The lens for the first Leica - did it have four or five elements?

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On Thursday 25/06/26 a short film was published where Stefan Daniel, Executive Vice President Technology and Operations at Leica Camera AG, introduced a new camera "M11-D 100 Years of Leica" together with two lenses.

One lens is a 50mm Summilux-M asph. which is of no interest in this thread. The other is a "Leitz Anastigmat 1:3,5 F=50", which leads me to start this thread. We yet don't know much about the detailed specification of this lens other than it comes in M-mount. Stefan Daniel says at 2:33min in the film, that it "matches the optical design" of the lens which was used for the first Leica in serial production, i.e. the No. 126 he shows next to the new model. The Leica Website says "When it made its debut in 1925, the Leica I came with a permanently affixed lens – the Leitz Anastigmat 50mm f/3.5. A hundred years on, we are reviving this legendary lens, carrying forward its remarkable legacy with the Leitz Anastigmat-M 50 f/3.5."

It seems that this "new" Anastigmat with M-mount has the same optical design as the Anastigmat which was used for the "0-Serie" replica camera of 2000 (production Nr. 10 500). In a leaflet for this camera from 2000 the lens was specified as having 4 lens elements in 3 groups.

My question is: Did the first Leica in serial production really have an Anastigmat 1:3,5 F=50mm lens with 4 elements in 3 groups? 

What we know for sure:

• in 1920 Max Berek patented an Anastigmat (with the fictive focal length of 100mm and f=3.4) with 4 elements in 3 groups (Patentschrift 343068, ausgegeben am 28. Oktober 1920, it is reproduced in the book "Max Berek  Schöpfer der ersten Leica Objektive  Pionier der Mikroskopie edit. by Knut Kühn-Leitz, Stuttgart 2009, p.83). 
• from mid 1925 onwards the Leica was equipped with a lens "ELMAX 1:3,5 F=50mm" with 5 elements in 3 groups, where the last three elements were glued together.
• later the Leica I was equipped with the well known "Elmar 1:3,5 F=50" which has 4 elements in 3 groups.

So let us consult what well known "Leica Historians" tell us in their books about the lens of the first Leicas:

James Lager (Leica  An Illustrated History Volume II Lenses, 1994) is definitive on p. 27: "In 1923 Leitz lens designer Max Berek completed computation of the five element 5cm 1:3.5 Anastigmat lens. The earliest 0-series Leicas are eqipped with a black finished version of the Anastigmat (see Volume I, pages 12 - 14). the first production Leica A of 1925 was suppiied with a nickel plated Anastigmat. After camera number 250-300 the lens was renamed Elmax. The Elmax is optically identical to the Anastigmat. In 1926 at camera Number 1250-1300 a new formulation, the four elemented Elmar was fitted."

Gianni Rogliatti (Objektive für Leica Kameras von 1924 bis heute, 2. Aufl. 1995, p.57) says the same: Anastigmat and Elmax had 5 lenses in three groups.

Dennis Laney (Leica Collector's Guide 2. edit. 2000, p. 223) lists the Anastigmat as identical with the Elmax and writes: "This was the first lens for the Leica. triplet with 5 elements, rear three cemented".

The "Leica Pocketbook" 8th Edition, 2012, p. 154 (same in 9th Edition p. 206) begs to differ. It claims that the production period of the Anastigmat 1:3.5/50mm was from 1920-1921, assigns it to the cameras Nos. 101 - 279 and writes: "The Anastigmat is most probably a four element lens in three groups, with the aperture located behind the first element. It had been designed by Berek around 1920. Most writers describe it as a five element lens in three groups identical to the Elmax, but that is not correct."

Other publications about the history of the first Leica avoid the critical topic. In the Book quoted above "Max Berek  Schöpfer der ersten Leica Objektive  Pionier der Mikroskopie"  p. 81ff. Günter Osterloh describes in detail the development of the first lenses, mentions Berek's patent from 1920 and the Elmax but is not definitive about the lenses of the first Leicas before the Elmax was introduced.

