Elmar 135mm: Will it cover 4x5? LSM to Copal adapter?

[Drew Bedo]

This is in the crazy idea, or "a solution looking for a problem" category:

I have heard that the 135mm Elmar lenses can actually cover the 4x5 format.

If that is so (and I don't know that it is), is there a LSM to Copal adapter ring anywhere?

[pendennis]

You may want to read this article:

https://casualphotophile.com/2020/10/12/leitz-tele-elmar-135mm-f-4-review/

From prior reading though, I understand the 135mm Elmar will only cover up to 6x6.

[Tin Can]

Good read


You may want to read this article:

https://casualphotophile.com/2020/10/12/leitz-tele-elmar-135mm-f-4-review/

From prior reading though, I understand the 135mm Elmar will only cover up to 6x6.

[Dan Fromm]

Two comments.

If you have the money, honey, SKGrimes and https://www.srb-photographic.co.uk/ will find the time to make an adapter that will let you hang a lens in LTM in front of a Copal #1 shutter. It is unlikely that a lens in a barrel designed to be mounted on a Leica body will make infinity on a press/technical/view camera when put on an adapter + a Copal #1 shutter.

The MTF charts in the "good read" seem wrong. They show much better MTF @ 40 lp/mm than @ 10. This is the opposite of the usual result.

[Jim Jones]

According to Paul-Henry van Hasbroeck in Leica: A History Illustrating Every Model and Accessory, the first 135mm lens for Leica 35mm cameras was the f4.5 Elmar, originally designed in the early 1920s for 9x12cm plate cameras. This four element three group lens with its interchangeable mount was introduced in 1930 with the Leica I.

[Bob Salomon]

Two comments.

If you have the money, honey, SKGrimes and https://www.srb-photographic.co.uk/ will find the time to make an adapter that will let you hang a lens in LTM in front of a Copal #1 shutter. It is unlikely that a lens in a barrel designed to be mounted on a Leica body will make infinity on a press/technical/view camera when put on an adapter + a Copal #1 shutter.

The MTF charts in the "good read" seem wrong. They show much better MTF @ 40 lp/mm than @ 10. This is the opposite of the usual result.

All of the thread mount 135 Elmer lenses I had were actually short mount lenses that were screwed into the focus mount. You could unscrew the lens part to mount it on the bellows or the extension tubes.

[drew.saunders]

I have the following Leica lenses with removable optical assemblies for Visoflex (all of which I occasionally use with Visoflex bellows for fun macro work):

90/4 LTM from the 1950's
90/2.8 M w/o a serial number, probably from 1960 or so
135/2.8 M from 1973

I cut a temporary "lens board" from a cereal box, traced the hole for the 135/2.8, cut it, and focused inside on something about 8' away with each lens. These are all for 4x5.

The 135/2.8 didn't cover to the corners, I'm estimating at least a 90mm image circle, maybe up to 100mm? Should work for 6x7cm, maybe 6x9cm?

The 90/2.8 might work for 6x6cm, it had the smallest IC.

The 90/4 covered to the corners, at least for indoor work, not sure if it would cover for infinity. That surprised me. Can't really tell you how good it looked, this was a quick test to see if it covered, someone else will have to mount the lens head and take some images.

I presume a 135/4 or 135/4.5 might cover a 4x5 since the 90/4 did too.

I had to hold the lens in the flimsy "lens board" so couldn't really also hold a tape measure to get exact IC size.

You'd have to figure out a shutter, but I guess it would work.

[drew.saunders]

I presume most folks haven't seen a Leica/Leitz lens with removable optical group disassembled, so I took a few quick iPhone pics of my 90 Elmar, background courtesy of the USPS. Once the optical group is removed, the rest of the lens is really just a tube with a focusing helicoid. As you can see, the 90/4 optical group is tiny, I think the 135/4 is not much larger.
213130213131213132

[Bob Salomon]

I have the following Leica lenses with removable optical assemblies for Visoflex (all of which I occasionally use with Visoflex bellows for fun macro work):

90/4 LTM from the 1950's
90/2.8 M w/o a serial number, probably from 1960 or so
135/2.8 M from 1973

I cut a temporary "lens board" from a cereal box, traced the hole for the 135/2.8, cut it, and focused inside on something about 8' away with each lens. These are all for 4x5.

