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

[beoon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, willeica said:

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 

William,

I will send you via email a better quality photograph of this dismantled Anastigmat (the previous photo was from my iPhone)

Alan

[Advertisement]

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

[UliWer]

Thank you very much for sending the documents!

Edited July 3 by UliWer

[willeica]

On 7/2/2025 at 9:02 PM, 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. The 5 element thing is stated, but is not associated with any strip down. I will write to Peter Karbe about this and see what he says. I think that the optics dept had separate records since the time of Zuhlcke and Berek. Many of these are just handwritten notes. My sense is that the lens on the 0 Series was 5 elements, but it would be interesting to get a definitive chronological line up to and including the 4 element Elmar. As to why the 'current' Anastigmat is a 4 element design, the reason may be cost, the same as for the change made in 1920s. The Elmar is an outstanding lens and it was 'the lens which made Leica'. One question I asked Peter was about how they made this lens collapsible on a camera with a digital sensor. His reply was that he had only dealt with the optics and not the mechanics. Talking to Peter and his colleagues is a real object lesson on being precise. 

William 

[willeica]

On 7/3/2025 at 10:56 PM, willeica said:

Thanks, Alan. The 5 element thing is stated, but is not associated with any strip down. I will write to Peter Karbe about this and see what he says. I think that the optics dept had separate records since the time of Zuhlcke and Berek. Many of these are just handwritten notes. My sense is that the lens on the 0 Series was 5 elements, but it would be interesting to get a definitive chronological line up to and including the 4 element Elmar. As to why the 'current' Anastigmat is a 4 element design, the reason may be cost, the same as for the change made in 1920s. The Elmar is an outstanding lens and it was 'the lens which made Leica'. One question I asked Peter was about how they made this lens collapsible on a camera with a digital sensor. His reply was that he had only dealt with the optics and not the mechanics. Talking to Peter and his colleagues is a real object lesson on being precise. 

William 

I have heard from Peter Karbe and I will just quote him 'verbatim' as follows:

"Regarding the Anastigmat of the 0 Serie I compared the blueprint – you sent - with our document of the ELMAX ( see pdf) and I think the Anastigmat had the same optical structure as the later ELMAX.

The notes on the ELMAX document says : System 1921 and later the note from 1947 Juli 10th 3000 pcs executed

I assume, Anastigmat and Elmax is based on the same optical design concept.

The cross section of the Anastigmat (blueprint) and the Elmax (low right) look a little different regarding the radii of lens nr.3 and lens nr.4

To be sure if Anastigmat and Elmax is the same,  we need to measure the radii of the lens elements of an Anastigmat (not the cemented radii – not possible) and compare with the Elmax data .

Is there an Anastigmat lens disassembled available ?

The information in the LEICA Pocket book is perhaps not correct regarding the number of elements. "

Peter also sent the document below:

Anastigmat_Elmax_1.pdf

There is a lot of research that still needs to done and maybe, if and when, Peter ever retires he would be the man to do it. The transition from the Elmax to the Elmar also needs attention.

William 

 

 

[pgk]

On 7/1/2025 at 7:55 PM, willeica said:

The biggest mystery for me is how the 42mm Mikro Summar lens was made to focus at infinity

Why is this a problem William? Isn't it simply a matter of physical placement of the lens?

[pgk]

23 hours ago, willeica said:

To be sure if Anastigmat and Elmax is the same,  we need to measure the radii of the lens elements of an Anastigmat (not the cemented radii – not possible) and compare with the Elmax data .

It might be possible to check the focal length of each of the three groups of disassembled lenses. Any variation would suggest a difference in designs. If they are identical this would suggest that they may be the same (although its not absolute confirmation).

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, pgk said:

Why is this a problem William? Isn't it simply a matter of physical placement of the lens?

Of course that is how you would typically do it.  Paul, I'd like to see how Barnack actually did it, particularly as the lens was designed for close up magnification, but I don't expect anyone to break up the Ur-Leica to find out. 