Ulf Richter "Oskar Barnack - Von der Idee zur Leica", Wetzlar 2009, p.99f describes and reproduces a manually drawn sketch "BK II System 1921 F=50 f:3,5 für Bildformat 24X36mm" from 1921 which shows a design for a lens with 5 elements in three groups. Though Richter also explains that this sketch mentions glasses which were not used for the realized lens. He also describes that this design was recomputed several times and he assumes that the glass sorts weren't resistant enough against atmospheric influences. He then concludes that this lens or perhaps only the lens set without mount was only produced from fall 1924 onwards. He thinks the reason for this might have been problems producing the lens with three cemented elements. Then he comes to the Elmax without a clear statement whether the first serial production before the Elmax used the 5 element design. 

When I tried to find something about the matter in the magazine VIDOM of the German "Leica Historica e.V" I found both statements: some were definitive that the Anastigmat for the first serial Leicas was identical to the Elmax and had five elements in three groups, others differed and said that it had four lenses in three grous. 

Last but certainly not least there is Max Berek himself (though he wasn't mentioned as author but the publication certainly appeared under his supervision):  In the "magazine" "Die Leica" Jahrgang 2, Heft 6, März-April 1933 an article was published under the header:  Was ist eigenlich "Elmar"? The article defends Leitz against the assertion that the Elmar infringed the patents for the Zeiss Tessar. It is reproduced by Roland Zwiers here:

It describes the development of the different lenses used for the development of the Leica from 1913 onwards. It then says (my translation): "When in 1921 the development of the camera was taken up  with increased interest the first prototypes were equipped with a lens 1:3.5 which was protected by Leitz under patent 343086 from 1920. As these lenses were only used for the first cameras for internal usage at the Leitz factory the lens had no special name. It was the base for the development of the later lenses Elmax and Elmar. Elmax, produced since 1923, was a Triplet with three cemented rear lenses. It was neither subject to the patent 142 294 (C.Zeiss) nor the patent 343086 (E.Leitz), and no protection for this lens was searched after. The first Leica series until spring 1925 were equipped with this lens."  This statement seems to back both sides: The Elmax was produced since 1923 and was used for the first series models of the Leica - so the first lenses had 5 elements. Or: lenses which had no special name but were just engraved Anastigmat were protected by patent 343068 and had 4 elements (well, let's ignore the minor fact that the very first lenses of serial Leicas were not only used internally at the factory but already sold...). 

Edited June 28 by UliWer

[Advertisement]

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

[pedaes]

37 minutes ago, UliWer said:

detailed specification of this lens other than it comes in M-mount

Consensus is the lens is repurposed from the lens used in fixed mode from the 2000 release UR Lieca replica cameras.

[UliWer]

When experts and witnesses differ about the facts it may help to look for circumstantial evidence.

 A (final?) drawing of the optical design for the five elements Elmax, reproduced by jerzy here:

dates from September 1923. The distribution of the 0-Serie i.e. cameras No. 101 - 122 had already started in spring 2023. So it seems very improbable that the 0-Serie was already equipped with this lens. Ulf Richter assumes that the lenses with five elements were not built earlier than from fall 2024 onwards when the distribution of the 0-Serie was already finished. So the 0-Serie does not seem to have the lens with five elements. Berek's account that his Anastigmat with four elements from 1920 was used for internal purposes only may well apply to the 0-Serie. So do the lenses of the 0-Serie differ from the Anastigmats used for the very first sold Leicas? Yes, they do. Photos of 0-Series cameras which are published anywhere show a lens with f/12 as smallest aperture (I find this on pictures of No. 103, 105, 109, 112, 116). The so called "Barnack Handmuster" shown in Hans-Günter Kisselbach's book "Barnacks erste Leica" Stuttgart 2008 also has an Anastigmat with f/12.  Leica No.116 - according to Leica Camera AG the first Leica from serial production - has a lens with f/18 as smallest aperture, same as the Elmax. The first withdrawn manual for the "Leca" from January  1925 also shows an Anastigmat with f/18. 

