerz had been folded into Zeiss Ikon in 1926.  Leitz was likely, as was its wont, to have used up existing stock, so overlap of glass types was very possible. I am 100% sure that my two Elmars from 1926, on cameras 1661 and 1783, have Goerz glass in their lens elements. They both have the distinctive earliest Elmar characteristics, as described by von Einem, in their construction e.g. No 7 metre mark etc. In 1933 Ernst Leitz said that with minor design changes it was possible to continue production of the Elmar lens with the Schott glass.

1 hour ago, pgk said:

I would also suggest that if a lens needed redesign due to the loss of supply of one of the glass types it is far more likely that the lens designers would take the opportunity to upgrade, even if only marginally, a design rather than produce a lens equal or less able than its predecessor. After all they have the benefit of all the design work done in creating the previous design and spending more time on a redesign will if anything be beneficial rather than be counterproductive and produce a poorer lens.

Paul, I believe the changes made for the Schott glass were minor as Ernst Leitz said. Barnack was, however, an inveterate 'tinkerer' and there are many handwritten notes from Zuhlcke the foreman of the optical department to Barnack showing the results of tests and further tests of the Elmar over a  considerable period of time. Certainly changes were made over time to cameras and lenses e.g. 11 O'Clock /7 O'Clock and you could do a master's thesis on infinity knobs😀 . I have never seen any work done on the 'evolving' optical formula of early Elmar lenses. I have 20 + lenses that might fall into that category and I'm not about to start tearing them apart because someone in Japan is talking about 'old Elmars'. Jerzy may have done this and I will leave it to him to comment if he wishes.

William 

[nitroplait]

Japan probably have more lens connoisseurs than the rest of the world combined, and as with many other subjects of interest researched in Japan, they may never reach the rest of the world due to the language barrier.
And in the rare cases they do reach beyond the Japanese isles, they are often dismissed because we don't understand the context or don't have the ability to check the sources/references - as they too are in Japanese.
I have seen it often and I find that unfortunate.

This book seems to refer to MTF measurements of the two different types of Elmars, which would be very interesting to study further - if they are reproduced in the book.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, nitroplait said:

This book seems to refer to MTF measurements of the two different types of Elmars, which would be very interesting to study further - if they are reproduced in the book.

Measured MTF, as opposed to theoretical or design MTF, can vary, even in new lenses. Add nearly a hundred years of use and possible changes due to knocks and you may require a fair sample size to produce any meaningful data, I suspect. It would be easier for an optical designer to use any drawings and glass specifications to generate theoretical performance MTF data. If of course any exists.

[willeica]

7 hours ago, nitroplait said:

Japan probably have more lens connoisseurs than the rest of the world combined, and as with many other subjects of interest researched in Japan, they may never reach the rest of the world due to the language barrier.
And in the rare cases they do reach beyond the Japanese isles, they are often dismissed because we don't understand the context or don't have the ability to check the sources/references - as they too are in Japanese.
I have seen it often and I find that unfortunate.

This book seems to refer to MTF measurements of the two different types of Elmars, which would be very interesting to study further - if they are reproduced in the book.

To add to that, most of the authoritative sources on early German cameras (including Leicas) are written in German and have not been translated into English. A lot of the English language texts on Leicas by Lager, Laney and van Hasbroeck were written many years ago and do not take account of the latest research and discoveries. When I was in the Leica Archives last year my attention was drawn to the massive 3 part work by Helmut Lagler which seems to be based on a lot of internal Leitz documentation. This, of course, is available in German only. As for Japan it is also the home of many camera collectors. It may well be that someone there has drawn up a description of Goerz glass lenses which typecasts them as 'old Elmars', but there is nothing I have seen from Wetzlar that indicates that Leitz and Barnack regarded them as such. In fact, the opposite is the case. The quote I gave above came from Ernst Leitz in 1933. 

5 hours ago, pgk said:

Measured MTF, as opposed to theoretical or design MTF, can vary, even in new lenses. Add nearly a hundred years of use and possible changes due to knocks and you may require a fair sample size to produce any meaningful data, I suspect. It would be easier for an optical designer to use any drawings and glass specifications to generate theoretical performance MTF data. If of course any exists.

Where do I begin with this? The obsession with 'sharpness' etc has reached new heights since the digital turn. Every time a new digital camera or lens appeared there is fevered discussion on this forum and elsewhere with people pixel peeping at images blown up on large computer screens and saying that A is better than B or vice versa. For the really obsessed, MTF charts become the artillery in a 'mock battle'. If valid tests were being done on these lenses they should be done with the methods of the period from which they come i.e. on Leica I Model As , but as we all know that camera does not have interchangeable lenses and that each one would have to had the lens matched with the camera on which it is mounted. There are other possible variables as well which could lead to false results. Perhaps if Ottmar Michaely was given a large amount of money maybe he could do tests that compare Goerz glass and Schott glass, after all he managed to get good photos out of No 105. 

To see photos taken with the Goerz glass here are two articles which I wrote showing images taken with Goerz glass lenses . Neither of these were intended to be scientific or even pseudo-scientific. As should be clear by now, I detest all of that claptrap about sharpness. In the first one, with my tongue firmly in my cheek, I asked readers to say which of the images they liked better, those taken with a camera from 1926 (with Goerz glass) Leica and those taken with an M10 camera from 2017. The latter were taken with a 35mm lens and the former were taken with a 50mm lens. I could not believe how seriously some people took the whole business, but I found the whole thing to be most entertaining. Some people said that they could not see any difference between the two sets of images

https://www.macfilos.com/2017/10/30/2017-10-23-a-tale-of-two-leicas-90-years-apart/

In the second article I had a major event as I had just started to take photos with an even earlier 1926 camera (also with Goerz glass) when the shims( for matching lens to camera) fell out from behind the lens when I was 'in the field', necessitating  a 'field repair'. Some of this article relates to my late father's Super Baldina, which I mentioned in a post yesterday, but that is not relevant to the main issue here.

https://www.macfilos.com/2018/10/02/2018-9-28-looking-back-with-a-1926-leica-and-a-1930s-super-baldina/

Finally, most of us judge or cameras and lenses by the quality of the images we can create with them and not with the MTF curves which they can generate under scientifically controlled conditions. I would be almost certain that any MTF tests on any two randomly selected Elmar lenses would show different MTF results

 

. 

It would be nice if the 'Japanese classifications' could be explained by reference to both physical and historical evidence.

William 

Edited February 22, 2023 by willeica

[pgk]

33 minutes ago, willeica said:

I would be almost certain that any MTF tests on any two randomly selected Elmar lenses would show different MTF results.

I am sure that you are probably correct. My point was that it might be possible to differentiate the two glass type lenses based on the (if known) parameters which were altered. In terms of imagery I doubt that this would indicate much visible difference. What it might do though, is to give an insight into the minds of the lens designers and whether they were taking the opportunity of glass changes to instigate (perhaps incremental) improvements in their design. 

[willeica]

16 minutes ago, pgk said:

I am sure that you are probably correct. My point was that it might be possible to differentiate the two glass type lenses based on the (if known) parameters which were altered. In terms of imagery I doubt that this would indicate much visible difference. What it might do though, is to give an insight into the minds of the lens designers and whether they were taking the opportunity of glass changes to instigate (perhaps incremental) improvements in their design. 

The glass changes were forced by circumstances beyond the control of Leitz. It is also obvious from Ernst Leitz's comments that they were happy with the outcome. The handwritten workshop notes in German from that time are largely in Wetzlar, but some will almost certainly have escaped the fold. 

Two final points:

1. Who would fund scientifically sound tests on lenses that are between 90 and 100 years old ?

2. What would be the point in doing that?

I have no idea what may have been done in Japan, nor why it was done

William 

[shirubadanieru]

No need to be upset guys 🤣🤣 Next time I won't translate anything lol

Simply, reading your comments, there's an early Elmar (ie. all Elmars made with non Schott glass) that everyone agrees. While it may seem that version, beyond the glass used, is not identified separately in the West, in Japan all Leica dealer stores, collectors, and knowledgeable users care about the glass used, and the non Schott glass Elmar is double the price of any other Elmar, plus identified as 'Old Elmar' accordingly. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

30 minutes ago, shirubadanieru said:

No need to be upset guys 🤣🤣 Next time I won't translate anything lol

Simply, reading your comments, there's an early Elmar (ie. all Elmars made with non Schott glass) that everyone agrees. While it may seem that version, beyond the glass used, is not identified separately in the West, in Japan all Leica dealer stores, collectors, and knowledgeable users care about the glass used, and the non Schott glass Elmar is double the price of any other Elmar, plus identified as 'Old Elmar' accordingly. 

I have several of those early Goerz glass  lenses on cameras. The only things that I have noted about them are their early features which are set out in von Einem’s book. There is no market here in Europe for ‘old Elmars’, but there are markets for 3 and 4 digit I Model As which attract a premium not because of their Goerz glass, but because of their early and rare status.

William