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

[beoon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have only been following this topic very remotely, but to summarise.

Max Berek designs 4 element in 3 groups (1920) original "Anastigmat" lens (which is a generic term for this lens)

Max berek redesign, now with 5 elements in 3 groups (1922) "Anastigmat" lens (possible later minor design tweaks but still a 5 element in 3 groups)

The 5 element lens is fitted to ALL "Null Series" cameras (1923/24)

The 5 element lens is fitted to ALL early production cameras with "Anastigmat" front lens ring (circa cameras No 126-257)

The 5 element lens is given an official Leitz name as "Elmax" around the period when the camera itself is being officially named as "Leica" (changed from "Leca" and previously "Barnack") circa January 1925.

Max Berek designs a new 4 element lens in mid 1925 to reduce production costs, with improved optical glass / performance now called "Elmar" lens.

End of story.

To further complicate things we see a camera within the "Elmax" serial number range (circa 258 - 1200) with "Anastigmat" lens fitted, but this is a camera returned as badly damaged and service department fit an "Anastigmat"  lens available off the shelf, this was probably removed from an earlier "Anastigmat" camera that was in for service/update and they fit an "Elmar" lens as its a better quality lens for the customer as part of the service/update

We also see original early "Elmax" cameras returned for service/update and the service department install "Elmar" optics, but keep the "Elmax" front lens ring

So, it is possible to see an "Elmax" camera with an "Anastigmat" lens or an "Elmax" camera which looks original (but has 4 element "Elmar" optics installed) but these are the anomalies from cameras being serviced/updated in the early years

There are probably details I have missed?

Alan

 

 

[willeica]

6 hours ago, beoon said:

I have only been following this topic very remotely, but to summarise.

Max Berek designs 4 element in 3 groups (1920) original "Anastigmat" lens (which is a generic term for this lens)

Max berek redesign, now with 5 elements in 3 groups (1922) "Anastigmat" lens (possible later minor design tweaks but still a 5 element in 3 groups)

The 5 element lens is fitted to ALL "Null Series" cameras (1923/24)

The 5 element lens is fitted to ALL early production cameras with "Anastigmat" front lens ring (circa cameras No 126-257)

The 5 element lens is given an official Leitz name as "Elmax" around the period when the camera itself is being officially named as "Leica" (changed from "Leca" and previously "Barnack") circa January 1925.

Max Berek designs a new 4 element lens in mid 1925 to reduce production costs, with improved optical glass / performance now called "Elmar" lens.

End of story.

To further complicate things we see a camera within the "Elmax" serial number range (circa 258 - 1200) with "Anastigmat" lens fitted, but this is a camera returned as badly damaged and service department fit an "Anastigmat"  lens available off the shelf, this was probably removed from an earlier "Anastigmat" camera that was in for service/update and they fit an "Elmar" lens as its a better quality lens for the customer as part of the service/update

We also see original early "Elmax" cameras returned for service/update and the service department install "Elmar" optics, but keep the "Elmax" front lens ring

So, it is possible to see an "Elmax" camera with an "Anastigmat" lens or an "Elmax" camera which looks original (but has 4 element "Elmar" optics installed) but these are the anomalies from cameras being serviced/updated in the early years

There are probably details I have missed?

Alan

 

 

I more or less agree, Alan, and this fits with what Peter Karbe told us recently. The only remaining issue is when was the 5 element lens replaced with the 4 element lens, before, after or at the same time as the Elmar name was introduced? As for the other changes, you have mentioned, I have only rarely seen a I Model A that was in absolutely original condition, so the various changes you mention above are not surprising. I believe also that in those days the service department at Leitz gave almost 'turn-around' servicing. 

Frank Dabba Smith tells me that he will alter the text in the Leica Pocket Book on its next printing to remove the incorrect comment (probably from Laney) that the 0 Series had a 4 element lens.

One final thing to note is that during all of this period the design department, who did the blueprints, referred to the 50mm lens as a 'Leitzanastigmat'. 

