Jump to content

Has the 21mm SEM lost its waistline?

semi-ambivalent

By semi-ambivalent
in Leica M Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

semi-ambivalent

semi-ambivalent

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a copy of the 21mm SEM 'Ver. 2' that has the thickened body back by the mount. If I were to get a copy of the very latest output from Leica would this still be the case, or have they resolved the 'problem'? I ask only because I see lots of images of the 21 on the net and visually they're almost always the original version that was binding. Or Leica has indeed returned the body shape to match that of most of the rest of their lenses. My copy is beyond great and its waist matches my 50 'cron v4, a plus!

 

thanks,

s-a

Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted

The 21/3.4 asph is still advertised as v1 (4108622) but the latest specs show a v2 and my 41813** sample is a v2 as well.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted
Is it just me or is there something odd about the hood thread on the right-hand lens? The threads can be seen at the sides of the lens, yet there is no trace of them where one would expect them to run.

Photoshoping made by Leica.

Link to post
Share on other sites
semi-ambivalent

semi-ambivalent

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 21/3.4 asph is still advertised as v1 (4108622) but the latest specs show a v2 and my 41813** sample is a v2 as well.

 

lct,

 

My sample is at 41812xx and is as the lens on the right in your image. I certainly don't make the rules for collectors but I'm sure Leica didn't get all of them (v1) back in the re-call. Hope yours is performing as well as is mine.

 

thanks,

s-a

Edited by semi-ambivalent
Remove nonsense copy
Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted

The focus ring of some v1 samples was too stiff due to the rear part of the barrel being not thick enough and/or too close to the helical mechanism. Faulty samples have been recalled and redesigned by Leica but some early owners did keep theirs by ignorance or for collection sake more probably.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted
Just to clarify, is the V2 the wider lens? I'm not with my 21sem but I'm sure it is the same diameter along its barrel...

Then you seem to have a v1 sample (on the left in the pic above). You may try to press firmly the rear part of the barrel whilst turning the focus ring. Does it turn as smoothly then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted

Doesn't make for a huge difference, if any.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted
Clearly a fast & dirty Photoshop job. I love how the depth of field scales are scaled up, in the new version. A new lens, with new laws of physics to boot!

 

No new physics. Just old-fashioned parallax in a 2D view.

 

The markings are distributed around the circumference of the mount based on degrees. A wider diameter (v.2 "fat" lens) means a longer circumference, therefore more mm of linear length between the marks.

 

From the front, it does appear that, for example, the f/8 marking has moved relative to the focus ring markings for 1.5 and 2 meters.

 

HOWEVER, if you turned the lens in three dimensions, so that you were looking at those marks straight on, and not at an angle, they would be in the same relationship as in the original lens.

 

Consider the left-most (barely visible) f/16 DoF line. We are viewing it from virtually a 90 degree angle. How can you know what it lines up with on the focus ring from such an angle? Especially since it is now offset 1-2 mm sideways by virtue of the thicker mount.

 

Below, I've revised the previously posted picture to extend the lines (in red) up the sloped (in 3D) ledge that now connects the two rings in the wider lens. To where they would align with the thinner focus ring, had Leica undertaken the cost of extra engraving. On the sloped surface, they become radial lines (like the hour marks around a watch face).

_____________

 

Not that there isn't sloppy photoshopping in the top of the lens. Where they tried to convey that the lens now has a screw-on blank protective ring available (as for the Summarits), to protect the lens-hood mounting threads of those who prefer ultimate compactness and abjure using the lens hood.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Stealth3kpl

Stealth3kpl

Posted
Posted
Just to clarify, is the V2 the wider lens? I'm not with my 21sem but I'm sure it is the same diameter along its barrel. The focus is the same as my 35 summicron, much lighter than my 35 FLE. Is the focus issue one that develops or is it there from the start?

Pete

 

Oh,...Mine is the version 2 :o

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
james.liam

james.liam

Posted
Posted (edited)

My 41812** is also v2.

 

Can some kind soul spell out the history and reasons for these two versions please?

 

Thorsten von Overgaard discusses the circumstances in his blog: http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-21mm-Super-Elmar-M-ASPH-f-3-4.html

 

The barrel was redesigned to reduce the stiffness on the earliest units back in 2011 and owners were requested to swap their originals; some kept them as 'collector's items'. Same optical cell.

Edited by james.liam
Link to post
Share on other sites
Stein K S

Stein K S

Posted
Posted

I had one of the first 21 SEM v1 to reach my country. But were very "polite" and returned it when it was withdrawn. Without any explanation. And 3 months passed without any sign of life from Leica. Gave it up, got the money back.... skipped the idea of a 21mm (just as well not needing the external viewfinder)... for a while... Just bought a 21 Elmarit asph and a used Zeiss viewfinder.

 

Am I happy? I guess so... But the SEM seems to be a hell of a lens (and the v1 being some kind of collectible as well...). Any comforting comments?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...