Hi there, I’ve been given a bunch of gear and included is a Leitz Elmar 50mm 3.5 lens for a Leica Barnack style camera. I don’t own one of these Leicas and I’d love to see this lens. Are there any cheap Russian cameras that I could buy and mount this lens on? Or is the Leica screw thread specific to Leicas only?
Leitz Elmar
-
A
- Thread starter Sorrycharlie
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zenza Bronica S2 Outfit - S2 Body, 75mm lens, 135mm lens, 120 film back
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500 C Outfit - Body, 3 Finders, A24 Film Back, More!
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Toyo-View D45M LF Camera, Symmar 150mm/f5.6 Lens, 45R Binocular Finder
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Guess what I found! 6 packs of Polaroid 665!!!
- Started by Early Riser
Forum statistics
They mount but a lot of sources say the focusing is slightly different + expect the typical QC issues Russian cameras have. A Leica II or IIIc can be had fairly cheaply. There are also a bunch of Canon rangefinders that will work well with it.
I have put Leica thread mount M39 lenses on very cheap Russian FED2 and FED4 (and now, a Canon P) bodies, and put a Leitz 50mm collapsible lens on a (not Russian) Voigtlander Bessa R. I can't see why you couldn't do the same and mount most LTM lenses on non-Leica M39 bodies.
Leica, Canon, Leotax, and Nicca made cameras that used the Leica thread-mount and Leica focusing calibration. A Leica lens will work on any of these.
Lenses that work on any of the above mentioned cameras were made by Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Tokyo Kogaku (Topcon), Komura, Cosina Voigtlander, and others. I have a Leica IIIf that I use with both Leica and Canon lenses and they focus perfectly on the Leica body.
The problem with Russian lenses and bodies is that they used the same 39mm screwmount as the Leica, but their rangefinders were calibrated differently. That means a non-Russian lens will NOT focus accurately on a Russian camera and a Russian lens will not focus accurately on a Leica or a Japanese camera that used the 39mm mount.
Oh awesome, thanks for the replies everyone.
So would a Canon VT be appropriate?
So would a Canon VT be appropriate?
Sure, will fit any of the LTM cameras.
-
- awty
- Deleted
Yup but as someone who owns a VT and also an L1, L2 and a L3 I much prefer the L lever wind series.
Why not the Vt's. I don't mind using the Vt, easy to hold camera and wind and focus with left hand and shutter release with the right. The L winds are ok as well, both more convenient for winding than the Barnack style, but they are smaller and lighter.
What everyone says about the focus calibration on Russian m39 cameras is true up to a point. Some of the early Russian rangefinder were direct clones of the Barnack Leica made from genuine Leica plans and tooling taken as reparation after WWII. They might have more Leica-like calibration.
But also... as a FED-2 owner... the calibration on these things is trash even with Russian lenses. The moment I tried to adjust it the little screw behind the front plate turned into brass shavings that I had to shake out of the camera lest they damage something. I use mine seventy-percent as a manual focus camera. At small apertures the rangefinder will put you in the ballpark, but jeez, when even the manual says you can have it accurate beyond 20 meters or inside 20 meters, your choice... I tend to think they did not care even a little about initial factory calibration or about linearity.
For as cheap as you can get a FED with no lens, it might be worth it to get one and use the Elmar manual focus until you can find a good deal on a Japanese or German camera that can better exploit the lens.
Congratulations on receiving such an legendary and well-designed lens, though!
But also... as a FED-2 owner... the calibration on these things is trash even with Russian lenses. The moment I tried to adjust it the little screw behind the front plate turned into brass shavings that I had to shake out of the camera lest they damage something. I use mine seventy-percent as a manual focus camera. At small apertures the rangefinder will put you in the ballpark, but jeez, when even the manual says you can have it accurate beyond 20 meters or inside 20 meters, your choice... I tend to think they did not care even a little about initial factory calibration or about linearity.
For as cheap as you can get a FED with no lens, it might be worth it to get one and use the Elmar manual focus until you can find a good deal on a Japanese or German camera that can better exploit the lens.
Congratulations on receiving such an legendary and well-designed lens, though!
To my knowledge there was no disassembly at/of the Leica plant at all, let alone to the USSR.
Then plans, at least. The early FEDs were slightly modified copies of one of the Leica II series, close enough that I've seen people use Elmars on an early FED body.
I know the Contax toolings and plans were given to the Soviets, to the extent that the better Asenal products were comparable with their Contax originals... I assumed it was a similar case, but less drastic with Leica.
I know the Contax toolings and plans were given to the Soviets, to the extent that the better Asenal products were comparable with their Contax originals... I assumed it was a similar case, but less drastic with Leica.
The FED cameras are cheap on the internet, but it can be challenging to find one in good condition. I have a FED 3 with incorrect registration distance, a FED 5b which takes great picture other than a light leak I can't track down, and a 5c with shutter issues. I finally decide to save money and just pick up a Leica IIIc. I have mixed and matched Soviet, Japanese, and German cameras and lenses and have had no focusing issue (other that the FED 3 which is missing the shims usually present, likely due to a poor CLA job at some point).
The Canon 7 is a great camera that uses m39 lenses.
The Canon 7 is a great camera that uses m39 lenses.
Wetzlar is solidly on the West (non-USSR) side of Germany.
Actually, I'm dumb. The early (exact) Russian Leica copies from FED et al. were prewar, starting as early as 1934. They were reverse engineered... though apparently to decently good standards at first.
there is the little matter of 39mm diamete being equal, but leica used inches when measuring threads where Canonn used metric measiures. In the distant past, I used a canon 35mm lens on my Leica IIIg, and a leica 50mm summicron collapsible on canon VI, but not without forcing when mounting. Not recommended.
p.
p.
