PDA

View Full Version : Leica LTM-M adapter does not work on all my Leicas!


Huss
02-02-2017, 23:02
I needed a 50mm LTM-M adapter, and found a really nice condition one at B&H. It is marked Leitz Wetzlar Germany DBP, M2 50, M3 28 50

Here's the thing. It works perfectly on my M3 SS and M3 DS. But it will not lock onto my M7, M240, CLE. It does lock onto my M4-2 and works ok, and while it locks onto my M5 it brings up a complete jumble of frame lines.
I don't have this sort of problem with any of my other LTM- M adapters (Voigtlander and Fedka) so wassup wid dat? I thought by buying a Leica one I would be guaranteed to owning one that would work with my Leicas!

I am putting this in the General section as I am trying to use it on film and digital cameras.

HuubL
02-02-2017, 23:16
Could it be that it needs just a little extra turn clockwise. Sometimes it's a matter of less than hair thickness more turn.

Huss
02-02-2017, 23:26
Could it be that it needs just a little extra turn clockwise. Sometimes it's a matter of less than hair thickness more turn.
Unfortunately no, it does not move any further.
Weird as my other adapters (non Leica brand) work with all the cameras.

michaelwj
02-03-2017, 00:44
The easiest thing would be to sell the M5,7,240, and CLE, then it will work on all your Leicas :D

(I obviously have nothing of substance to add, other than I agree that it is odd)

Highway 61
02-03-2017, 01:15
It's possibly been hacked by someone in the past, and now the cam bringing up the correct framelines on all cameras does not its job properly. Look at it closely for such evidence. Or it may have been dropped. Does it lay 100% flat with no twist ?

Huss
02-03-2017, 01:35
No hacking. Issue with the cams is minor as everything works perfectly with the M3 cameras.
Issue is that it does not lock onto some of the Leicas. Guess I'm sending this back to B&H..
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a249/Desmolicious/FullSizeRender_zpsup8wjkob.jpg

peterm1
02-03-2017, 01:43
I also once had a genuine Leica adapter that experienced similar issues. I recall it had trouble locking properly onto the camera and when it did so was quite tight. I checked it once with calipers against another adapter and found that the metal was minutely thicker which I suppose threw the tolerances to their limit.

johannielscom
02-03-2017, 03:28
Misproduction. Happens to any brand.

Nice condition probably due to nobody ever using it! Just return it!

oltimer
02-03-2017, 03:41
Huss
I seen this years ago, and kept (2) adpters depending on the camera it was going on in regards to showing up other frame lines. The ISBOO (28-50) you have will do that, and the IRZOO (50-75) will show different too. Try to pick up the IRZOO, than you will be able to switch to the particular "M" your using.

Fraser
02-03-2017, 03:44
is the locking pin in the right place, sometimes it takes a bit more pressure with newer lens mounts.

Huss
02-03-2017, 07:58
Thanks for the comments everyone. I will return this one as it is the only adapter I have that is camera specific, and I don't want to deal w/ figuring out what's on what, I just want it to work!
I'll keep looking.

Crazy Fedya
02-03-2017, 08:07
Misproduction. Happens to any brand.

Nice condition probably due to nobody ever using it! Just return it!

I always thought that it happens only to FSU production items, all other brands were perfect.
:D:D:D

David Hughes
02-03-2017, 08:58
I always thought that it happens only to FSU production items, all other brands were perfect.
:D:D:D

Yes, I thought that too...

Perhaps we should find a standard poor QC rant and cut and paste it but some fool will only believe it and then spread it around and I don't want that.

Regards, David

Huss
02-03-2017, 10:27
But is it poor quality control? Or the ultimate quality control as it says it is for the Leica M3 on it (see photo) and it fits perfectly on my M3s. Aaaaand on the cameras that it actually fits on it is the only adapter I have where the infinity focus mark lines up perfectly at 12 o'clock...

Crazy Fedya
02-03-2017, 10:56
I wonder if it would bring up 50mm framelines on M2?

Huss
02-03-2017, 12:12
I can't believe people are mentioning poor quality control or mis-production. The adapter says M2 & M3 right on it and was probably made in the same era. How would they know to make the adapter compatible for cameras (M5, M7, CLE & M240) not made until decades later?

They use the same M mount.

My Summicron 50mm from 1952 works on my M3 and on my M240. Works on all my M mount cameras.
According to your theory it should only work on M cameras of the same era.

mpaniagua
02-03-2017, 13:05
I had that issue with my M5. I happened with both Leica and nonLeica adapters by the way, so probably a camera issue?

Regads.

venchka
02-03-2017, 13:06
The easiest thing would be to sell the M5,7,240, and CLE, then it will work on all your Leicas :D

(I obviously have nothing of substance to add, other than I agree that it is odd)

Blasphemy! :D:):eek::)
The correct solution: Keep the M5. Sell the rest. Return the adapter and exchange it for a different one. Take the M5 and lens with you to B&H. Test before leaving.
I own 3 factory original adapters and they all work with Konica, Canon & Nikkor lenses (35x2, 50, 85 & 135 mm) on my M5.
Wayne

johannielscom
02-03-2017, 13:16
I can't believe people are mentioning poor quality control or mis-production. The adapter says M2 & M3 right on it and was probably made in the same era. How would they know to make the adapter compatible for cameras (M5, M7, CLE & M240) not made until decades later?

