Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Henning, Don't mix up the Elmar and the tele-elmar. To mount the tele-elmar you have to pull of the lowest light baffle. the large thread to the front is only used to mount the lens head in the normal schnecke. The later tele-elmar had a different mount which i don't think can unscrew the head. Best regards, Michiel Fokkema Henning Wulff wrote: >> Claude, I must have sent too much information. You may like to re-read >> my reply. You need the OTZFO universal focusing adaptor, the >> number is 16464 or 16465, The other adaptors screw into that one. It >> does fit. I have it in front of me. I assembled it for you to >> double check. >> Camera body>Visoflex II or III>OTZFO>16471>16472> lens head. This is >> the Leitz Wetzlar f4 135, made between 1960 and 1965. It has a >> chrome body. There was a version sold as head only. I haven't seen >> that. It was replace by the Tele-Elmar >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org >> [mailto:lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of >> LOU-01 >> Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2007 00:06 >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: Re: [Leica] (sans objet) >> >> Thanks a lot for Your quick answer, but sorry .... >> 16472 ( 41,8 mm screw diameter) does'not adapt on ELMAR 135/ f4 >> LENS-HEAD (37,8 mm screw diameter) ... >> Its probably need a specific ring adapter ... (whitch one ? ? ?) >> Sincerely Yours, >> Claude >> > > Hoppy, it might not. I have two copies of the Tele-Elmar and one fits > directly into the 16464 (or OTZFO) as its supposed to but the other > doesn't, as it has its screw threads (larger diameter) closer to the > front of the lens. There are odd items out there which don't fit as they > are supposed to. This Elmar might be one of them. > > I don't have the items in front of me at the moment, so I can't measure > thread sizes or tell you how this might fit. > > Your answer is the correct one and it should work, but there are > certainly variations. >