Screw to bayonet adaptor to fit an M series lens

[cliveh]

I have a bayonet to screw adaptor to fit a Leica screw lens onto an M series camera, but does anyone know if there is a screw to bayonet adaptor to fit an M series lens to a screw Leica (and would it work)? If you could do this to a Leica II with an improved viewfinder, with say a bright line frame and surround for just a 50mm lens, then that in my mind would be the perfect 35mm camera. However, this is just armchair theory and would probably destroy the size/weight perfection ratio of the Oskar Barnack original.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Dont screw the Leica

 

[Fixcinater]

You could machine an adapter to make it work but you'd only have close up focus (like adding an extension tube on an SLR) so it'd be pretty worthless.

Take an SLR lens like Canon FD + the right adapter, you could still focus to infinity. That's why the Canon Lens Adapter B works. Canon FD lens > Canon Adapter B > LTM camera.

 

[removed account4]

i have 3 of these adapters on my m3 lenses
they work great and don't change the weighting
the adapters weigh next to nothing

 

[jochen]

Hello,
it is not possible to adapt a Leica M-bayonet lens to a Leica screw mount body. The register of Leica screw mount is 28.8 mm and of the Leica M-bayonet mount is 27.8 mm. The M 39-lens to M-body adapters are exactly these 1.00 mm thick. The second reason is: The diameter of the screw mount flange is smaller than the over all outer diameter of the M-lens bayonet. The only way to use more modern lenses on a M 39 body is to use Cosina/Voigtländer, Zeiss or some extremely seldom and expensive dedicated special series lenses with LTM mount made exclusively by Leica ( e.g. 1:1.4/50 Summilux).

 

[Fixcinater]

i have 3 of these adapters on my m3 lenses
they work great and don't change the weighting
the adapters weigh next to nothing

Surely you mean you are using LTM lenses on M bodies?

 

[removed account4]

Surely you mean you are using LTM lenses on M bodies?

yup ///

oops
i guess i misunderstood the question and thought it was the converse

sorry ...

i take back EVERYTHING i said ..
sorry for my extreme confusion


john