I recently picked up a Leica 50mm f/3.5 Elmar out of pure curiosity. The lens is in great condition and I plan to use it on both film and digital Ms. One of the things I really like about it is that it is collapsible, but I have read that many shooters avoid collapsing it once mounted on an M body. (fearing sensor damage)
What is the general consensus these days? I would like to collapse it when not shooting, but I want to be sure it is safe on bodies like the M-A and the M10 series.
My copy appears to be made for the US market since the distance scale is in feet rather than meters.
I also have a question about 6-bit coding. Leica only provides a code for the 50mm f/2.8 Elmar. Is it worth using that code with the f/3.5 version, or is it better to leave it uncoded given the different optical designs?
Curious to hear your experiences and recommendations.
I have a newer Elmar, the 50mm f/2.8 Elmar-M. I don't collapse it, but not for concern about sensor damage. I have read about the possibility (not corroborated, as far as I know) of dust getting onto the sensor from collapsing and uncollapsing the lens.
Edit to add: the Elmar-M, once collapsed, is not really that much smaller than when it's extended. If I'm traveling, I'll travel with two lenses, and usually the Elmar-M will be off the camera, collapsed. I then extend and lock it, and then put it on the camera.
Had the Elmar-M 2.8 (the newer one), worked great on the M4 and 246. Even collapsing was fine on the 246 (obviously fine on the M4). With it collapsed I could easily slide the camera in a jacket pocket, it just makes the camera a much less awkard shape. Of course adding the hood on it just makes it a normal sized lens.
If you're worried about collapsing it onto the shutter, just set focus to min distance, that brings it forward just a bit and should be good to go (at least that's how the 2.8 worked, not sure about the 3.5).
Thanks for the insight! @panos.v, The infinity and MFD positions you recommended apply to the f/3.5 Elmar as well.
I don't have the M39‑to‑M adapter yet, but I did some measurements. My lens, serial 690040 and likely from the early 1950s, protrudes 23mm at infinity lock (19mm at MFD) from the mount to the end of the tube when collapsed. Adding about 1mm for an adapter would effectively reduce the extension to 22mm at infinity lock.
The Leica M sensor is exactly 27.8 mm from the mount, but the shutter sits conservatively about 3mm in front of it, so 27.8 − 3 = 24.8mm. That means the lens, collapsed at infinity lock with the adapter at 22mm, still has enough clearance to avoid the shutter and will definitely never reach the sensor (~2.8 mm from the shutter).
Excellent lens. The lens mount to film plane distance on an M3 is also 27.8mm and I would imagine the shutter is a similar distance in front of the film plane. You should be fine collapsing the lens. Has there been any documented cases of sensor damage from collapsible lenses?
Edit: a few threads on this subject on leica forum. Best to proceed with caution. A few people reporting that 50mm elmar is fine to collapse, but I suppose it depends on which exact version of the lens and which digital M camera.
I have both Elmar 50/3.5 LTM and Elmar-M 50/2.8. I don't collapse thees lenses when not in use but they shouldn't interfere or damage the sensor (only need to be careful with M5 because the light meter arm will be interfering with the lens when collapsing). I use the Elmar-M 50/2.8 6-bit code for the Elmar 50/3.5 LTM (LLL mount adapter has 6-bit coding marks on it).
Leica made many Elmar 50/3.5 from '30s to '50s. The later version with 'Red Scale' has better contrast but the copies that I have, made in 1937 and 1956, are excellent for both B&W and color on digital M bodies.
I have one in M mount and put an o-ring on the barrel so it doesn’t fully collapse. The M version is the same lens as the LTM Red Scale. The screw on silver chrome hood from the 50mm f2.8 Elmar-M looks perfect on it especially with a silver filter.
The official Leica guidance is on p. 34 of the M11 manual (similar language as M10 manual):
"Lenses with retractable tube must only be used with the tube
extended, i.e. never attempt to retract the tube while the lens
is attached to the camera. This does not apply for the current
Makro-Elmar-M 90 f/4 model, as its tube will not retract into the
camera itself and can therefore be used without restriction."
juanj wrote:
The official Leica guidance is on p. 34 of the M11 manual (similar language as M10 manual):
"Lenses with retractable tube must only be used with the tube
extended, i.e. never attempt to retract the tube while the lens
is attached to the camera. This does not apply for the current
Makro-Elmar-M 90 f/4 model, as its tube will not retract into the
camera itself and can therefore be used without restriction."
But if retracting works for you, carry on.
Perhaps Leica is simply being cautious here, mostly for liability reasons.
They are being overly cautious. The recommendations are different for the m240 and maybe M10, it’s been a while since I last checked.
When I had a collapsible Cron 50, I left it extended because I was concerned that repeatedly collapsing it would cause wear and make it wobbly. Plus after the novelty wore off, it looks cooler extended plus always ready to go.
I leave my M macro elmar 90 extended on camera, but collapsed when stored as it becomes much more compact.
Desmolicious wrote:
They are being overly cautious. The recommendations are different for the m240 and maybe M10, it’s been a while since I last checked.
When I had a collapsible Cron 50, I left it extended because I was concerned that repeatedly collapsing it would cause wear and make it wobbly. Plus after the novelty wore off, it looks cooler extended plus always ready to go.
I leave my M macro elmar 90 extended on camera, but collapsed when stored as it becomes much more compact.
Perhaps they are being cautious, but even if they were saying "Go for it," collapsing/extending the Elmar-M only gains you 15mm. Keeping it extended means you are always ready to shoot, as you say. The restrictions for collapsible lenses are the same for M240 and M10. Here is the language from the M10 manual:
"The following can be used, but risk damaging the camera or lens:
Lenses with retractable barrel can only be used with the barrel
extended, i.e. their barrel must never be retracted into the cam-
era. This is not the case with the current Macro-Elmar-M 90mm
f/4, as its barrel does not protrude into the camera body even
when retracted. It can therefore be used without any restric-
tions."
juanj wrote:
Perhaps they are being cautious, but even if they were saying "Go for it," collapsing/extending the Elmar-M only gains you 15mm. Keeping it extended means you are always ready to shoot, as you say. The restrictions for collapsible lenses are the same for M240 and M10. Here is the language from the M10 manual:
"The following can be used, but risk damaging the camera or lens:
Lenses with retractable barrel can only be used with the barrel
extended, i.e. their barrel must never be retracted into the cam-
era. This is not the case with the current Macro-Elmar-M 90mm
f/4, as its barrel does not protrude into the camera body even
when retracted. It can therefore be used without any restric-
tions."...Show more →
It's more like 22mm (from mount with adapter to the end of the tube) at infinity lock for the 50/3.5, which is quite substantial. I actually think it looks cool collapsed too...it's part of what makes this lens unique, so why not use it if it doesn't cause any damage?
Also, it shouldn't make any difference whether it's an M9, M240, or later model since they all share the same flange distance. That is the beauty of the Leica M system.
Certainly, if collapsing the lens works for you, great. I've had my Elmar-M (in silver, quite attractive) for many years, and my primary reason for getting it was its reputedly unique draw. Extended, it's already more compact than my Summilux Asph. (longer, heavier), and it fits in the bag easily.