So you'd rather have me say the adapter was fine, but the standardised Leica M mount wasn't that standardised after all?

Whatever floats your boat, I'm cool with that too. My Leica II with a truly standardised lens mount :D brings up the correct frame line with each and every Leitz viewfinder I stick onto it anyway :p

venchka
02-03-2017, 18:33
And another thing...
My M3 & M2 period correct 50mm DR Summicron and 90mm Elmarit both function correctly on the M5.
Does your M5 function properly with a Leica M mount lens?
Wayne



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nasmformyzombie
02-03-2017, 18:45
I needed a 50mm LTM-M adapter, and found a really nice condition one at B&H. It is marked Leitz Wetzlar Germany DBP, M2 50, M3 28 50

Here's the thing. It works perfectly on my M3 SS and M3 DS. But it will not lock onto my M7, M240, CLE. It does lock onto my M4-2 and works ok, and while it locks onto my M5 it brings up a complete jumble of frame lines...

Huss, you're a good guy but it's obvious that the real issue is you have entirely too many M cameras! :eek:

JoeV
02-03-2017, 18:55
Is it anodized or coated? For objects with critical tolerances such surface treatments need to be accounted for.

~Joe

Huss
02-03-2017, 20:47
And another thing...
My M3 & M2 period correct 50mm DR Summicron and 90mm Elmarit both function correctly on the M5.
Does your M5 function properly with a Leica M mount lens?
Wayne



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You tawkin' to me? You tawkin' to me?
;)
Yes, every Leica I have works with all my M mount lenses (as in they mount and lock easily), and every LTM adapter apart from this one.

Huss
02-03-2017, 20:50
Is it anodized or coated? For objects with critical tolerances such surface treatments need to be accounted for.

~Joe

Whatever it is in that pic above. Doesn't seem to have any kind of coating over the metal.

venchka
02-03-2017, 20:51
Perhaps an exchange of adapters is in order. If I had a spare I would make you a fair offer. Good luck.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huss
02-03-2017, 20:53
Huss, you're a good guy but it's obvious that the real issue is you have entirely too many M cameras! :eek:

That reminds me, I didn't try it on my MD-A..
:D

Robert Lai
02-03-2017, 21:18
Leica adapters have almost always worked fine for me. The exceptions being ones that show a lot of wear, or some signs of abuse.

Voigtlander adapters seem to be the best modern ones, as they are always within tolerances, and they mount on all my cameras.

So far I have one fotodiox and one lomography (came with the Jupiter 3+ lens), which also work.

I ordered a cheap made in China adapter (Kipon) from B&H once. That was so out of spec that I could not even turn it fully to mount a lens on my M7. That one was returned.

Huss
02-03-2017, 21:48
A while back I tried the Fotodiox and Metabones LTM adapters. The Metabones was about twice the cost of the Fotodiox. Neither brought up the correct frame lines and to add insult to injury the Metabones one actually scratched/gouged my lens mount as it had a rough finish that I didn't notice.
I stick to Voigtlander and Leitz ones now. The one that Fedka sells is ok.

benlees
02-03-2017, 23:47
So you'd rather have me say the adapter was fine, but the standardised Leica M mount wasn't that standardised after all?

Whatever floats your boat, I'm cool with that too. My Leica II with a truly standardised lens mount :D brings up the correct frame line with each and every Leitz viewfinder I stick onto it anyway :p

He deleted the post. Way to be friendly! It clearly says M2 and M3 right on it. And the guy is sending it back. Put it on an M2! It worked on an M3. Science wants to know!

Huss
02-04-2017, 00:03
He deleted the post. Way to be friendly! It clearly says M2 and M3 right on it. And the guy is sending it back. Put it on an M2! It worked on an M3. Science wants to know!

What guy is sending it back?
I don't have an M2 - send me yours and I'll test it!

peterm1
02-04-2017, 01:00
" Originally Posted by aperture64 http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/themes/hexcell/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2692817#post2692817) I can't believe people are mentioning poor quality control or mis-production. The adapter says M2 & M3 right on it and was probably made in the same era. How would they know to make the adapter compatible for cameras (M5, M7, CLE & M240) not made until decades later?"

I do not wish to be rude (and certainly do not intend that) but apparently Aperture 64 is not aware of backwards compatibility. By this logic an early lens (say) a Summicron version 1 should not fit on an M4 camera or later. Clearly they do. I can also confirm from personal experience that some Leica made adapters marked M2 and M3 work fine on later cameras (including digital M cameras) but I have had one that has not just as described in this thread. So it's an adapter variability thing as much as some minor change to the M mount in some later cameras.