William  

[Roland Zwiers]

William,

Nobody would dispute that by 1926 the Elmar name was used on the newly produced Leitz anastigmatic lenses with the new 4-element design.

But things are more complex for another reason.

Assembly may not have taken place in sychronised chronological order, with the flow of bodies and lenses matched on the day they were finalized. Assembly took place in batches. And it is very well possible that a body from an older batch was matched with a lens from the latest lens-batch. And visa versa.

I pay attention to this in my stock-and-flow table for the production of Leica bodies and lenses years 1924-1926. As you know, additional information from the delivery book 'Kamera' would help me to improve this table.

The name change Elmar - Elmax took place in October 1925. I can pinpoint this with a one-week accuracy based on information in a German weekly from 1925.

Unfortunately, this weekend I already spent my free time for Forum contributions on another interesting subject. I have to finish that first. This 4-5 lens discussion will be next on my list.

It is a good idea anyway to contact Peter Karbe! Does he participate in this Forum as well? He may be interested in the information on Elmax-Elmar that can be found in contemporary sources.

Roland 

[willeica]

3 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William,

Nobody would dispute that by 1926 the Elmar name was used on the newly produced Leitz anastigmatic lenses with the new 4-element design.

But things are more complex for another reason.

Assembly may not have taken place in sychronised chronological order, with the flow of bodies and lenses matched on the day they were finalized. Assembly took place in batches. And it is very well possible that a body from an older batch was matched with a lens from the latest lens-batch. And visa versa.

I pay attention to this in my stock-and-flow table for the production of Leica bodies and lenses years 1924-1926. As you know, additional information from the delivery book 'Kamera' would help me to improve this table.

The name change Elmar - Elmax took place in October 1925. I can pinpoint this with a one-week accuracy based on information in a German weekly from 1925.

Unfortunately, this weekend I already spent my free time for Forum contributions on another interesting subject. I have to finish that first. This 4-5 lens discussion will be next on my list.

It is a good idea anyway to contact Peter Karbe! Does he participate in this Forum as well? He may be interested in the information on Elmax-Elmar that can be found in contemporary sources.

Roland 

I know that things are more complex, but I spend my life simplifying things so that people can understand them. Wood for the trees etc. What you say is my understanding, but the records won't say everything about how the 5/4 element change lined up with the name change. I have made points about non chronological/sequential manufacturing and about altered bodies and lenses here before, many times. 

I doubt that Peter Karbe follows this forum but, when he retires, his knowledge of optics, as well as Leica's record keeping system, should be immensely useful. Trying to second guess the past is always difficult, so why not let a real expert do this?

William  

[beoon]

1 minute ago, willeica said:

I know that things are more complex, but I spend my life simplifying things so that people can understand them. Wood for the trees etc. What you say is my understanding, but the records won't say everything about how the 5/4 element change lined up with the name change. I have made points about non chronological/sequential manufacturing and about altered bodies and lenses here before, many times. 

I doubt that Peter Karbe follows this forum but, when he retires, his knowledge of optics, as well as Leica's record keeping system, should be immensely useful. Trying to second guess the past is always difficult, so why not let a real expert do this?

William  

William / Roland

I agree that in a perfect world we could establish exactly what happened in 1925, but that realistically is not going to happen.

Although we know that in October 1925 the Leitz advertising changed from "Elmax" to "Elmar" this only gives an indication, the change would have happened much earlier and by the time the notification of name change arrived at the printers etc, etc.

I have started to compile a spreadsheet with details of the first 1,000 cameras, the reason to stop at 1,000 is because the service details of these cameras is known.