Even if Berek's account that the production of the Elmax startet in 1923 does not imply the production of fully mounted lenses and Richter is right with his assumption that the 5 element lens was not produced before fall 1924 this fits the date of production for No. 126. According to Richter (p. 88) No. 126 was engraved on the camera's top on 24. November 2024. On the other hand Richter (p.97) writes that the stock of Anastigmats with four lenses was used until fall 1924 and implies that it was still used until No. 251, being the highest known number with "Anastigmat" before the introduction of the Elmax. 

[pedaes]

22 minutes ago, UliWer said:

So the 0-Serie does not seem to have the lens with five elements.

The reproduction Lens from 2000 had four elements in three groups which may be used for the lens in the set.

[willeica]

2 hours ago, pedaes said:

The reproduction Lens from 2000 had four elements in three groups which may be used for the lens in the set.

I discussed this lens with Peter Karbe in Wetzlar on Wednesday. He told me that this new lens has 4 elements. He also told me that they had used original blueprints. This blueprint seems to show 5 elements in 3 groups. However, sometimes combined elements are not all counted. 

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!

My understanding is that the Elmax already had 4 elements before it became the Elmar for legal reasons.

I'm not as interested in the new item as I am in the originals, of course. 

William 

 

[pedaes]

6 minutes ago, willeica said:

new lens has 4 elements.

Ta. Interested in 'new' - is this the optical cell they used in 2000 or a new version, did he say? That said, if the 2000 lens was the closest they could get can't see what would be different.

Hope you had a good time - 'Leica' is so many different things to people.

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

39 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Ta. Interested in 'new' - is this the optical cell they used in 2000 or a new version, did he say? That said, if the 2000 lens was the closest they could get can't see what would be different.

Hope you had a good time - 'Leica' is so many different things to people.

I think that someone else implied that this was the same is the replica one. I tried to get Peter talking about the brass lens mount for the UR-Leica. I have a 42mm Mikro Summer which is from the relevant period 1911-15, but I cannot for the life of me see how they got it to focus it at infinity. It seems that nobody has ever had a close look at the brass mount on the Ur-Leica. Peter and I also discussed why they chose 43mm for the Q3 43. He said that they chose that, not only because it was the diagonal of 24x36, but also because they could get f2 on it and fit it on the Q. This would not have been practical on a 50mm which would have been limited to about f2.8 and also to get f1.4 on a Q they would have had to go to 21mm. 35mm and 28mm were considered to be too close.

Peter gave us a new talk he has developed about rangefinders. He says that from the M2 to today the optical rangefinder for the M is basically the same. He also went into the old separate rangefinders and their base lengths. I showed him the special 'N' version of the FOFER for Nagel Pupille which I had in my bag and I said that I assumed that the different distances were done mechanically rather than optically and Ottmar Michaely, who was present, was able to confirm that stripped down the 'N' version shows a special cam for the additional close focus distances. 

The auction yesterday was great fun and we saw a new world record price for an M being set with the sale of the Kruckenhauser M3 which was the M3 with the lowest serial number, but was not the first one produced. I also saw a lens of a type which I bought at the Leitz auction 3 years ago being sold for 10 times what I paid for it and I had obtained  a camera with it as well. There is a bigger story to this which I will tell you when I see you again Keith.

Plenty of other things, too numerous to mention, but I was particularly pleased to see my 'Swiss Photos' piece in the Leica 100 Year book- it's at page 252. The book itself is a wonderful compilation of stories related to the Leica camera, possibly one of the best so far as it includes a lot of research and original material.

William 

 

Edited June 28 by willeica

[isunshine]

On 6/28/2025 at 8:51 PM, willeica said:

I discussed this lens with Peter Karbe in Wetzlar on Wednesday. He told me that this new lens has 4 elements. He also told me that they had used original blueprints. This blueprint seems to show 5 elements in 3 groups. However, sometimes combined elements are not all counted. 

William, could you elaborate a little on your last statemen above? Do you mean that the content of the blueprint sometimes shows the mixed or confusing information? From examining the cover of the blueprint (23.09.1923), it does seem that it has 5 elements in 3 groups. Also, which elements are considered to be the "combined elements" here?