David Hughes
02-04-2017, 01:33
Hi,

FWIW, I have always wondered why they marked them 'M2 50' and 'M3 28 - 50'. It would make sense to me just to mark them 50.

And why the 28 when the M3 frame stops at 50?

The next question is, did they carry on and mark later ones with M4; M5 and M6 and so on? All the ones I've seen are stuck in the M2/M3 mode...

Regards, David

Roger Hicks
02-04-2017, 01:42
They don't all work on all cameras. I have several adapters, all genuine Leica, and several M-mount cameras; and of course I've had a lot more M-mount cameras for review. Once or twice I've found that a particular adapter doesn't latch on a particular camera. I can't get excited about it: it's a tolerance issue, with the adapter at one extreme and the camera at the other (or outside it). All my adapters work on most M-mount cameras, so it ain't an inherent fault in the adapters.

Cheers.

R.

peterm1
02-04-2017, 02:15
Hi,

FWIW, I have always wondered why they marked them 'M2 50' and 'M3 28 - 50'. It would make sense to me just to mark them 50.

And why the 28 when the M3 frame stops at 50?

The next question is, did they carry on and mark later ones with M4; M5 and M6 and so on? All the ones I've seen are stuck in the M2/M3 mode...

Regards, David

I think the answer to your question is that the heyday of these adapters was in the 1950s when the two primary cameras were the M2 and M3 (ignoring for the moment "specials" like the M1 etc and LTM cameras and lenses were still being made and sold in parallel with M cameras and lenses. This was the cross over era when most Leica users still owned LTM cameras - hence the need for adapters for M2 and M3 bayonet cameras so they could be induced to trade up the body to the new models without the immediate need to invest in new lenses. By the early to mid 1960s the new Leitz lenses being sold would mainly have been M mount and hence the demand for adapters would have fallen somewhat. The M4 started production in 1966 so was not around in the relevant period.

I don't know how long Leitz continued to make the adapters beyond the 1950s but to the extent that they did, I suspect they just kept the existing tooling and marking on them partly for continuity and partly for cost reasons. Later in the production life of the adapters, they would have been on the verge of being phased out in any event or available on back order from old stock. Hence the adapters did not change even though the camera body models did.

Pherdinand
02-04-2017, 05:06
Well it does say m2 m3 so i agree with the bad dudes above... technically it is a correctly sold adapter:D

Sometimes mnute differences in engineering and/or machining mess up backward compatibility (due to indeed tolerances or imprvements or cost reductions) and i am sure when they made m5 and even more so with digital Ms, they did not give a damn about full compatibility with each and every version of their adapters from the past.

Pherdinand
02-04-2017, 05:10
I give you an example. If the temperature of the two parts is different you might have a small size or pitch difference that blocks locking in on some cameras.
Or if the M3s you got has a mount made of different material than the non-locking Ms, the adapter meg ght work at one temperature but jst mght miss a bit of tolerance at another temperature. Like, brass on brass works at a wider temp range than brass on stainless steel since SS expands differently.

David Hughes
02-04-2017, 11:58
Just a short one to say thank you to Peter and Alexander.

Never seen a 9cm one...

Regards, David

venchka
02-05-2017, 05:16
Just a short one to say thank you to Peter and Alexander.

Never seen a 9cm one...

Regards, David



I own a 9cm adapter. I use it with a Nikkor 8.5cm 2.0 lens.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

raid
02-05-2017, 06:05
I also own a 9cm adapter. I have many adapters. The challenge is finding them within a few minutes.

sreed2006
02-05-2017, 07:39
Huss,

If you have not sent it back yet, I have an idea what is wrong, and how to fix it.

The Hard Stop at the camera's lock button:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/535/32725679795_f91dc52ecd.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RRREsx)
Leica M2 Mount Hard Stop (https://flic.kr/p/RRREsx) by sreed2006 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Adapter Hard Stop vs. Lock Groove, adapter 1.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/672/32725681825_7586e05126.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RRRF4x)
Adapter Hard Stop Edge (https://flic.kr/p/RRRF4x) by sreed2006 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Adapter Hard Stop vs. Lock Groove, adapter 2.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/732/32725685855_65111f28ce.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RRRGg2)
Adapter Hard Stop Edge (https://flic.kr/p/RRRGg2) by sreed2006 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Inside the camera, between the lens lock and the film, is a piece of metal that prevents turning the lens or adapter past the lock position. In the picture, it is labeled "Hard Stop."

The two different LTM to M adapters both work on an M3, M2, and M4. The red arrows on the pictures of the adapters show where the metal that bumps into the camera's hard stop is situated. There is quite a bit of difference in how far that edge is from the center of the adapters' lock grooves.

However, if the adapter that is giving you trouble has a hard-lock edge that is not clear of the center of the adapter's lock groove, then the adapter cannot turn far enough to have the camera's lock match the adapter's groove.

Use a fingernail file to shave off a bit of the adapter's hard stop edge, to get the edge at least past the center of the lock groove, and you should be good to go.