Where did you read this information about the Japanese cameras using a different threading standard than the LTM? I have never seen any reference to the Japanese thread mount cameras using a different threading standard than the genuine Leica LTM nor read anyone else note this difference (with one exception - see below). My 1960s or maybe 1970s Canon 50mm ƒ1.4 lens mounts and focuses perfectly on my 1949 Leica IIIC.
According to Wikipedia:
"True Leica Thread-Mount (LTM) is 39 mm in diameter and has a thread of 26 turns-per-inch or threads-per-inch (tpi) (approximately 0.977 mm pitch) of Whitworth thread form."
According to Camerapedia Wiki:
"The Leica mount is precisely M39 × 1/26" — i.e. 39mm diameter and 26 threads per inch — with 28.8mm film-to-flange distance and rangefinder coupling. Very early Canon (J mount) used an incompatible M39 × 1/24" screw mount, 39mm in diameter but with 24 threads per inch.[1] (It has been said that early Russian cameras used "M39 × 1", with 1 mm thread, but no conclusive evidence has been provided so far.)[2]
The film-to-flange distance was not standardized on very early Leica (until 1931)[3] and early Fed and Zorki (until the early postwar years).[4] These cameras were individually matched to their lenses, by way of shims, and this may cause compatibility problems.
The most important rangefinder camera bodies using the Leica screw mount are:
- Canon rangefinders
- Voigtländer Bessa
- the Ukrainian FED, Zarja
- the Russian Zorki, FED, Leningrad and Drug
- the British Corfield Periflex and Reid
- the Braun Paxette
- early models of the Russian Zenit
- the Great Wall DF Chinese SLR
Leica screw mount is also a very common mount for enlarger lenses. These lenses do not necessarily match the flange focal distance of Leica cameras, and may not focus to infinity when mounted on a camera."
Last edited:
I own four Canon rangefinder lenses that I use all the time on two different Leica IIIf bodies with absolutely NO problems. They fit perfectly and require NO force to mount. I also have four Leica lenses that also work perfectly on the two Leica bodies. The mounts on the lenses are completely identical.
Is your Elmar coated or uncoated? Uncoated is not nearly as good as coated.
We have rangefinders sub forum here.
FSU cameras are nice decor.
If you want direct Leica copy which works buy Nicca.
Direct Elmar 50 3.5 copy is industar-10, fed 50 3.5. On exterior. Optics are not Leitz quality.
FSU cameras are nice decor.
If you want direct Leica copy which works buy Nicca.
Direct Elmar 50 3.5 copy is industar-10, fed 50 3.5. On exterior. Optics are not Leitz quality.
You know... I feel like I have to defend the FSU cameras a little. A lot of them were very well made at the time--it's just that most of them don't get CLA'd. If you buy a Leica a CLA seems like a small and worthwhile expense. Not so for a FED 2 you spent 20 bucks on. Judging a camera that's never been CLA'd against a family of cameras that are probably some of the most commonly CLA'd is a little unfair. Now obviously the engineering and workmanship is better on the Leicas, because it was literally some of the best work done in the camera world ever.... but most FSU cameras, especially in the old days, were pretty well-done on their own terms.
I encourage budding photographers who can't spare the money for a Leica, but who want a similar experience, to buy FED 2 or Zorki 4. They're cheap, they have good lenses and most of the repair can be done by amateurs. I had never worked on a FP shutter when I adjusted the curtain springs on my FED 2.
As for the lenses, nothing is as good as Leitz, but a lot of the Elmar magic is simply being a modified Tessar with an early coating... and guess what the Industars are? I have gotten beautiful performance out of the most basic Soviet lens, the 26m Red P. Sharpness? Not on the level of the Elmar. Flare performance? Probably inferior to the Elmar. Worth it for the cost? A thousand times over.
And honestly when you can get a Sonnar clone for 30 bucks do you need the quality to be right up to Leica standards?
comment no 14 above asks where I had somethread infor from. Peter Decherts book on Canon angefinder cameras page 14 liste the early canon mount as 1,1mm pitch and leitz as 0,977 and state that canon ater tried to standardize on the German thread, but that some oldr nikon and canon LTM lenses will not mount properly on leicas and canons made after 1952. I may well be mistaken ad threading difficukties,that could be due to fumbling on my part, but Dechert notes that the japanese threads "had so much inherent slop´´ that they could be fitted to both J and Leica threads".
p.
p.
Chris, he is referring to the pre-1952 (or older) Japanese lenses. These are the ones I described above, ""The Leica mount is precisely M39 × 1/26" — i.e. 39mm diameter and 26 threads per inch — with 28.8mm film-to-flange distance and rangefinder coupling. Very early Canon (J mount) used an incompatible M39 × 1/24" screw mount, 39mm in diameter but with 24 threads per inch.[1]" 1/24 equals 1.058mm, so that would be the 1.1mm pitch in Decherts' book.
On the Fed cameras, you can simply shim the lens mount with some brown paper or metal shims, to use Leica lenses, without difficulty.
That said, if you have Leica ready 39mm lenses available, and need a camera, look at a Fed as a temp. camera, until you can find the Leica or other LTM brand bodies that fuel's your passion to be out shooting with it
IMO.
That said, if you have Leica ready 39mm lenses available, and need a camera, look at a Fed as a temp. camera, until you can find the Leica or other LTM brand bodies that fuel's your passion to be out shooting with it
IMO.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |