Collapsible lenses!

RomeoBSM · Apr 7, 2010

I would like to buy a small tele for my E-P1. Size is my priority: I use mostly the 17mm but from time to time I feel the need of something radically different, much longer. It is not gonna to be default lens so it should be easily carried in a pocket.

I was wondering on these lenses:

1) Leica Elmar 50mm F/2.8 is the first option:

2) Leica Elmar 90mm F/4.0 is the second one:

I have many questions over Leica's collapsible lenses and I am looking for someone who has tried the combo:

A) Can these lenses be completely retracted when mounted on m43 bodies?
B) Is there any danger to damage the sensor or even electric contacts?
C) How do they perform?
D) Any advices over older versions?

Thanks in advance!

Any advice is welcome!

blauwemac · Apr 8, 2010

Nice lenses. Although I don't kow about them in particular I would suppose that collapsing them on a m43 body would not be a problem, because they will be mounted on an adapter. For the same reason I wouldn't worry about the electrical contacts either. If size is your thing, don't forget that these adapters can be up to more than an inch, depending on the required flang distance.

best, blauwemac

Tikkis · Apr 8, 2010

RomeoBSM said:
I was wondering on these lenses:

1) Leica Elmar 50mm F/2.8 is the first option:
2) Leica Elmar 90mm F/4.0 is the second one:

RomeoBSM said:
A) Can these lenses be completely retracted when mounted on m43 bodies?
B) Is there any danger to damage the sensor or even electric contacts?
C) How do they perform?
D) Any advices over older versions?

Some answers:

A) No they can't

B) Not with Novoflex adapter, it blocks the inside end so that the lens doesn't retract all the way. You lose some of the desired compactness.
C) Nicely -- no problem there (the only negative point is stiff pricing).

D) Some really old models may have some clarity issues, some models were bound to get bit clouded eventually. Cleaning does not always help. If the lenses are clear and the whole is in nice shape, then everything shoul be allright.

Tikkis "Been there, done that"

RomeoBSM · Apr 8, 2010

blauwemac said:
Nice lenses. Although I don't kow about them in particular I would suppose that collapsing them on a m43 body would not be a problem, because they will be mounted on an adapter. For the same reason I wouldn't worry about the electrical contacts either. If size is your thing, don't forget that these adapters can be up to more than an inch, depending on the required flang distance.

best, blauwemac

From what I know, Leica M to micro 4/3 adapters are 9.5mm thick...

Lenses for rangefinder cameras have often protruding rear elements or, like in this case, collapsible parts. But rangefinders cameras have a big free space between shutter and lens mount. In m43 case the space is much much smaller:

Surfing on the web I found this:

Unfortunately, there's not a single word regarding the "collapsibility" of the shown lens....

If someone had experience with this kind of lenses, I would like hear his opinion.

By the way, I am open to other solutions regarding very compact tele lenses
with focal length around 75mm. So if you found a nice solution, share it!!!

John Bean (UK) · Apr 8, 2010

Tikkis said:
A) No they can't

How odd. The lens is precisely the same distance from the sensor on the micro 4/3 camera (with adaptor) as it would be on a Leica body, and the Leica has a closed shutter curtain in front of it as well. I'd have guessed (wrongly) that it would have been fine.

Tikkis said:
Tikkis "Been there, done that"

Best way to find things out without (bad) guesswork

--
John Bean [GMT]

avidday · Apr 8, 2010

blauwemac said:
Nice lenses. Although I don't kow about them in particular I would suppose that collapsing them on a m43 body would not be a problem, because they will be mounted on an adapter.

Unfortunately that isn't true.

Some of the Leica collapsible lenses are designed push the barrel tube a considerable distance into the body of a Leica body. So far that they are not even compatible with all Leica film bodies: for example the M5 had the TTL meter on a retractable "paddle" in front of the shutter would be struck by the rear of some older symmetrical wide angle and many of the collapsible lenses. The smaller bodied CL had similar but different problems with collapsible lenses. Leica also advised that collapsible lenses shouldn't be used with the digital M8 (I am not sure about the M9)

The two micro-fourth thirds M-bayonet adaptors I have seen (the Novaflex one and a no-name Ebay one) looked like they would clash with the barrel tube of most collapsible lenses. The only one I tried was collapsible 50mm summicron and that didn't want to fully collapse.