11 hours ago, pgk said:

It might be possible to check the focal length of each of the three groups of disassembled lenses. Any variation would suggest a difference in designs. If they are identical this would suggest that they may be the same (although its not absolute confirmation).

I have been discussing this with Peter Karbe, the current successor to Berek, and also with Jim Lager. The general consensus is that the Anastigmats on the 0 Series were 5 elements, as were the Elmax lenses and that what is in the Leica Pocket Book is incorrect as regards the 0 Series. The remaining mystery is when was the 4 element design introduced, before or after or at the time that the Elmar name was introduced?.

We know that Leitz had 2 main reasons for doing this 1. the Ernemann patent issue and 2. the need to reduce cost. I haver seen both 'tales' being retailed; that the 4 element started with the Elmax and also that there were some 5 element Elmars. Measuring the length of lenses would not, however, be reliable as there was production variation. Note what Peter Karbe says above about disassembling lenses. 

About 10 years ago Jerzy and I measured the actual lengths of a number of 4 element Elmars and we found considerable variations. We also looked at the focal lengths as represented by the numbers under the infinity stops and again we found considerable variation. I have posted the table of those numbers and focal lengths, as done by Richter, here several times. The purpose of the number was to allow a suitable mount to be used to give the correct focal length of 50mm, so Leitz recognised this as an issue.

I'm not sure how optically significant this issue is about 100 years later. There is no real evidence that the 5 element design in the 1920s was superior to the 4 element design. In particular, the 4 element Elmar is an excellent lens and is very resistant to flare, particularly by comparison with other lenses with more elements. More does not always mean better. I am sure that the new 4 element Anastigmat lens, based on the lens on the 0 Series replica, is outstanding and will have been configured with state of the art technology and methods.

William 

[pgk]

11 hours ago, willeica said:

In particular, the 4 element Elmar is an excellent lens and is very resistant to flare, particularly by comparison with other lenses with more elements. More does not always mean better.

Indeed. Conventional wisdome of pre-coated lenses was that the fewer glass/air interfaces the better as these were what caused flare so fewer elements were usually considered better*. According to many post on the Large Format Photography forum, one way of determining the number of lens elements is to count the reflections in a lens (using and LED torch?). I'm not so sure I've found this helpful when I've tried it, but as a simple comparison test which merely requires looking for differences in reflections it might work to differentiate 4 and 5 glass component lenses.

* One story is that the Cooke Triplet may have owed some of its inception to Taylor being asked by Sir Howard Grubb if a two glass component lens could be improved, which Taylor found it could not but realised that the next best solution might be a triplet design. I haven't found a definitive source to confirm this bt timing is right if nothing else and the optical work at the time was small so they probably knew (of) each other.

[UliWer]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

According to many post on the Large Format Photography forum, one way of determining the number of lens elements is to count the reflections in a lens (using and LED torch?).

Yes, as I wrote in #11 there is a report in Vidom Nr. 73 from December 1999 about a lecture by Ottmar Michaely how to identify a lens engraved as „Elmax“ as an original one with five elements or a later „Elmar“ with four elements. Though I don‘t know whether this is possible by looking just into the lenses front or whether you have to inspect it from the rear (as well). If it is sufficient to look from the front side one could try to find out with Leica No. 126 in Wetzlar - said to be the first Leica in serial production. If the lens has to be inspected from the rear side, we must rule out this possibility. 

Edited July 12 by UliWer

[willeica]

50 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Yes, as I wrote in #11 there is a report in Vidom Nr. 73 from December 1999 about a lecture by Ottmar Michaely how to identify a lens engraved as „Elmax“ as an original one with five elements or a later „Elmar“ with four elements. Though I don‘t know whether this is possible by looking just into the lenses front or whether you have to inspect it from the rear (as well). If it is sufficient to look from the front side one could try to find out with Leica No. 126 in Wetzlar - said to be the first Leica in serial production. If the lens has to be inspected from the rear side, we must rule out this possibility. 

