Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Fedka
From: dlridings at gmail.com (Daniel Ridings)
Date: Sat Jan 28 23:13:28 2006
References: <012920060127.3772.43DC1A0700065E7C00000EBC21603760210109020E999C9F@att.net>

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
>


Replies: Reply from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Fedka)
In reply to: Message from pswango at att.net (pswango@att.net) ([Leica] Fedka)