According to the latest issue of LFI magazine, which was released on the same day the M11-D set was announced last week, "It is often said that the Anastigmat was comprised of five lens elements. In reality, it is highly likely that the first series-produced models already featured a four-element design" (p. 90, Holger Sparr). Unfortunately, similar to the Leica Pocketbook (not just the 8th edition that Uli mentioned but also the 9th/latest), the writer didn't provide any explanations on that. However, he has a book scheduled for publication in late September, which I hope will shed some light on the matter:

https://www.amazon.de/-/en/100-Jahre-Leica-Camera-Fotokunst/dp/3690190452

After reading the LFI article, I found myself confused again as well, as I had previously understood the configuration to be 5e/3g based on most of the references that Uli has cited, along with descriptions provided by many reputable auction houses and websites. Leica HQ currently has at least three IA Anastigmats that I know of. Unless done already, I wish they would dismantle them and provide clarification.

Also, has anyone tried to check the number of elements/groups in the Anastigmat, Elmax, or Elmar just by looking through them with another lens? I'm thinking/guessing that it could be partially done externally without dismantling them.

[UliWer]

Thank you for taking up this topic.

I am rather sure Max Berek was able to count lens elements. In his article from 1933 "Was ist eigentlich "Elmar" he made a clear distinction between his own patented design from 1920, used "only for the first cameras for internal usage" (which had only two cemented elements in the rear group like the later Elmar, and Berek certainly had counted them when he applied for the patent) and the "Elmax produced since 1923 ... a triplet with three cemented rear lenses."

On 6/28/2025 at 3:43 PM, UliWer said:

"When in 1921 the development of the camera was taken up  with increased interest the first prototypes were equipped with a lens 1:3.5 which was protected by Leitz under patent 343086 from 1920. As these lenses were only used for the first cameras for internal usage at the Leitz factory the lens had no special name. It was the base for the development of the later lenses Elmax and Elmar. Elmax, produced since 1923, was a Triplet with three cemented rear lenses. It was neither subject to the patent 142 294 (C.Zeiss) nor the patent 343086 (E.Leitz), and no protection for this lens was searched after. The first Leica series until spring 1925 were equipped with this lens."

Of course the "new" Anastigmat is based on a "blueprint". Even now they don't make lenses without one at Wetzlar. Though which blueprint?

1. There is the patent No. 343086 of Berek from 1920 - four lenses in three groups. 

2. Then there are several designs for a lens with five lenses in three groups - the last three cemented. As I already explained in #1 in his book "Oskar Barnack - Von der Idee zur Leica", Wetzlar 2009, p.99f Ulf Richter mentions "BK II System 1921 F=50 f:3,5 für Bildformat 24X36mm" from 1921 which shows a design for a lens with 5 elements in three groups. Though Richter also explains that this sketch mentions glasses which were not used for the realized lens. He also describes that this design was recomputed several times and he assumes that the glass sorts weren't resistant enough against atmospheric influences. He then concludes that this lens or perhaps only the lens set without mount was only produced from fall 1924 onwards. He thinks the reason for this might have been problems producing the lens with three cemented elements. Then he comes to the Elmax without a clear statement whether the first serial production before the Elmax used the 5 element design.

The "blueprint" reproduced in #5 is only one in a long series of sketches and designs of a 5 elements lens, others were reproduced by jerzy, quoted by me in #3. The "blueprint" quoted in #5 says "Fassung von Summar 64 verwenden" (lens mount of Summar 64 to be used) - which for me clearly indicates that this  "blueprint" does not belong to the lens used for the Leica, since it certainly does not have the "mount for Summar 64". 

3. Last but not least there is of course the design of the well known Elmar (four lenses in three groups). When I asked a Leica dealer, who is also an expert in Leica's history, whether the "new Anastigmat" was sold seperately his answer was "It's just an Elmar". Thereby he followed a very long tradition (vide van Hasbroeck, Lager, Rogliatti, Laney), who all  assumed that the "Anastigmat" used for the first Leica models which were sold already had the design of the Elmax even if it was named  Elmax only later. In this theory the "new Anastigmat" having only four lenses must be a "fake". 

None of these three options can be ruled out without having looked at the precise design the Anastigmat of the first Leica from official production (No. 126) had. But who could and would do so? The lens is fixed and it looks as if one would have to destroy the camera to disassemble the lens. Perhaps there are other non destructive methods to find out.

So I am looking forward what the new book by Holger Sparr has to say about a topic which looks to me as the biggest mystery in Leica History. 

Edited July 1 by UliWer

[willeica]

4 hours ago, isunshine said:

William, could you elaborate a little on your last statemen above? Do you mean that the content of the blueprint sometimes shows the mixed or confusing information? From examining the cover of the blueprint (23.09.1923), it does seem that it has 5 elements in 3 groups. Also, which elements are considered to be the "combined elements" here?

According to the latest issue of LFI magazine, which was released on the same day the M11-D set was announced last week, "It is often said that the Anastigmat was comprised of five lens elements. In reality, it is highly likely that the first series-produced models already featured a four-element design" (p. 90, Holger Sparr). Unfortunately, similar to the Leica Pocketbook (not just the 8th edition that Uli mentioned but also the 9th/latest), the writer didn't provide any explanations on that. However, he has a book scheduled for publication in late September, which I hope will shed some light on the matter:

https://www.amazon.de/-/en/100-Jahre-Leica-Camera-Fotokunst/dp/3690190452

After reading the LFI article, I found myself confused again as well, as I had previously understood the configuration to be 5e/3g based on most of the references that Uli has cited, along with descriptions provided by many reputable auction houses and websites. Leica HQ currently has at least three IA Anastigmats that I know of. Unless done already, I wish they would dismantle them and provide clarification.

Also, has anyone tried to check the number of elements/groups in the Anastigmat, Elmax, or Elmar just by looking through them with another lens? I'm thinking/guessing that it could be partially done externally without dismantling them.

 

3 hours ago, UliWer said:

Thank you for taking up this topic.

I am rather sure Max Berek was able to count lens elements. In his article from 1933 "Was ist eigentlich "Elmar" he made a clear distinction between his own patented design from 1920, used "only for the first cameras for internal usage" (which had only two cemented elements in the rear group like the later Elmar, and Berek certainly had counted them when he applied for the patent) and the "Elmax produced since 1923 ... a triplet with three cemented rear lenses."

Of course the "new" Anastigmat is based on a "blueprint". Even now they don't make lenses without one at Wetzlar. Though which blueprint?

1. There is the patent No. 343086 of Berek from 1920 - four lenses in three groups. 

2. Then there are several designs for a lens with five lenses in three groups - the last three cemented. As I already explained in #1 in his book "Oskar Barnack - Von der Idee zur Leica", Wetzlar 2009, p.99f Ulf Richter mentions "BK II System 1921 F=50 f:3,5 für Bildformat 24X36mm" from 1921 which shows a design for a lens with 5 elements in three groups. Though Richter also explains that this sketch mentions glasses which were not used for the realized lens. He also describes that this design was recomputed several times and he assumes that the glass sorts weren't resistant enough against atmospheric influences. He then concludes that this lens or perhaps only the lens set without mount was only produced from fall 1924 onwards. He thinks the reason for this might have been problems producing the lens with three cemented elements. Then he comes to the Elmax without a clear statement whether the first serial production before the Elmax used the 5 element design.

The "blueprint" reproduced in #5 is only one in a long series of sketches and designs of a 5 elements lens, others were reproduced by jerzy, quoted by me in #3. The "blueprint" quoted in #5 says "Fassung von Summar 64 verwenden" (lens mount of Summar 64 to be used) - which for me clearly indicates that this  "blueprint" does not belong to the lens used for the Leica, since it certainly does not have the "mount for Summar 64". 

