Jump to content

3.5cm f3.5 Summaron M-mount confusion.


Recommended Posts

Another question related to this lens, I acquired a 12585H hood to use but find that the aperture is hard to adjust as the dial is too close to the hood when mounted. Is there a better alternative hood out there?

 

 I too would be interested in the answer to this. I have tried all of the following from my collection; ITDOO ( supposedly the correct hood and I got this with the lens from a very reputable dealer), IROOA, 12504 and 12538 and while they all fit perfectly, none of them will permit changing of aperture while the hood is mounted. 

 

Mine is one of the unaltered models which will not bring up the 35mm framelines. The SBLOO is perfect for framing, of course.

 

William

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, no native hood, be it contemporary or new (see hereunder) allows an easy operation of the diaphragm ring (imho, the "less bad" is the old one at left)... which makes to think that the short lived "diaph lever" on Summicrons 35 wasn't such a bad idea...

 

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!

 

One can decide to renounce a bit of originality and buy a 3rd party E39 screw in hood.... :(

Edited by luigi bertolotti
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...and given that any thread soon or late is concluded... :) .... I propose to end this with a warm salutation from a happy family of the 5 main versions of this good old lens

 

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

Luigi, can I add the version with glossy black paint googles

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 year later...

Can anyone tell me, whether a 3.5/35mm Summaron, M-mount, late Version for M2, No. 159xxxx, should have an index for 1m as closest focussing distance or 0.7m? 

 

I am asking this for I saw one and was not sure, if it was "manipulated" from another version. The older M-mount for the M3 and of course the screw-mount versions had 1m as smallest index for focussing. Since the M 2 allowes to focus down to, 0.7m it could be, that the last version of the 3.5/35mm Summaron showed an index for 0.7m as well.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me, whether a 3.5/35mm Summaron, M-mount, late Version for M2, No. 159xxxx, should have an index for 1m as closest focussing distance or 0.7m? 

 

I am asking this for I saw one and was not sure, if it was "manipulated" from another version. The older M-mount for the M3 and of course the screw-mount versions had 1m as smallest index for focussing. Since the M 2 allowes to focus down to, 0.7m it could be, that the last version of the 3.5/35mm Summaron showed an index for 0.7m as well.

See my previous picture - bottom at left - 1.595.031, for M2 : focus is to 1 meter... it moves a little beyond, indeed, but much less, for instance, than the last interval that is 1.1 to 1

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a residual doubt about the goggled version... my one, and all the other that one can easily find on the net, do focus to 0,65m (a bit under 2'4" the feet-scaled ones) , but have the vague feeling (don't remember the origin of this)  that the very first ones did focus to 1 meter... maybe the ones with glossy paint goggles ? JC, how is yours ? 0,65 or 1 m ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Found my SOONC-M for the M2. It really has 1m for closest distance:

 

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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather close to mine... so that the writings are identical  (I have seen items, in other batches, in which the "Summaron... <s/n>" writing is upside down in respect to the "Ernst Leitz..." writing... and same happens to the goggled and the SM versions) ;)

Edited by luigi bertolotti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather close to mine... so that the writings are identical  (I have seen items, in other batches, in which the "Summaron... <s/n>" writing is upside down in respect to the "Ernst Leitz..." writing... and same happens to the goggled and the SM versions) ;)

 

My example with SN 1288301 has the upside down SN. Its minimum focus distance is 1 metre. It does not bring up the 35mm frame-lines on cameras which have them and it requires the use of an SBLOO or similar finder. Like all of the Summarons it produces good image quality. I also like the earlier compact LTM version.

 

William

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway... ;) of course this odd engraving has triggered my curiosity... and made a check on my M lenses of that era :... two findings:

 

Summarit 50 1.470.172 (1957) ...

(note : the engraving of the "2" is less "stylish" than in the Summarons... and there is a small "2" also onto the plate of the focus knob...

 

Elmar 50 3,5 1.184.913 (1954) ...