I copied Ottmar Michaely on my emails with Peter Karbe. He has not said anything, so I presume he agrees with Peter. Peter and Ottmar are close and Ottmar worked with Peter on his recent talk about rangefinders which may get wider circulation soon. In replying to me Peter asked about whether there might be a lens disassembled somewhere. That is because he is a consummate professional and he never leaves anything to chance or speculation. You have to very precise when talking to Peter.  

William 

[jerzy]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb UliWer:

If the lens has to be inspected from the rear side, we must rule out this possibility.

I am afraid thatr not only from the rear but the lens must be taken apart as well. Photos show rear part of Elmar, it consists if single lens (screwed into) and 2 cemented lenses within the mount. With backlight lightning under certain angle and a big dosis of imagination you may notice the 2 cemented surfaces. 

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!

As far as I have seen Elmax dismantled (photos only) rear part looks the same. But possibly 3 cemented lenses in Elmax are thicker than 2 in Elmar. 

[willeica]

6 hours ago, jerzy said:

I am afraid thatr not only from the rear but the lens must be taken apart as well. Photos show rear part of Elmar, it consists if single lens (screwed into) and 2 cemented lenses within the mount. With backlight lightning under certain angle and a big dosis of imagination you may notice the 2 cemented surfaces. 

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!

As far as I have seen Elmax dismantled (photos only) rear part looks the same. But possibly 3 cemented lenses in Elmax are thicker than 2 in Elmar. 

You are basically saying what Peter Karbe says and close inspection would be required to make any definitive conclusions . The designs for the Anastigmat and the Elmax have 5 elements according to contemporary company blueprints and other papers. What remains to be shown is what was in the production models under various names and when did changes occur. Cemented pairs are difficult to judge, even going back to the earliest designs.

One thing to look out for is the use of the term 'Leitzanastigmat' which indicates a design rather than a model. This one which is dated 6.7.1926 shows a 'Leitzanastigmat' with 4 elements , but this is clearly what we call the 'Elmar'. I have Elmars which were issued in the summer of 1926 at around the time that this drawing was done.

As I have indicated, it is not possible to reach conclusions without a full set of tests and documentation. I believe that Peter Karbe would agree with this. 

William 

[willeica]

8 hours ago, willeica said:

You are basically saying what Peter Karbe says and close inspection would be required to make any definitive conclusions . The designs for the Anastigmat and the Elmax have 5 elements according to contemporary company blueprints and other papers. What remains to be shown is what was in the production models under various names and when did changes occur. Cemented pairs are difficult to judge, even going back to the earliest designs.

One thing to look out for is the use of the term 'Leitzanastigmat' which indicates a design rather than a model. This one which is dated 6.7.1926 shows a 'Leitzanastigmat' with 4 elements , but this is clearly what we call the 'Elmar'. I have Elmars which were issued in the summer of 1926 at around the time that this drawing was done.

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!

As I have indicated, it is not possible to reach conclusions without a full set of tests and documentation. I believe that Peter Karbe would agree with this. 

William 

I see that my typing let me down, the date on the blueprint is 26.7.26. This shows a 4 element f3.5 50 mm Leitzanastigmat lens for the Kleinfilmkamera. This is the well known Elmar design, see top right on page 18 of Marco Cavina's book on the Elmar. 

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

Uliwer,

Thank you for bringing up this topic and for referring to my contribution in 100 years Null Serie.
I am eager to reply in more detail, but have to wait for a free day.
This contribution is written by heart.

In my working hypothesis after 1920 or so  Max Berek started work on a very ambitious project.
With the blessing of Ernst Leitz II.
Risk reduction would have led to a less ambitious route:
taking a licence on the already available 1:4,5 Tessar design.
As the Tessar patent would finally end in 1922 anyway, this route was the safer route.
And by avoiding risks the Null Serie might have been introduced one or two years earlier.
We discussed this before.