Jay Turberville · Apr 8, 2010

John Bean (UK) said:
Tikkis said:

A) No they can't

Click to expand...

How odd. The lens is precisely the same distance from the sensor on the micro 4/3 camera (with adaptor) as it would be on a Leica body, and the Leica has a closed shutter curtain in front of it as well. I'd have guessed (wrongly) that it would have been fine.

Well, consider that a digital camera has a filter stack in front of the image plane. Furthermore, there is the SSWF filter in front of the filter stack. But more importantly, there is the black cone/stepped baffle that tapers down to the sensor that is 1/4 the area of a 35mm film frame. My bet is that it is this baffle that gets in the way of the collapsible lenses. And if it didn't, the SSWF and filter stack might.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

avidday · Apr 8, 2010

John Bean (UK) said:
How odd. The lens is precisely the same distance from the sensor on the micro 4/3 camera (with adaptor) as it would be on a Leica body, and the Leica has a closed shutter curtain in front of it as well. I'd have guessed (wrongly) that it would have been fine.

It seems to be mostly a diameter problem, the two M adaptors I have seen have a rather narrower rear diameter than the throat diameter of the M-bayonet (which is about 44mm if my fading memory isn't failing me). Behind that are those rapidly narrowing baffles, rather than the vast cavern found inside an M film body.

efix · Apr 8, 2010

That looks awesome! Where did you find it? Also, I wonder what that thing is he's got in his hot shoe - a plug-on rangefinder?

emde · Apr 8, 2010

OK it is not collapsible - but did you ever consider the Tele-Elmarit II 2.8/90? This lens (an image can be found here:

is still very compact: 67mm long, 53mm diameter, 39mm filter thread, 225 g.

A very nice lens (I own one), which is made for eternity and quite sharp even wide open. sharpness and in particular contrast increase by stopping down to f/5.6

Regards
Martin

avidday · Apr 8, 2010

efix said:
Also, I wonder what that thing is he's got in his hot shoe - a plug-on rangefinder?

That looks like the fabled Komura 105mm birghtline finder. Very rare in Japan, and almost unknown outside of Japan. It was made as a companion to the very famous Komura 105mm f/2 LTM lens, because almost none of the LTM rangefinders of the era didn't have a 105mm frame line.

John Bean (UK) · Apr 8, 2010

avidday said:
Behind that are those rapidly narrowing baffles, rather than the vast cavern found inside an M film body.

Yes of course, as Jay also pointed out. There simply isn't enough width available as you approach the sensor.

Must engage brain next time ;-)

--
John Bean [GMT]

RomeoBSM · Apr 8, 2010

emde said:
OK it is not collapsible - but did you ever consider the Tele-Elmarit II 2.8/90? This lens (an image can be found here:

is still very compact: 67mm long, 53mm diameter, 39mm filter thread, 225 g.

A very nice lens (I own one), which is made for eternity and quite sharp even wide open. sharpness and in particular contrast increase by stopping down to f/5.6

Regards
Martin

Thank you very much for the hint! I really appreciate when someone share it's tricks! I have to admit that this 90mm is not bad at all, but...

I was considering to buy a Pentax Limited 70mm F/2.4:

The m43 adapters is bigger than the lens itself! It's a big pity, because the final result is not as compact as it could be.

So, I had a look to Leica lenses because of the shorter flange to back distance. If I can find something more compact with Leica mount (and some collapsible lenes are smaller) I will take it for sure otherwise I will go for the Pentax solution (this lens can be mounted on my E-3 too!!!).

By the way, thank you emde because I think you understood my need and I feel like you can suggest me the "perfect lens".

saghost · Apr 8, 2010

I don't know anything about collapsible lenses (though I was trying to learn.)

The search for compact primes is one a lot of us have been on somehow.

The smallest sharp fast mid range lens I've seen is the Nokton 40/1.4 - even with the adapter from Leica M, it should be only about 1.5" long.

Even with the inch thick adapter, I can't find anything that is close to the size of the Pentax you mentioned for that sort of focal length and aperture. Of course, with no aperture ring, you'd have to get one of the expensive adapters to stop it down. And if you do get that adapter, there's the Pentax 40/2.8 pancake, which will end up the same size as the Nokton, though slower.

I'm still trying to decide, myself.

Walter

John Bean (UK) · Apr 8, 2010

saghost said:
The smallest sharp fast mid range lens I've seen is the Nokton 40/1.4 - even with the adapter from Leica M, it should be only about 1.5" long.

My choice would be a Leica Summicron-C 40/2 (or the equivalent Rokkor) made for the Leica/Minolta CL/CLE. Tiny and very sharp, I used it for years when I had a CL and loved it, actually preferring it to a "proper" Summicron.

--
John Bean [GMT]

RomeoBSM · Apr 8, 2010

saghost said:
The smallest sharp fast mid range lens I've seen is the Nokton 40/1.4 - even with the adapter from Leica M, it should be only about 1.5" long.

This would be a nice option: it's compact enough for my taste and it's gonna replace my Zuiko 40mm F/1.4 (It has nicer quality and slightly smaller size).

Unfortunately, it's not long enough for my needs: I would like around the double of its focal length.

saghost · Apr 8, 2010

If you want that 70-100 fl, I don't think you'll be able to do smaller than the DA limited - which by all accounts is also an excellant lens.

John, I hadn't heard about the Summicron-C before. A little digging on the web makes it sound pretty promising. Do you have detailed specs for it, or a suggestion for where to find them?
Walter

Carl Schofield · Apr 8, 2010

The Contax G Zeiss lenses are quite compact and the adapter has a very short flange distance (about the same as the M). Focusing is different (small wheel on adapter), but if you can adapt to the un-conventional focus mode then either the 35 or 45 would make great short tele options. There are no classic lenses sharper than these.

--
Carl
Website: http://www.schophoto.com/gallery/
TheDailySnap: http://www.blipfoto.com/SchoPhoto

John Bean (UK) · Apr 8, 2010

saghost said:
John, I hadn't heard about the Summicron-C before. A little digging on the web makes it sound pretty promising. Do you have detailed specs for it, or a suggestion for where to find them?

You'll have to search around Walter, but a starting point for all sorts of rangefinder stuff is http://www.cameraquest.com where I found this interesting comparison between the Summicron-C 40/2 and the Nokton 40/1.4, and as you can clearly see the Summicron is significantly smaller:

It's on this page:
http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm

Make sure you check out the CLE page as well; the Leica CL was made by Minolta and marketed by both Minolta and Leitz, a bit like the current Panasonic-Leica offerings are. The CLE was never sold as a Leica but of course uses the same M-mount. All CL/CLE lenses are equally competent no matter that they may have Minolta Rokkor or Leitz Summicron inscribed on them.

--
John Bean [GMT]

RomeoBSM · Apr 8, 2010

Carl Schofield said:
The Contax G Zeiss lenses are quite compact and the adapter has a very short flange distance (about the same as the M). Focusing is different (small wheel on adapter), but if you can adapt to the un-conventional focus mode then either the 35 or 45 would make great short tele options. There are no classic lenses sharper than these.

--
Carl
Website: http://www.schophoto.com/gallery/
TheDailySnap: http://www.blipfoto.com/SchoPhoto

Are you happy with the Contax G 90mm?

I like Contax 35-70mm design too, but I heard that is not usable on m4/3 because of the rear element... is that true?

A question about focusing: it gives back just a strange feeling or it is slow/difficult too?

By the way, GF1 with Contax lenses is so incredibly elegant!! :O

Collapsible lenses!

Well-known member

Active member

Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts