Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Phil, >From what I've read --- I'm no expert --- both the Industar's (10, 22 and 50) and the Elmar are Tessars, optically. Leica moved the aperture up a bit, right behind the front element, as you already remarked, but otherwise, the Elmar _is_ a tessar too. Some have wondered if Leica did that to avoid patent problems with Zeiss, while Zeiss, on the other hand, did a little research on the Elmar to try and figure out how Leica's Elmar could perform better than what they could do with the Tessar. I doubt that the difference was all that great. So the Tessar's are unabashed Tessar copies and the Elmar is a sneaky copy :-) Daniel On 1/29/06, pswango@att.net <pswango@att.net> wrote: > However, I'm not sure I'd call it an Elmar copy. The rear element is a > bit smaller in diameter than my 1950 Leitz Elmar and the diaphragm is just > in front of the rear glass rather than just behind the front glass, as in > a true Elmar. My other FSU Elmar is the same. Considering that the > pedigree of the FSU lenses runs through Zeiss and not Leitz, I'm wondering > if it's not a Tessar copy, at least optically. (Not that it matters.) > I'll try to snoop around on the Vade Mecum CD and see what I can find out. > Anyone here know more? > > -- > Phil Swango > 307 Aliso Dr SE > Albuquerque, NM 87108 > http://pswango.smugmug.com/ > pswango(at)att.net > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >