Leica M9 and 50mm 2.8 elmar

[paulferesten]

<p>Can someone let me know if the M9 can safely use the 50mm 2.8 (collapsible Elmar)? I was told no by one dealer butthen I saw irt was on a lens compatibility list. Is there an official statement from Leica on this?<br>

Thanks</p>

[kens]

<p>I haven't seen an official statement, but I carefully measured the late Elmar-M 2.8 and concluded there shouldn't be a problem. So I tried it and it collapses without problem on the M8 and M9.<br>

Now it looks like the earlier Elmar 2.8 lens has the same dimensions as the Elmar-M, so I would think it would not be a problem either, but you should measure carefully before trying to collapse it.</p>

[gary_ferguson1]

<p>Paul, I use the 50mm 2.8 collapsible (the more recent version that was only recently discontinued) on an M9. It works perfectly and the shutter can even be fired when the lens is in the closed position with impunity. The M9 instruction book says this lens can't be used (or at least it can't be safely collapsed), but I checked with Leica in Germany and they said it can be both used and collapsed. </p>

 

[vic_.]

<p>I read some links a while ago, I hope they can help reassure you:</p>

<p>http://www.bogost.com/blog/safe_to_collapse.shtml</p>

<p>http://leica-users.com/v38/msg16998.html</p>

<p>http://leica-users.com/v38/msg16998.html</p>

[cdnguyen]

<p>Don't fret . You can collapse your favorite lens into the M9. </p><div></div>

[kparratt]

<p>Why on Earth SHOULD it be a problem? It doesn't come in contact with film in <em>real</em> Leicas, and the focal length hasn't changed, the distance from lens flange to film/capture plane hasn't changed, so where does the rumor come from? A fear of the dark I expect.</p>

[paulferesten]

<p>Thanks for all of your answers. I just think it's curious why Leica states that lenses should NEVER be collapsed if it is actually safe.</p>

[gary_ferguson1]

<p>"so where does the rumor come from?"<br>

Leica's M9 instruction manual.</p>

[gary_ferguson1]

<p>"so where does the rumor come from?"<br>

Leica's M9 instruction manual.</p>

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

<p>Very few M9 out there yet, I read somewhere that old collapsible 90\4 couldn't be collapsed neather.<br>

I don't have a M9 to test, but would love to.<br>

Best wishes for 2010.<br>

Please keep posting M9 images!!!!</p>

[kparratt]

<p>Leica should be able to provide the facts on the matter. I don't have an M9 instruction manual, so I don't have the text on hand to quote and query. But surely some of you folk do.<br /> But I'll say it again in other words: No collapsible Leica lens comes in contact with the film when retracted. What is different because there is a digital sensor in place of the film? Is there anyone here who can imagine something? ... anything?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Please keep posting M9 images!!!!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes Paul, I agree that images enrich the forum, but the image we need to see here, to answer the original question, is an engineer's diagram of the M9 construction, illustrating why a 50 2.8 Elmar should not be collapsed. This would wrap up the thread with authority for future reference.</p>

<p>Either there is something, and it can be shown, or there isn't anything, in which case it is their published comment that needs retracting.</p>

[kens]

<p><em>"This would wrap up the thread with authority for future reference."</em><br>

LOL - that would be a first for this place. :-)</p>

[jenny_jaques]

<p>Ken I do believe you have really gone for a wander with this remark:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>LOL - that would be a first for this place. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless you are just referring to this Leica forum, it may well be. But there are numerous threads throughout the majority of other forums where there has been a definitive answer. In fact Kevin Parratt has provided many of them, together a very solid core of other knowledgeable members. Only back in November 2009 Kevin picked up an error in a Hasselblad catalogue, which had another member confused.<br>

So what exactly do you mean?</p>

[paulferesten]

<p>Thanks for all of your responses. While it looks like using the collapsible elmar is safe, I will probably upgrade to a Sunmmicron just to be safe. If I'm going to spend $7,000 for a camera body, I don't need to have Leica telling me that I've voided the warranty.</p>

[gary_ferguson1]

<p>"Leica should be able to provide the facts on the matter. I don't have an M9 instruction manual, so I don't have the text on hand to quote and query. But surely some of you folk do.<br />But I'll say it again in other words: No collapsible Leica lens comes in contact with the film when retracted. What is different because there is a digital sensor in place of the film? Is there anyone here who can imagine something? ... anything?"</p>

<p>The M9 instruction book says, "Lenses with retractable tube can only be used with the tube extended, ie their tube must never be retracted into the LEICA M9. This is not the case for the current Macro-Elmar-M 90mm f/4, whose tube does not protrude into the camera body even when retracted. It can therefore be used without any restrictions."</p>

<p>I questioned this with Leica Germany and they said there's also no problem with the latest 50mm 2.8 collapsible lens, and I've used this lens on an M9 without complications.</p>

<p>I suspect the concern isn't about sensor versus film location, but about the shutter location/dimensions. </p>

 

[james_elwing]

<p>Maybe we have the bull by the tail here. Could the Leica issue of collapsibility relate to dust-laden air being pumped into the internal air space, thence onto the sensor; something that happens to a much lesser extent when lens elements move in and out during focusing?<br>

This might increase the frequency of sensor cleaning, and allow too much foreign matter in around the meter cell, not a real issue with film.<br>

It is the only thing that makes sense to me. The distance of collapse with some lenses is great with some lenses. I suspect the 1950's collapsible 90mm f4 goes in a long way, but the 50's collapsible Summicron only goes in marginally.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Nobody has mentioned some other Leica collapsibles, which were possibly what Leica was referring to in their announcements and instruction manuals on the M8 and M9.</p>

<p>One problem may be the accurate operation of the light meter cell. </p>

[uk]

<p>My understanding, and I may be mis-informed, is that the problem with the Elmar-M has nothing to do with the sensor. I understand that the issue is about the collapsed lens tube striking the lens throat on insertion and causing damage, or debris entering the camera and causing consequential damage to the shutter and/or sensor.<br>

Hence, attaching the lens extended is not a threat. The lens tube itself will not touch the shutter or sensor.</p>

[uk]

<p>My understanding, and I may be mis-informed, is that the problem with the Elmar-M has nothing to do with the sensor. I understand that the issue is about the collapsed lens tube striking the lens throat on insertion and causing damage, or debris entering the camera and causing consequential damage to the shutter and/or sensor.<br>

Hence, attaching the lens extended is not a threat. The lens tube itself will not touch the shutter or sensor.</p>

[peter_janssen]

<p>My Elmarit 50 2.8 SN 1,140,xxx definitely needs caution on the M9. The lugs on the barrel can scrape against the surface below the shutter if the barrel is not rotated so that the lugs are in the 12, 4, and 8 o'clock positions. No problem with the shutter.</p>

[peter_janssen]

<p>That is to say,<em>Elmar.</em></p>