A quick check on my spreadsheet shows camera No 976 appeared at Leitz Auction No 27 item 8, this camera has an "Elmax" front lens ring but optics have been updated to Elmar 4 element spec. This camera was in Leitz service department 23/6/28 for 1 day and also Jan/Feb 1931.

https://www.leitz-auction.com/en/I-Mod.-A-Elmax/AI-27-31921

The delivery date for 976 is not on the spreadsheet, but camera No 986 was in Leitz auction 42 item 5 and was delivered 31/12/25 to Befort, Wetzlar. Nothing is recorded in the service records for 986 and it is described as in original condition in the auction catalogue (optics are not mentioned which is a pity)

https://www.leitz-auction.com/en/Leica-I-Mod.-A-Elmax-outfit/AI-20220121-1128-41430

It is thought the "Elmax" cameras stop around No 1250 (approx) and as 986 was delivered on 31/12/25  this would indicate only another 250 or so cameras to be delivered.

Did Leitz use up the production of existing 5 element optics in the complete run of "Elmax" cameras or did they install 4 element "Elmar" optics in later cameras and retain the "Elmax" from lens ring?

It would have been very easy to change the lens ring engraving from "Elmax" to "Elmar" if the later cameras had "Elmar" optics.

My guess and it is only a guess is that Leitz stopped "Elmax" production in early 1926 when the 5 element optics (that had already been manufactured) were used up, production of the 4 element optics which was announced in the photographic press October 1925 would have already started ready for the switch in early 1926.

We know the 5 element design was more expensive to manufacture, so I would expect these to be used up to mitigate against losses in manufacturing costs.

Leitz only started to make a profit from camera production in 1927, so to write off circa 250 expensive optical elements whilst the production was running at a loss does not seem practical.

Alan

 

 

[willeica]

4 hours ago, beoon said:

My guess and it is only a guess is that Leitz stopped "Elmax" production in early 1926 when the 5 element optics (that had already been manufactured) were used up, production of the 4 element optics which was announced in the photographic press October 1925 would have already started ready for the switch in early 1926.

 

Is there an implication here that there is an exact match between name change and number of elements? That might make sense, particularly if they were not really likely to be sued immediately by Ernemann. I agree with your premise that it is not really a 'perfect world and that proving what happened 100 years ago is only a matter of historical record. Personally, I would not be surprised to find that the Elmar lens was at least the equal of the Elmax and, possibly, better. I'm not proposing, though, that anyone starts taking photos of brick walls with samples 😇

William 

[beoon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Erwin Puts book “Leica Lens Saga” (2016) shows on page 90 an optical design system.

He states that the reference on the top of the page “B. 50/3” could be interpreted as “Berek, 50mm lens, third design “.

It is also interesting that the date on the top left corner is 6.v.25 which previously has been interpreted as May 1925, however in another post Roland has said that the old way in German of writing the number 1 looks like a “v”?

 

 

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]

On page 111 of his book, Erwin Puts states “The first batch of the commercial models (from 1925) were fitted with the Anastigmat/Elmax 1:3.5/50mm. This design had 5 elements “.

On page 365 he states “The design has been manufactured in prototype form in 1921 and was simply referred to as Anastigmat: the designation for any lens that had a reduced curvature of field”.

He the goes on to state “The 0-series, manufactured around 1921/1922 were fitted with this four-element design, still referred to as Anastigmat “.

He may be referring to the Kisselbach camera and the handmuster camera here?

[beoon]

In my collection I have found a brochure produced by Leica in 2000. The brochure is titled "Leica World The Leica 0-Series".

Pages 4 & 5 contain a conversation/interview with Stefan Daniel and Rolf Crema who are described as "fathers of the renewed production of the 0-series Leica camera".

Effectively they state that the year 2000 edition 0-series cameras with 4 element lens is based on the original 0-series camera No 119 (from the factory museum).

 

 

 

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]

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!

[UliWer]

1 hour ago, beoon said:

He may be referring to the Kisselbach camera and the handmuster camera here?

Yes. If the „Handmuster“ was made in 1921/22 it can only be the four-elements design based on Berek‘s patent from 1920.

There is also Max Berek‘s own description from 1932 about three groups of lenses (in my translation from #1):

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."