The 135/2.8 didn't cover to the corners, I'm estimating at least a 90mm image circle, maybe up to 100mm? Should work for 6x7cm, maybe 6x9cm?

The 90/2.8 might work for 6x6cm, it had the smallest IC.

The 90/4 covered to the corners, at least for indoor work, not sure if it would cover for infinity. That surprised me. Can't really tell you how good it looked, this was a quick test to see if it covered, someone else will have to mount the lens head and take some images.

I presume a 135/4 or 135/4.5 might cover a 4x5 since the 90/4 did too.

I had to hold the lens in the flimsy "lens board" so couldn't really also hold a tape measure to get exact IC size.

You'd have to figure out a shutter, but I guess it would work.

Do it the easy way. Take the lens and a white mount board into a darkened room. Point the lens out a window while holding the mount board behind it. Move the board till you get a sharp image on it. See how big a circle it throws and that’s what it covers. How well will depend on what you will accept.

[Mark Sawyer]

If you have the money, honey, SKGrimes and https://www.srb-photographic.co.uk/ will find the time to make an adapter that will let you hang a lens in LTM in front of a Copal #1 shutter. It is unlikely that a lens in a barrel designed to be mounted on a Leica body will make infinity on a press/technical/view camera when put on an adapter + a Copal #1 shutter.

If you don't have the money, a step-up ring should work. Both the Elmar and the Copal have pretty common thread sizes.

Even if it doesn't cover, it may be fun to work "in the round" once in a while...

[Mark Sampson]

I had one of these 90/4 Elmars decades ago. It had terrible flare in any kind of backlight. IDK if that was because of the scratch on the front element; I blamed the satin-chrome nameplate ring... and quickly traded it in on a 1st-gen Leica 90/2 Summicron. That lens also detached from its rangefinder mount for Visoflex use. In those days I didn't shoot in LF and never thought about adapting lenses upward in format. Much later, I found out that that 90/2 (a very sharp lens) was used on some 70mm aerial cameras, so it would have covered a nominal 6x6 frame.
Back on topic, I suspect that mechanical vignetting will restrict coverage on Mr. Bedo's 135mm lens But it will be interesting to see what he finds out!

[reddesert]

The casualphotophile article on the Tele-Elmar / Sonnar makes heavy sledding of some lens design facts or opinions. A reason the Sonnar design is less common than the double Gauss, especially for shortish lenses, is that the Sonnar doesn't have enough back focus to clear the SLR mirror at normal-lens focal lengths, like 50mm in the 35mm format. However, it works fine for short telephotos, and many many SLR lenses in 35mm and medium format are Sonnar derivatives (possibly almost all the humble 135/2.8 slr lenses).

As Dan noted, they mislabeled the red and green lines for MTF at 10 and 40 lp/mm, the text referred to it correctly (green line = lower MTF = at 40 lp/mm).

The Sonnar design doesn't have a ton of coverage, I think; I would bet on a 135mm Tessar-type covering a larger angle with good definition, but it all depends on how each design was tweaked. It doesn't hurt to try.

[Bernice Loui]

Question becomes.. why bother with the Elmar 135mm to 4x5?
What possible advantage could this lens have over other lenses that are specifically designed for 4x5?

Bernice

[Mark Sawyer]

What possible advantage could this lens have over other lenses that are specifically designed for 4x5?


For one thing, it wasn't specifically designed for 4x5. Exploration is its own reward.

[Bernice Loui]

IMOV, there is a limit to what lenses and all that Foto related hardware can possibly do for any image.

This discussion begins to head into the age old photography divide where some image makers are focused on their hardware being the source of what could make their images "special" -vs- those who apply lenses, camera, image recording method as mere tools as a means to an end.