3. Last but not least there is of course the design of the well known Elmar (four lenses in three groups). When I asked a Leica dealer, who is also an expert in Leica's history, whether the "new Anastigmat" was sold seperately his answer was "It's just an Elmar". Thereby he followed a very long tradition (vide van Hasbroeck, Lager, Rogliatti, Laney), who all  assumed that the "Anastigmat" used for the first Leica models which were sold already had the design of the Elmax even if it was named  Elmax only later. In this theory the "new Anastigmat" having only four lenses must be a "fake". 

None of these three options can be ruled out without having looked at the precise design the Anastigmat of the first Leica from official production (No. 126) had. But who could and would do so? The lens is fixed and it looks as if one would have to destroy the camera to disassemble the lens. Perhaps there are other non destructive methods to find out.

So I am looking forward what the new book by Holger Sparr has to say about a topic which looks to me as the biggest mystery in Leica History. 

The biggest mystery for me is how the 42mm Mikro Summar lens was made to focus at infinity, but finding that out might mean breaking up the most valuable camera on the planet, i.e. the Ur-Leica. The same applies to other hugely valuable cameras such as the 0 Series. The blueprint I showed was one I examined among the auction lots for No 105 in 2022. I'm not making any claim about whether the design shown here represents what was in the 0 Series. What you see online from the auction listing does not show an exact date for the issue of No 112 etc. The people at the Leica Archive have in fact made a series of facsimiles of that document and I had one in my hands on Friday after the auction on Friday. The auction lot also includes a facsimile. I would draw your attention to the date 22.9.23 which is on the blueprint I have shown above. It is possible that some or all of the Null Series cameras had been issued by that date and that they had 4 element lenses. I'm only throwing this out there, but, is it possible that the blueprint marked 'Anastigmat' was one which was used for a 5 element lens which became the Elmax? Note someone in Wetzlar mentioned that the Elmax was already 4 elements before it became the Elmar. I have been told that the reduction from 5 to 4 elements was done to keep cost down.

By coincidence, I had lunch last Wednesday with Frank Dabba Smith who is the current main author of the Red Guide. We discussed many things, but not the point quoted above which actually goes back to the late Dennis Laney. Brian Bower, Nobby Clark and David Slater also would have had input in the intervening period. I met Peter Karbe later in the day at the 'Flying Dinner' in the grounds of Wetzlar Cathedral and he confirmed that the 'new Anastigmat' was, indeed, a 4 element design. 

The Elmar book by Marco Cavino on page 18 shows the 4 element patent lens from 1920 (which may be what went into the 0 Series), a 5 element Anastigmat and Elmax design (identical for both names) for 1924-25 and a 4 element Elmar from 1925-51. 

That is the best that I can do. I don't know Holger Sparr, but I would be interested in hearing about anything that he might come up with. For what it's worth, most of what Barnack and his colleagues recorded was in the form of hand-written notes using pens or pencils, so there are no really definitive records of decisions made.

William 

 

[UliWer]

16 hours ago, willeica said:

I'm only throwing this out there, but, is it possible that the blueprint marked 'Anastigmat' was one which was used for a 5 element lens which became the Elmax? Note someone in Wetzlar mentioned that the Elmax was already 4 elements before it became the Elmar. I have been told that the reduction from 5 to 4 elements was done to keep cost down.

As I wrote, there are many „blueprints“ around for lenses from the time before the Leica was officially launched. jerzy reproduced the one you also posted already here: 

together with another older one for four elements. Ulf Richter reproduced one dated „7.10.1922“ for a five element lens on p. 100 of his book (German edition) which he comments on p.99. This „draft“ looks important as it is headed by „Elmax“ - though this header seems to be added much later if one reads the addition in brackets from 1947. So as long as we don‘t know which „blueprint“ was actually the base for produced lenses the „blueprints“ alone don‘t help.