But Max Berek chose a much more ambitious project:
the design of a 1:3,5 Anastigmat, f=50mm, with an angle of view of about 45 degrees.
Even Carl Zeiss Jena had not been so ambitious yet.
So unfortunately - in my working hypothesis - this project was not successful!

It is hard to say what went wrong.
Both Max Berek and Oskar Barnack do not mention this.
But if one reads carefully, neither Max Berek nor Oskar Barnack claim that this first anastigmat was succesful!
It is plausible that for his 1:3,5 design Max Berek had to experiment with new types of optical glass that had not been thoroughly tested before.
And so the outer lens elements may have been liable to damage (glass being not hard enough) or discolouring (glass vulnarable to oxidation).

Because of this the original 1:3,5 design, already patented with four lens elements, could not serve for the Null-Serie.
So Max Berek had to create a new lens for the Null-Serie of 1923. this time with a 5 lens element construction.
The fifth lens element gave more possibilities for correction with the available types of optical glass.

Did Max Berek have to start all over again?
No, Max Berek in a later publication mentions that his experience with the first anastigmat was helpful for his later anastigmats.
But it goes without saying that the unsuccesful experiment with his first anastigmat caused a delay. 

In an earlier thread I discussed a fascinating design drawing for the 5-element Anastigmat.
It has a hard-to-read handwritten text in the German Sutterlin script.
From the text it appears that the 5-element design was re-designed twice and that on both occations the outer lens elements were involved.
This suggests that after having been bitten once, Max Berek was twice shy.
He had to be sure that the optical glass would not cause similar complications again as with his original 4-element design. 

In my working hypothesis the Null-Serie was not only necessary for testing the revolutionary camera body.
The Null-Serie was equally necessary for thoroughly testing the new 5-element anastigmat in different climate zones.
This may well explain the Null-Serie camera provided to Prof Klute for his 1923 expedition to Argentina and Chile.
Alan wrote a fascinating contribution on this subject!

We discussed before that the 5-element Anastigmat that was used for the Null-Serie was a good lens, but expensive to make.
Very likely a lot of lenses had to be thrown away because of production mistakes, similar to early test series with present day high-tech chips.
So this was not good for the required profit margin.

The way out was offered by a new optical glass by the Goerz Sendlinger Glass Werk.
With this new glass Max Berek could again aim at a 4-element 1:3,5 design.

This lens was originally still called Elmax = Ernst Leitz + Max Berek.
But there was a dispute with Ernemann, as the Elmax name too closely resembled a name already patented by Ernemann.
So in order to avoid a conflict, in October 1925 Leitz changed the name of the 5-element lens from Elmax to Elmar.

To be continued.
When I have a free day I like to illustrate this outline with primary sources.

Roland 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[willeica]

58 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Uliwer,

Thank you for bringing up this topic and for referring to my contribution in 100 years Null Serie.
I am eager to reply in more detail, but have to wait for a free day.
This contribution is written by heart.

In my working hypothesis after 1920 or so  Max Berek started work on a very ambitious project.
With the blessing of Ernst Leitz II.
Risk reduction would have led to a less ambitious route:
taking a licence on the already available 1:4,5 Tessar design.
As the Tessar patent would finally end in 1922 anyway, this route was the safer route.
And by avoiding risks the Null Serie might have been introduced one or two years earlier.
We discussed this before.

But Max Berek chose a much more ambitious project:
the design of a 1:3,5 Anastigmat, f=50mm, with an angle of view of about 45 degrees.
Even Carl Zeiss Jena had not been so ambitious yet.
So unfortunately - in my working hypothesis - this project was not successful!

