Leitz Elmar 50mm 3.5

[jdleffler]

I have an old Leitz Elmar 50mm 3.5 sn:174845. I believe this puts its

manufactured date at about 1933. However, the aperture markings only go up to

f:16 rather than f:18. Is this a legit Leitz lens and how else can I tell if it

is not? Additionally, there is a M marking on the side rather than mtr or feet.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

David<div></div>

[john_shriver]

The engraving style is too modern to be original to such an old lens. My Elmar is 500XXX, and has much more old-fashioned mechanicals. Yours looks to be from just before the red-scale era.

 

I think your lens went back to Leica for a rebuild at some point. At least the chromed casing was replaced, and maybe more.

 

Looks too good to be a Russian fake.

[jim nichols]

David, are you reading the serial number from the bronze ring surrounding the front element? That lens looks awfully pristine for one that old. Mine is from 1946 and goes to f/18, has "mtr" instead of "m", and has "Germany" in smaller script.Elmars shown in the 1955 issue of Leica Manual by Morgan and Lester show stops to f/22, and the "m" as your photo illustrates. It has all of the appearances of a genuine Leitz Elmar.

[Andrew in Austin]

Fascinating - the Elmar looks to be from the late 1940's.

 

When you read the serial number off the brass control ring for the aperture setting - did you use a magnifier?

[george_shihanian]

Those serial numbers can be hard to read without the help of a magnifier. My reference book states "from 1946 international aperture scale - 3.5 to 16, later extended to 22." My Elmar from 1956 goes to 22. Serial numbers from 1946 started at 601,000. Could you be missing a number somewhere, making your serial number 1 million plus? Mine from '56 is 1,406,xxx

[jdleffler]

I can't get it any clearer than this but with a really powerful lupe the numbers are 174854. I'm seriously Puzzled.<div></div>

[jdleffler]

Opps. 174845

[ronald_moravec1]

Perhaps the optics were put into a newer mount. 1933 optics were not coated. Post war

optics were and looked to have a blue color.

 

The easiest way to tell a fake is the diaphragm is way back in the lens. Elmars were just

behind the first element. Tessars are between 2 and 3.

 

I must agree this looks to good to be a fake, but might be a mutt (made from different

stock).

[kelly_flanigan1]

Maybe a good copy will keep food on the table to an old craftsman in the Ukraine; and be a source of much pride?

[jdleffler]

You'd think an old craftsman in the Ukraine would be able to copy all the numbers, Ya know. However, the diaphragm angle is interesting. When I closed the diaphragm it appears to be right up very close to the first element and the optics are not "blue" or even a little blueish. They look clear and clean. I'm stymed. Here is another shot that shows more of the markings.<div></div>

[jdleffler]

Jim, over at Rangefinderforum.com put his finger on the real question that that brings up the crux of the matter on which the whole situation pivots. Does anyone know of any Elmar 50mm 3.5, of any age, that stopped at f:16 ? So far I haven't seen or heard of when this specific configuration may have been manufactured. It appears that the Elmar in the 40s went to f:18. The Elmar in the 50s went to f:22. Does anyone have one or know, for sure, how the first low serial numbered Elmar of the 30s was marked? Did the first Elmar 50mm 3.5 stop at 16 ?

[jdleffler]

Andrew says: Early f/3.5 Elmars use the old aperture increments with f/18 being the highest marked increment. Late 1940's / very early 1950's used modern increments marked between f/3.5 to f/16. A pre-Red Scale came next f/3.5 to f/22. Followed by the Red Scale, also f/3.5 to f/22.

[jdleffler]

I want to thank everyone for all of their expertise. This has been a most enlightening experience. What did we ever do without the internet and Photo.net? I shutter to think.

[vidom]

David: I own an early post war coated Elmar (~1948) that stops at f16; as far as I remember, Laney writes that these have been made for some time after the war, but in the early 50s they changed the smallest aperture to f22. Apart from the strange serial number the lens mentioned in this therad looks exactly like mine. I think this is simply a faulty engraving, one number missing from the s/n.

[adrian bastin]

I fancy I can see the ghost of a '1' where it could be at the beginning of the serial number in your picture.

 

But I just looked at my 'red scale' and that's 107**** . That is dated to 1953, as yours is. So did the red scale not immediately supersede the previous type ? Or is mine a cobbled together one ? I have to say it does work like a red scale, producing very clear, accurate colour. (and stops down to f22)

[anthony_brookes5]

Adrian - I think you could be right as clearly the number is wrong for the lens. Ive tried to blow it up and increase contrast but there does seem to be a figure there.

[adrian bastin]

And perhaps because it is faint, the paint has not broken over that figure.

[alex_lofquist]

Later models of this Elmar had the focussed distance engraved on the movable bezel of the lens and the DOF markings on the fixed flange. When I had mine repaired, Leica upgraded the mounting, along with modern aperture stops.

[mohir_ali]

Why does this matter? the lens is neither a collectible or a high performer.

[summitar]

"Why does this matter? the lens is neither a collectible or a high performer."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part of the joys of Leica collecting and use are the minutia associated with the equipment and its variations and its history. Leica-ology is a religion. Only a heretic would ask such a question. One may as well ask why one should go to Mecca, or does the resurrection really matter. Even the configuration of Leica lens caps are important to true believers and I am one of them.

[charles_stobbs3]

I think the old f stops were 3.5, 4.5, 6.3, 9, 12.5, and 18. They then changed to the newer series where 3.5 is sort of an orphan (they weren't ready to introduce f2.8 yet).

[jeff h.]

Here is my Step-Grandfather's Elmar (I inherited it with his 1935 Leica Standard "E" camera).

There is no serial number anywhere on the lens, so this is an early one.

 

<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v291/SpeedySub/?

action=view&current=DSC_0350.jpg" target="_blank"><img

src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/SpeedySub/DSC_0350.jpg" border="0"

alt="Photobucket"></a>

[feli]

It could have originally shipped in M mount. Many of the original M-mount lenses actually

were for screwmount, with an LTM->M adapter that was fixed with a screw. That could

explain the high serial number.

 

The 3.5/50 Elmar is a bit of a nightmare and delight for collectors. It was made for

decades and there are a huge amount of variations and factory modifications/upgrades.

Toss in the chaos of WWII, where material shortages led to all sorts of strange

combinations of new and old parts and you have a recipe for chaos.

 

Personally I don't think that is a fake. The build quality looks far to high for a Russian

knock off and the front of a Jupiter also looks different.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In Soviet Collapsibles in LTM there is the Industar-22 and Industar-50 and the FED Industar 10. The Jupiter-3 and 8's I own are faster F1.5 and F2 lenses in rigid mounts; not Collapsibles. The Industar-50 also is in a rigid mount too.

[feli]

Oops.

 

You're right Kelly. I got my Jupiters and Industars all out of orbit.