Early 1960's Vintage 50 Summilux

[barnack]

I have been offered a chrome 60's vintage 50 Summilux #192XXXX. What is the opinion of the optical performance of this lens? I would like to use with an M8.

[pelikan1931]

Originally Posted by barnack

I have been offered a chrome 60's vintage 50 Summilux #192XXXX. What is the opinion of the optical performance of this lens? I would like to use with an M8.

as compared to which lens? itself flares less than the rigid summicron of the same period.

[lars_bergquist]

That is an early edition of the 'secret' V. II Summilux—the optical design that persisted until 2004, with changes in the mount, and of course with improved coating. I have used a late version of that lens, and it was not only less susceptible to flare than the contemporaneous Summicron, it was better in that respect than the current Summicron! It was very Summicron-like at 5.6 and had its own inimitable but pleasant fingerprint at larger apertures. Buy it.

The old man from the Age of the M2

[luigi bertolotti]

Mine is very close (1.884.xxx) ; I agree at all with Lars: if the price is "right" (say, something around 1Keuro, better if with hood and proper cap, or under 1K if without them) and lenses/coating are clean it's a enjoyable lens on M8... decently sharp around 2,8-8, typical oldstyle flare at 1,4 - 2 (I think this is less noticeable on the later items with better coating) ...and a very nice item to have for chrome-lovers

[sabears]

...and wonderful bokeh!!

[dkpeterborough]

Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti

Mine is very close (1.884.xxx) ; I agree at all with Lars: if the price is "right" (say, something around 1Keuro, better if with hood and proper cap, or under 1K if without them) and lenses/coating are clean it's a enjoyable lens on M8... decently sharp around 2,8-8, typical oldstyle flare at 1,4 - 2 (I think this is less noticeable on the later items with better coating) ...and a very nice item to have for chrome-lovers

I have a silver model S/No.18843XX just been serviced ... I have never been sure if this is a Mk I or an early Mk II ... descriptions in Pocket Book 7th Edition seem a bit ambiguoius ie The Mk I is stated as having S/No. 1640601 - 1844000 ... produced 1959-61 ...

Book then states Mk II S/No 1844001 produced 1962 - onwards ... which included silver chrome, black paint and then black anodised ... and initially had same mount as the Mk I

But mine has a 1961 S/No ???

Has a nice circular iris diaphragm .. have hood and caps for it .

Cheers

dunk

[lars_bergquist]

The surreptitious version change was effected during the winter of 1961–62. It is very probable that there was no clean switch-over.

The old man

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by dkpeterborough

I have a silver model S/No.18843XX just been serviced ... I have never been sure if this is a Mk I or an early Mk II ... descriptions in Pocket Book 7th Edition seem a bit ambiguoius ie The Mk I is stated as having S/No. 1640601 - 1844000 ... produced 1959-61 ...

Book then states Mk II S/No 1844001 produced 1962 - onwards ... which included silver chrome, black paint and then black anodised ... and initially had same mount as the Mk I

But mine has a 1961 S/No ???

Has a nice circular iris diaphragm .. have hood and caps for it .

Cheers

dunk

I have always red that the changover in lens design started at 1844001... so I think that your lens (so as mine, very similar n°) is of the second design type; my only doubt is that my Summarit 50 1,5 "Taylor Hobson" is really very very similar in rendering...and the Summilux 50 first design was indeed the same lens... but is a really perfect item.
I do not know if the two version of Summilux differs also for something else that could be easily checked (for instance, the diaphragm shape)

[jc_braconi]

Have a BM s/n 1641xxx 1958
a SM s/n 1706xxx 1959
a black chrome s/n 2346xxx 1969
a black chrome s/n 2980xxx 1979
all complete with caps and sunshades
I will make some tests with the M8,ASAP.

[barnack]

Many thanks for everyones feedback.

[Erik van Straten]

Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti

I do not know if the two version of Summilux differs also for something else that could be easily checked (for instance, the diaphragm shape)

An easy check is to look at the small number that is engraved on the distance scale next to the "m" (meter) symbol. This number is mostly a 13 or a 14. It indicates the exact focal distance of the lens. 13 is 51,3mm, 14 is 51,4 mm and so on. This number is NOT engraved on the first type Summilux, only on the second.
Another easy check is to look at the length of the barrel. The first type is about 5mm longer than the second type.
A third easy check is the knurling of the distance ring. On the first type Summilux the fine knurling is on the higher parts of the surface of the distance ring and on the second type the fine knurling is on the deeper parts of the surface of the distance ring.
Leitz did not publicize the optical change from the first to the second type until 1966. Not hard to understand why: buyers of the first type could have had some hard feelings...

Erik.

[dkpeterborough]

Originally Posted by Erik van Straten

An easy check is to look at the small number that is engraved on the distance scale next to the "m" (meter) symbol. This number is mostly a 13 or a 14. It indicates the exact focal distance of the lens. 13 is 51,3mm, 14 is 51,4 mm and so on. This number is NOT engraved on the first type Summilux, only on the second.
Another easy check is to look at the length of the barrel. The first type is about 5mm longer than the second type.
A third easy check is the knurling of the distance ring. On the first type Summilux the fine knurling is on the higher parts of the surface of the distance ring and on the second type the fine knurling is on the deeper parts of the surface of the distance ring.
Leitz did not publicize the optical change from the first to the second type until 1966. Not hard to understand why: buyers of the first type could have had some hard feelings...

Erik.

Thank you Erik ... Mine has '13' next to the 'm' and the knurling is in the shallow part of the focusing ring ... so It is a Mark 2

Cheers

dunk

[dkpeterborough]

Originally Posted by dkpeterborough

Thank you Erik ... Mine has '13' next to the 'm' and the knurling is in the shallow part of the focusing ring ... so It is a Mark 2

Cheers

dunk

I also have a later black anodised 50/1.4 Summilux M S/N 34944XX ... the black 'lux is slightly lighter (306g) than the chrome (334g) version and the black detachable lens hood's "windows" enable better viewfinder vision ie less cut-off in the lower r.h.s. corner of the viewfinder. But the later hood is usable on the earlier lens. Lens coatings are different ie the later version's coating is very obvious (multi-coated?) The later lens' aperture control has half stop clicks - the earlier chrome lens has whole stop clicks ... and with the later black lens it is possible to squeeze an extra half stop ie to f19 minimum aperture. But apart from these differences the lenses used the same optical cell over a c. 44 year production period ... including the later 1995 version with the extensible hood. I bought my black lens in 1996 as new old stock when the later extensible hood version was current .. my black lens has '16' next to the 'm' ie indicating an actual focal length of 51.6mm .

Above weights are with hoods but without caps (ie as used on camera) thus may differ from published figures. I acquired the chrome lens last year as part of an M3 package. I cant notice any difference in performance so far but have not yet used the earlier lens in extreme very bright conditions.

Cheers

dunk