Could it be possible at some point image makers get tired of widget tinkering then either stop making images or grow out of "GAS" enough to focus on expressive image making.

Looking back at my four decades of doing photography, the hardware stuff has become of much lesser importance as with experimentation. Most of the efforts today has shifted to applying these photographic tools as a means to an end.

As example, that 500mm f5.5 Tele Xenar got mounted, checked on the camera and ground glass, yet no particular idea or inspiration to make images with it yet. New lens indeed, but not yet inspired to use it for image making.. When film does get burned, the same four lenses continue to get used.


Bernice




For one thing, it wasn't specifically designed for 4x5. Exploration is its own reward.

[Willeica]

If you want to use a Leitz Elmar with a 4x5 camera look out for the 10.5 cm Elmar with Compur shutter which was designed for the Nagel Recomar. It gives 4x5 coverage on my Intrepid, see photo below.

213143

William

[Bernice Loui]

Circle of illumination or circle of designed in optical performance? At what aperture? How much camera movement?

Lens ability to produce illumination for a given film size does not mean or define it's actual optical performance image circle that was originally designed into the lens.

Experiment ok, skeptical this lens would equal the optical performance of a modern wide angle lens design like 115mm f6.8 Grandagon, 105mm Fujinon SW or similar.

Question become experimenting with lenses or focusing on expressive image making based on artistic and creative vision? Then comes what is the definition of artistic or creative vision?


Bernice



If you want to use a Leitz Elmar with a 4x5 camera look out for the 10.5 cm Elmar with Compur shutter which was designed for the Nagel Recomar. It gives 4x5 coverage on my Intrepid, see photo below.

213143

William

[Bernice Loui]

MTF curve looks very questionable, red -vs- green lines appears to be reversed. And.. notice the curve is well falling off at 21mm distance from center.. Again, this lens might illuminate 4x5 which demands an image circle of just over 150mm or just over 75mm. Based on this MTF curve (remains very questionable) what will the MTF performance be at over 75mm away from center?
213152

Then there is all sorts of crowing about bokeh... As for why Double Gauss lens design became SO common in 35mm roll film lenses, it is much about largest aperture -vs- focal length. A feat the Sonnar design in not idea for meeting that need. Having owned a number of Zeiss Sonnar lenses (both Jena and West German Zeiss) in the past, it is good, but not THAT good. Much like any other good lens formula, it has excellent then poor features and aspects to it's personality.


Meh..
Bernice




You may want to read this article:

https://casualphotophile.com/2020/10/12/leitz-tele-elmar-135mm-f-4-review/

From prior reading though, I understand the 135mm Elmar will only cover up to 6x6.

[fuegocito]

This is in the crazy idea, or "a solution looking for a problem" category:

I have heard that the 135mm Elmar lenses can actually cover the 4x5 format.

If that is so (and I don't know that it is), is there a LSM to Copal adapter ring anywhere?

I don't know the coverage of the Elmar but I have a Hektor 135mm that surely covers 4x5 nicely.

[Drew Bedo]

A great thread. All good stuff here.

I really do not want to use a 135 Elmar on a LF format. I just made the OP to settle for myself a "bar bet" sort of assertion made some time ago by a guy in a collector's group.

The discussions about adapting such a lens to a leaf shutter do seem impractical. If such a barrel lens did cover a sheet film format, I would think that one of the focal plane shutter press cameras could be made to work. RThe same goes for any of the Antique/vintage brass lenses out there.

Digesting this last train of thought on shutters two things popped up.
During the last half of the 19th century the ability of industry to make reliable watches became commonplace. Yet leaf shutters did not appeare till much later (I don't know when exactly). A similar thought is that while roller blind shutters did develope in the late 1800s, it was years before focal plane shutters were made, and then only in smaller size formats. I have seen in person only one 8x10 FP shutter in the last 40 years or so and last year one other in an online auction.