Re: Elmarit 90mm

[aglang@sprynet.com]

more likely 00 means 90.0mm rather than 100mm, but do not know for sure.

On Fri, 31 Oct 97, Paul Schliesser <paulsc@eos.net> wrote:
>>Does anyone know if the Elmarit 90mm/f2.8 (the one with the detactable
>>lens head for use on the Visoflex 1958-1974?) was ever recomputed during
>>it's lifetime?  If so, which serial numbers correspond to the old and
>>new formulae?  Also, is there a book (preferably in English) which
>>would contain information such as this on this and other lenses?
>
>Dan,
>
>You know those little numbers after the distance scale, which tell you 
>what the actual focal length is? When I was photographing stuff for the 
>Photo Techniques article, at one point I examined two of these lenses at 
>the same time, (both chrome), and happened to notice that one was marked 
>00 and the other 90. This means that the second one was nearly 100mm. 
>This made me wonder if there was not something different going on here as 
>far as optical formula. Both lenses looked identical.
>
>None of the books I've seen mention a change in formula. 
>
>Jim Lager's books have the most detail about lenses of any books that I 
>am aware of. His _Leica An Illustrated History, Volume II-Lenses_ covers 
>all of the thread mount, M and R lenses, up until 1994. Volume I is on 
>cameras, volume III will be accessories, but is not out yet. You can 
>order it from Tamarkin, http://www.tamarkin.com
>
>The other books I've seen either cover lenses superficially or cover only 
>modern lenses in any detail.
>
>The one I own, in chrome, is marked 00. The serial number is 1735706. 
>Maybe you could poll the list and find out what is out there.
>
>- Paul
>