It is hard to say what went wrong.
Both Max Berek and Oskar Barnack do not mention this.
But if one reads carefully, neither Max Berek nor Oskar Barnack claim that this first anastigmat was succesful!
It is plausible that for his 1:3,5 design Max Berek had to experiment with new types of optical glass that had not been thoroughly tested before.
And so the outer lens elements may have been liable to damage (glass being not hard enough) or discolouring (glass vulnarable to oxidation).

Because of this the original 1:3,5 design, already patented with four lens elements, could not serve for the Null-Serie.
So Max Berek had to create a new lens for the Null-Serie of 1923. this time with a 5 lens element construction.
The fifth lens element gave more possibilities for correction with the available types of optical glass.

Did Max Berek have to start all over again?
No, Max Berek in a later publication mentions that his experience with the first anastigmat was helpful for his later anastigmats.
But it goes without saying that the unsuccesful experiment with his first anastigmat caused a delay. 

In an earlier thread I discussed a fascinating design drawing for the 5-element Anastigmat.
It has a hard-to-read handwritten text in the German Sutterlin script.
From the text it appears that the 5-element design was re-designed twice and that on both occations the outer lens elements were involved.
This suggests that after having been bitten once, Max Berek was twice shy.
He had to be sure that the optical glass would not cause similar complications again as with his original 4-element design. 

In my working hypothesis the Null-Serie was not only necessary for testing the revolutionary camera body.
The Null-Serie was equally necessary for thoroughly testing the new 5-element anastigmat in different climate zones.
This may well explain the Null-Serie camera provided to Prof Klute for his 1923 expedition to Argentina and Chile.
Alan wrote a fascinating contribution on this subject!

We discussed before that the 5-element Anastigmat that was used for the Null-Serie was a good lens, but expensive to make.
Very likely a lot of lenses had to be thrown away because of production mistakes, similar to early test series with present day high-tech chips.
So this was not good for the required profit margin.

The way out was offered by a new optical glass by the Goerz Sendlinger Glass Werk.
With this new glass Max Berek could again aim at a 4-element 1:3,5 design.

This lens was originally still called Elmax = Ernst Leitz + Max Berek.
But there was a dispute with Ernemann, as the Elmax name too closely resembled a name already patented by Ernemann.
So in order to avoid a conflict, in October 1925 Leitz changed the name of the 5-element lens from Elmax to Elmar.

To be continued.
When I have a free day I like to illustrate this outline with primary sources.

Roland 
 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with most of what you say particularly regarding the 0 Series. According to Peter Karbe, the current head lens designer at Leica and in whose department the optical records sit, the 5 element Elmax was very similar to the Anastigmat apart, perhaps, from some edge changes. Secondly, the use of the term 'Leitzanastigmat' which is generic rather than proprietary has caused no little confusion and may indeed have led to the late Dennis Laney reaching an incorrect conclusion. The Red Leica Pocket Book will probably be corrected in the next printing and I have already been in touch with the people involved. The 1926 blueprint for a 4 element lens I have shown above and which is called 'Leitzanastigmat' shows the lens we know as the Elmar. The main remaining point to be determined is at what stage was this design implemented, before or after the name change to Elmar? I have been reading material for years about glass being sourced from Goerz, Schott and possibly other sources. That story also needs to be told.

The good news is that when Peter Karbe retires he will work in or with the archive on the historical optical material and records, some of which are still in the optical department which Peter currently heads up. I am happy to leave all of that to Peter who really knows what he is talking about when it comes to optics. In all the years that I have known him I have never known Peter to engage in speculation and he relies entirely on primary sources and test results. In that sense he is a true optical scientist.

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

William,

Thank you for agreeing with most of my analysis.

Could you tell me where you disagree?

Then I can spend more time on that part of the equation.

Roland 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

6 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Uliwer,

Thank you for bringing up this topic and for referring to my contribution in 100 years Null Serie.
I am eager to reply in more detail, but have to wait for a free day.
This contribution is written by heart.

In my working hypothesis after 1920 or so  Max Berek started work on a very ambitious project.
With the blessing of Ernst Leitz II.
Risk reduction would have led to a less ambitious route:
taking a licence on the already available 1:4,5 Tessar design.
As the Tessar patent would finally end in 1922 anyway, this route was the safer route.
And by avoiding risks the Null Serie might have been introduced one or two years earlier.
We discussed this before.

But Max Berek chose a much more ambitious project:
the design of a 1:3,5 Anastigmat, f=50mm, with an angle of view of about 45 degrees.
Even Carl Zeiss Jena had not been so ambitious yet.
So unfortunately - in my working hypothesis - this project was not successful!

It is hard to say what went wrong.
Both Max Berek and Oskar Barnack do not mention this.
But if one reads carefully, neither Max Berek nor Oskar Barnack claim that this first anastigmat was succesful!
It is plausible that for his 1:3,5 design Max Berek had to experiment with new types of optical glass that had not been thoroughly tested before.
And so the outer lens elements may have been liable to damage (glass being not hard enough) or discolouring (glass vulnarable to oxidation).

Because of this the original 1:3,5 design, already patented with four lens elements, could not serve for the Null-Serie.
So Max Berek had to create a new lens for the Null-Serie of 1923. this time with a 5 lens element construction.
The fifth lens element gave more possibilities for correction with the available types of optical glass.

Did Max Berek have to start all over again?
No, Max Berek in a later publication mentions that his experience with the first anastigmat was helpful for his later anastigmats.
But it goes without saying that the unsuccesful experiment with his first anastigmat caused a delay. 

In an earlier thread I discussed a fascinating design drawing for the 5-element Anastigmat.
It has a hard-to-read handwritten text in the German Sutterlin script.
From the text it appears that the 5-element design was re-designed twice and that on both occations the outer lens elements were involved.
This suggests that after having been bitten once, Max Berek was twice shy.
He had to be sure that the optical glass would not cause similar complications again as with his original 4-element design. 

In my working hypothesis the Null-Serie was not only necessary for testing the revolutionary camera body.
The Null-Serie was equally necessary for thoroughly testing the new 5-element anastigmat in different climate zones.
This may well explain the Null-Serie camera provided to Prof Klute for his 1923 expedition to Argentina and Chile.
Alan wrote a fascinating contribution on this subject!

We discussed before that the 5-element Anastigmat that was used for the Null-Serie was a good lens, but expensive to make.
Very likely a lot of lenses had to be thrown away because of production mistakes, similar to early test series with present day high-tech chips.
So this was not good for the required profit margin.

The way out was offered by a new optical glass by the Goerz Sendlinger Glass Werk.
With this new glass Max Berek could again aim at a 4-element 1:3,5 design.

This lens was originally still called Elmax = Ernst Leitz + Max Berek.
But there was a dispute with Ernemann, as the Elmax name too closely resembled a name already patented by Ernemann.
So in order to avoid a conflict, in October 1925 Leitz changed the name of the 5-element lens from Elmax to Elmar.

To be continued.
When I have a free day I like to illustrate this outline with primary sources.

Roland 
 

 

 

 

 

 

In my haste I made a mistake. In early 1925 the new 4-element 1:3,5 anastigmat was still called Elmax. So the same name as the earlier 5-element anastigmat that had been combined with the Null-Serie. This means that in my working hypothesis there must be Elmax-named lenses with 4 and 5 lens elements!

In October 1925 Leitz reluctantly renamed the new 4-element lens as Elmar.

The date of the name change is also important for my stock-and-flow analysis for early Leica production in the period 1924-1924.

I can elaborate more when I have a free day.

To be continued.

 

Roland 

 

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William,

Thank you for agreeing with most of my analysis.

Could you tell me where you disagree?

Then I can spend more time on that part of the equation.

Roland 

 

 

31 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

In my haste I made a mistake. In early 1925 the new 4-element 1:3,5 anastigmat was still called Elmax. So the same name as the earlier 5-element anastigmat that had been combined with the Null-Serie. This means that in my working hypothesis there must be Elmax-named lenses with 4 and 5 lens elements!

In October 1925 Leitz reluctantly renamed the new 4-element lens as Elmar.

The date of the name change is also important for my stock-and-flow analysis for early Leica production in the period 1924-1924.

I can elaborate more when I have a free day.

To be continued.

 

Roland 

 

I thought I had indicated that, but you have got it here. The confusion is often as a result of the use of 'Leitzanastigmat' for everything - see the blueprints and read the precise language used by Peter Karbe in his reply to me. People often confuse the term 'Leitzanastigmat' with the branding 'Anastigmat' and then 'Elmax' and then 'Elmar'. You have more or less landed where I am, but the issues still to be resolved are set out in my last post.

I hope I'm being quite clear here. Dealing with Peter Karbe teaches one the need to be absolutely accurate about optical matters. Personally, I am more than happy to leave this to Peter. His hobby is the history of optics and lenses which fits in with his 'day job', of course. 

William 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

William.

No need to wait for retirement 🙂

Yes, Leitz Anastigmat is a general name.
It could be applied to all Leitz lenses.
And so it could also be deleted, as it had no added value.

The original 4-element "Leitz Anastigmat" was patented but unsuccesful.
Maybe only two of these lenses have existed.

The Null-serie was equipped with the 5-element lens, also with the name 'Leitz Anastigmat'.
So theoretically there have been lenses with the name "Leitz Anastigmat"with 4 and 5 lens elements.
This is confusing as well.
But discovery of the 4-element version of would be a sensation, as only two of these lenses may have existed.

One can see that in late 1924/ very early 1925 the name "Leitz Anastigmat" for the 5-element lens design was replaced with 'Elmax'.  
Shortly after the 'Elmax' name was retained for the new 4-element lens, making use of the new Goerz Sendliger optical glass.
After all, both Ernst Leitz and Max Berek were very fond of their Elmax name!
Then in October 1925 Leitz reluctantly had to replace the Elmax name with Elmar, so as to avoid a dispute wth Ernemann.

This weekend I will add sources to illustrate this course of events.

To be continued.

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[willeica]

33 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William.

No need to wait for retirement 🙂

Yes, Leitz Anastigmat is a general name.
It could be applied to all Leitz lenses.
And so it could also be deleted, as it had no added value.

The original 4-element "Leitz Anastigmat" was patented but unsuccesful.
Maybe only two of these lenses have existed.

The Null-serie was equipped with the 5-element lens, also with the name 'Leitz Anastigmat'.
So theoretically there have been lenses with the name "Leitz Anastigmat"with 4 and 5 lens elements.
This is confusing as well.
But discovery of the 4-element version of would be a sensation, as only two of these lenses may have existed.

One can see that in late 1924/ very early 1925 the name "Leitz Anastigmat" for the 5-element lens design was replaced with 'Elmax'.  
Shortly after the 'Elmax' name was retained for the new 4-element lens, making use of the new Goerz Sendliger optical glass.
After all, both Ernst Leitz and Max Berek were very fond of their Elmax name!
Then in October 1925 Leitz reluctantly had to replace the Elmax name with Elmar, so as to avoid a dispute wth Ernemann.

This weekend I will add sources to illustrate this course of events.

To be continued.

Roland

 

 

 

 

a

I'll post this again. This blueprint for a 'Leitzanastigmat' from 26.7.26 1926 shows a 4 element lens. To my eyes this is clearly the lens which we know as the "Elmar'. I'm not sure how I can be more clear about 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!

 

I have a I Model A No 1661 with Elmar which was issued on 3.7.26. I have not checked how many elements it has and I have no intention of doing so. I have asked Peter Karbe to look at this 5 to 4 elements issue when he can get around to it. I presume that you have read the reply which I received from him recently. 

William