So Berek’s makes a distinction between the three types according to the lenses names. „Anastigmat“ which does describe a lens type and no specific lens „…for the first cameras for internal usage at the Leitz factory…“. Though we know that more than a hundred lenses named just as „Anastigmat“ were made. That‘s a very high number for lenses to be used only internally at the factory and to assemble them when Ernst Leitz hadn‘t proclaimed his decision to produce „Barnack‘s Camera“ was very risky. But there might have been a reason to produce more lenses of this first type than needed for „internal usage“. Ulf Richter assumes that they were made to use the expensive glass sorts they had acquired and the production of the Elmax only started when they had no more glass for the design with four lenses. 

[beoon]

UliWer,

I wonder if perhaps we should take a step back with this post and not necesssarily start again, but define what we know as fact.

I say this because there seems to be so much conflicting information (I am guilty here) and it may help to start with the facts.

• The year 2000 edition 0-Series camera (10500) has a 4 element in 3 groups Anastigmat lens, this camera is a replica of original 0-series No 119
• The latest Anastigmat lens (2025 version M-mount) has a 4 elements in 3 groups optical configuration (Peter Karbe confirmed this).
• Stefan Daniel states in the recent video the new 2025 lens "matches the optical design" of the lens which was used for the first Leica in serial production ie No 126.

Can we accept that factually?

• 0-Series No 119 has a 4 element in 3 groups lens
• Anastigmat camera No 126 has a 4 elements in 3 groups lens 
• In 1920 Max Berek designed a 4 elements on 3 groups lens. A patent was applied for 29th October 1920 (343086)
• A 1921 sketch exists for a 5 element in 3 groups lens (BK II). An additional note states BK 50 II 7/10/22
• A 1925 sketch exists for a 4 element in 3 groups lens B. 50/3
• Page 109 of Oskar Barnacks workbook shows a sketch for a 4 element in 3 groups lens

Are there any other facts that we can use to build on?

I welcome input from other interested members.

Alan

 

 

Edited July 21 by beoon

[willeica]

5 hours ago, beoon said:

UliWer,

I wonder if perhaps we should take a step back with this post and not necesssarily start again, but define what we know as fact.

I say this because there seems to be so much conflicting information (I am guilty here) and it may help to start with the facts.

• The year 2000 edition 0-Series camera (10500) has a 4 element in 3 groups Anastigmat lens, this camera is a replica of original 0-series No 119
• The latest Anastigmat lens (2025 version M-mount) has a 4 elements in 3 groups optical configuration (Peter Karbe confirmed this).
• Stefan Daniel states in the recent video the new 2025 lens "matches the optical design" of the lens which was used for the first Leica in serial production ie No 126.

Can we accept that factually?

• 0-Series No 119 has a 4 element in 3 groups lens
• Anastigmat camera No 126 has a 4 elements in 3 groups lens 
• In 1920 Max Berek designed a 4 elements on 3 groups lens. A patent was applied for 29th October 1920 (343086)
• A 1921 sketch exists for a 5 element in 3 groups lens (BK II). An additional note states BK 50 II 7/10/22
• A 1925 sketch exists for a 4 element in 3 groups lens B. 50/3
• Page 109 of Oskar Barnacks workbook shows a sketch for a 4 element in 3 groups lens

Are there any other facts that we can use to build on?

I welcome input from other interested members.

Alan

 

 

Here we go around the Mulberry Bush, again! This 5 element design was from 22 September 1923 

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!

 

 This document was provided by Peter Karbe, showing the Elmax as a 5 element lens and saying that apart from some  detail the Anastigmat and the Elmax were the same. 

Anastigmat_Elmax_1.pdf

This is what he wrote to me, verbatim, but the underlining is mine. 

" 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 10^th 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. "

The ultimate proof would be in the disassembly of an Anastigmat and an Elmax. Volunteers 😀 ?

William 

PS to one of the questions put to Stefan Daniel above, the word 'Leica' was in use from 1925, but the first camera to actually carry the name 'Leica' was the II Model D from 1932.