Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in
Leitz Elmarit-R 2.8/135mm version 1 and 2 differences
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks, like you are right...

Mine weights 648 grams without caps and I'm missing the additional System filter ring. The lens came in the plastic box.

I think that on the older box you posted I can read SN: 229xx, but I'm not sure...




Here is one 11 111 in older box with SN: 213xx






And here another wit SN: 261xx


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



So this is the original v1 optical design not the v2.It's logical since the bigger 2nd element design(new v2) looks heavier and has more glass volume.Rolf's later E55 model has a lighter metalic body structure for production cost reasons Wink

Everybody also put the optical design change in 1968 but we seen that is not the case Wink


Last edited by Keysersoze27 on Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:08 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rolling Eyes

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/135mm_f/2.8_Elmarit-R_I

...why I didn't see it earlier Laughing


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree. And when I study all the pictures, I see that all v1 lenses was made in Weltzar Germany (mine too), no matter they are 11111 or 11211 (maybe the PN has something to do with number of cams?).

The v2 lenses are all made in Leitz Canada and are 11211. But the switch has been made before s/n 2772619 - with this serial number Leitz switched to E55 filter ring.



To sum it up...

v1 has two separate front lenses and was probably manufactured only in Leitz Weltzar Germany.

That explains this quote from Puts LLC
Quote:
This version had almost the same lens prescription as the first version: only the two separate front lenses had less thickness and different glasses were used.


v2 is the version with second cemented doublet and was probably made only in Leitz Canada factory

The switch from v1 to v2 carried out probably ~1970 and we can narrow it now between serial numbers 2363985 (mine) and 2468270 (from eBay).

If I'm right the easiest way to quickly distinguish v1 from v2 is to check where the lens was manufactured, v1=Weltzar and v2=Canada.


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keysersoze27 wrote:
Rolling Eyes
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/135mm_f/2.8_Elmarit-R_I
...why I didn't see it earlier Laughing

The wiki on l-camera-forum is not error free... they used image of APO-Elmarit-R 180 for ELmarit-R 180 v2, so I trusted Erwin Puts Leica-M Lenses pdf from official Leica pages...

Keysersoze27 wrote:
In BRunner's original post, the lens is of the s/n272####(early 1974) batch and it too has the old optical design (v1) ...

From the low resolution I interpreted the SN as 212xx. As this corresponded to Puts Leica-M pdf and serials on l-camera wiki....

Anyway, thank you for correcting my mistake. This proves, that you can't trust anything on Internet Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So now you just need to buy a v2 one to compare it with the C/Y 135 one and all the others on your mega 135 test . Razz Laughing
Just kidding...

Apparently there is a wide open performance difference between the two as I read in the net. Don't know about other differences(contrast, infinity perfomance e.t.c)????

My copy is very sharp wide open .....


quick shot v2 2.8/135 @2.8




100% crop 5Dii's Standar profile sharpness, No PP at all


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes a real underrated lens.





Wink


PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice shots Rolf

does anyone here use a 135/2.8 elmarit M ? I cant tell if mine is out of calibration or Im not holding the camera steady enough ( its a heavy lens) I guess I could use a tripod next time..............

RTW