In the magazine of the German Leica Historica e.V. Vidom Nr. 73 from December 1999 there is a short report about a lecture by Otmar Michaely how to identify a lens engraved as „Elmax“ as an original one with five elements or a later „Elmar“ with four elemts. So it is well known that the series of lenses with „Elmax“ engraving doesn‘t have only one lens type. Max Berek already explained in his artice ‚Was ist eigentlich „Elmar“ that production costs were the reason for the switch from the five elements Elmax for the four elements Elmar (my translation): „Elmax was a very good lens though because of the triple cemented rear element rather expensive to produce“.

So it seems quite probable that they had lens mounts with the engraving „Elmax“ and used them for the new „Elmar“ lens designs. May be something like this happened when they produced the „Anastigmat“. Ulf Richter assumes they used the original Berek patent with four elements until the glass sorts needed for it were fully used. Though we don’t know how much glass they had and how many lenses they made from it: perhaps just 25 which might even explain why Nos. 123 - 125 of the 0-Serie were not produced, or more, which might indicate, that the four element type was still used for the serial production starting with No. 126. 

[willeica]

5 hours ago, UliWer said:

As I wrote, there are many „blueprints“ around for lenses from the time before the Leica was officially launched. jerzy reproduced the one you also posted already here: 

together with another older one for four elements. Ulf Richter reproduced one dated „7.10.1922“ for a five element lens on p. 100 of his book (German edition) which he comments on p.99. This „draft“ looks important as it is headed by „Elmax“ - though this header seems to be added much later if one reads the addition in brackets from 1947. So as long as we don‘t know which „blueprint“ was actually the base for produced lenses the „blueprints“ alone don‘t help.

In the magazine of the German Leica Historica e.V. Vidom Nr. 73 from December 1999 there is a short report about a lecture by Otmar Michaely how to identify a lens engraved as „Elmax“ as an original one with five elements or a later „Elmar“ with four elemts. So it is well known that the series of lenses with „Elmax“ engraving doesn‘t have only one lens type. Max Berek already explained in his artice ‚Was ist eigentlich „Elmar“ that production costs were the reason for the switch from the five elements Elmax for the four elements Elmar (my translation): „Elmax was a very good lens though because of the triple cemented rear element rather expensive to produce“.

So it seems quite probable that they had lens mounts with the engraving „Elmax“ and used them for the new „Elmar“ lens designs. May be something like this happened when they produced the „Anastigmat“. Ulf Richter assumes they used the original Berek patent with four elements until the glass sorts needed for it were fully used. Though we don’t know how much glass they had and how many lenses they made from it: perhaps just 25 which might even explain why Nos. 123 - 125 of the 0-Serie were not produced, or more, which might indicate, that the four element type was still used for the serial production starting with No. 126. 

All of the above more or less fits in with what I said, but we still don't have the definitive picture. Maybe Peter Karbe will pursue this when he 'officially retires' in about a year from now. Bear in mind that I was told about two years ago that a lot of the optical archives are still in Peter Karbe's Department. There has to be a better option than breaking up beautiful old cameras. Ottmar and Peter seem to be very friendly (they had both worked on the rangefinder talk which we got last Friday) and the combination of optics, mechanics and experience should be able to increase our understanding of the development of 'the lens that made Leica'. 

William 

[beoon]

1 hour ago, willeica said:

There has to be a better option than breaking up beautiful old cameras.

William,

I don't really have anything greatly constructive or informative to say, that has not been said previously on this subject.

But to save anyone looking out their screwdrivers and dismantling the "Anastigmat" lens on their Null Series, I have attached a photograph for information.

This shows the "Anastigmat" lens dismantled by George Gordon Carr in September 1969, during the service of Null Series No 113.

I believe this was the camera of Rolf Fricke who owned it between 1968-1992.

Both George Carr and Malcolm Taylor compiled an article in December 1972 "A description of the 0 Series Leica Serial Numbers 100 - 130"

They show 0 series No's 104 & 118 in the article and it has a section on "The Lens" and they state "The Leitz Anastigmat (as it is called) is also a triplet but contains five glasses in three groups ... the rear component consisting of three glasses cemented together". 

Note that in the description of the Anastigmat lens in this article the word "five" is underlined.

I am sure that I have been told that all Null Series cameras have the same 5 element in 3 groups optical configuration, but I cannot provide evidence to support this.

Again, I believe that the production Anastigmat lens in the first cameras is the same optical configuration, as is the Elmax lens, but I cannot provide evidence to support this.

Alan Stokes

 

 

 

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 July 2 by beoon

[UliWer]

1 hour ago, beoon said:

Both George Carr and Malcolm Taylor compiled an article in December 1972 "A description of the 0 Series Leica Serial Numbers 100 - 130"

Thank you very much for your contribution which leads us closer to the „real thing“.

Can you tell where this article by George Carr and Malcolm Taylor was published?

[willeica]

2 hours ago, beoon said:

William,

I don't really have anything greatly constructive or informative to say, that has not been said previously on this subject.

But to save anyone looking out their screwdrivers and dismantling the "Anastigmat" lens on their Null Series, I have attached a photograph for information.

This shows the "Anastigmat" lens dismantled by George Gordon Carr in September 1969, during the service of Null Series No 113.

I believe this was the camera of Rolf Fricke who owned it between 1968-1992.

Both George Carr and Malcolm Taylor compiled an article in December 1972 "A description of the 0 Series Leica Serial Numbers 100 - 130"

They show 0 series No's 104 & 118 in the article and it has a section on "The Lens" and they state "The Leitz Anastigmat (as it is called) is also a triplet but contains five glasses in three groups ... the rear component consisting of three glasses cemented together". 

Note that in the description of the Anastigmat lens in this article the word "five" is underlined.

I am sure that I have been told that all Null Series cameras have the same 5 element in 3 groups optical configuration, but I cannot provide evidence to support this.

Again, I believe that the production Anastigmat lens in the first cameras is the same optical configuration, as is the Elmax lens, but I cannot provide evidence to support this.

Alan Stokes

 

 

 

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, Alan. I had told the people in the Archive last week that you had a lot of relevant literature! You have proven that to be the case. 

I will share this image with Peter Karbe, Ottmar Michaely and their Leica Archive colleagues. I can also send it to Oscar Fricke, the son of Rolf, who may have some other records. 

Just a few questions:

1. Where was the George Carr/Malcolm Taylor article published?

2. I see 3 sets of glass reflections in the second row from the top (leftmost and the two on the right). Which of them are singles and which one is the triplet? 

We can deal later with the Red/Blue guide statement. 

William 

[beoon]

12 hours ago, UliWer said:

Thank you very much for your contribution which leads us closer to the „real thing“.

Can you tell where this article by George Carr and Malcolm Taylor was published?

UliWer / William,

The article was published in Journal No 1 "News and Views" of the British "Leica Historical Society" dated December 1972.

It is only a very brief article, but George Carr and Malcolm Taylor would have had first hand experience. of the "Null Series" cameras.

I can send you a scan if you would like to see it, please send me a PM?

An interesting aside to this story is that George Carr lived less than 15 miles away from myself, although whilst he was dismantling No 113 in 1969 I was still at primary school.

In issue 2 of this journal dated September 1973, George Carr has an article about the first production Leicas (checking them for originality).

In this article he shows details of cameras No 129, 147, 195 & 757

Alan

 

Edited July 3 by beoon

[frame-it]

On 6/28/2025 at 10:43 PM, UliWer said:

4 elements in 3 groups

this one?

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!

[beoon]

UliWer,

Another good source is two books by Erwin Puts.

"The Leica Lens Compendium"

"Leica Lens Saga"

Both books by Erwin Puts go into quite detailed information regarding the early Berek lens design etc

Alan

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[UliWer]

32 minutes ago, frame-it said:

this one?

No, thats the scetch for a lens with five elements published by Ulf Richter p.100, which I mentioned in#11.

[beoon]

UliWer,

I noted on the 5 element optical design above there is additional handwriting (which looks to be added later) BK50 II.

Erwin Puts in his books shows the Elmar optical design from 6/5/25, on this Elmar design there is another handwritten addition "B. 50/3" which he interprets as a "Berek, 50mm, third design"

Alan