 

Opinions from experts are welcome.... ;); my only idea is about the Summarit : is of course a lens critical to focus... maybe the "2" is a reference to some tolerancing to assemble a lens to have correct focusing  (but this doesn't apply to a 35 3,5); the Elmar... only significant fact is that is a lens of 1954... year of M3 intro... Bayonet Mount was a "new" component for manufacturing dept... who knows ?...

just now i came accross this thread and noticed that this subject has not been respionded yet...

Luigi, you are correct with your assumption about focal length.  Starting in early thirties Leitz stamped the real focal legth. After optical assembling the real focal length was measured, scratched on the inner barrel (usually the last 2 digits, for example "1,7" on 50mm lens means focal length of 51,7mm) and in final assembly appropriate mount has been choosen to match the focal length. For Elmar 3,5 in LTM mount there are 8 focal groups known, for Elmar 3,5 in bayonett mount 2 groups (X 51,3mm, Y 51,6mm). Ulf Richter is listing focal lens groups for: LTM Elmar 5cm, Baoynet Elmar (3,5) LTM Elmar 2,8, and other lenses. Not for Summarit.

Some other authors have such lists as well, I've heard it might be found in one of the Puts books.

If there is an interest within Forum community I may publish focal length gropus (after Richter) in separate thread.

And finally, photo shows where focal length group was stamped on Hektor (same way on Elmar LTM).

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 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

just now i came accross this thread and noticed that this subject has not been respionded yet...

Luigi, you are correct with your assumption about focal length.  Starting in early thirties Leitz stamped the real focal legth. After optical assembling the real focal length was measured, scratched on the inner barrel (usually the last 2 digits, for example "1,7" on 50mm lens means focal length of 51,7mm) and in final assembly appropriate mount has been choosen to match the focal length. For Elmar 3,5 in LTM mount there are 8 focal groups known, for Elmar 3,5 in bayonett mount 2 groups (X 51,3mm, Y 51,6mm). Ulf Richter is listing focal lens groups for: LTM Elmar 5cm, Baoynet Elmar (3,5) LTM Elmar 2,8, and other lenses. Not for Summarit.

Some other authors have such lists as well, I've heard it might be found in one of the Puts books.

If there is an interest within Forum community I may publish focal length gropus (after Richter) in separate thread.

And finally, photo shows where focal length group was stamped on Hektor (same way on Elmar LTM).

attachicon.gif1.JPG

 

Thanks Jerzy. It would be useful if you did this. When I gave the commonly accepted focal lengths with corresponding numbers on the mount here some time ago, there were a lot of doubters who were looking for proof for the list. When I was in Chicago recently at the LHSA AGM I picked up the new English translation of Ulf Richter's book 'Oskar Barnack from the Idea to the Leica', On pages 80 and 81 and from pages 131 to 133 there is a lot of material about this issue. There are examples of documents produced by Zuhlcke, foreman of the optical department, for Barnack. A German speaker would be best placed to interpret these documents. What is there more or less fits with what you say above. There is one list of actual focal lengths and a corresponding list of 'optical insertion lengths'. There is also some discussion in the text about what form of rounding was permitted under DIN when measuring focal lengths. There is also an implication that focal lengths were sometimes increased to a minor extent in order to improve corner sharpness. It would take a greater degree of technical knowledge than I have, as well as the ability to understand the various documents in German in order to interpret what seems to have been an evolving situation as regards focal lengths in the Leica works in the early days. There is no doubt that the origins of the numbers engraved on lens mounts originated somewhere in this process. Any additional material which you might have would be most welcome.

 

William

Edited by willeica
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Ulf Richter's book is out of print in German. Are the German language documents only mentioned in the English language edition or are some shown as facsimile or quoted? I would gladly help with translating/ interpreting German documents if made available to me. I will try to get hold of a vintage copy of Richter's book in the meantime.

 

Mathias

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Ulf Richter's book is out of print in German. Are the German language documents only mentioned in the English language edition or are some shown as facsimile or quoted? I would gladly help with translating/ interpreting German documents if made available to me. I will try to get hold of a vintage copy of Richter's book in the meantime.

 

Mathias

 

I will send you a PM tomorrow about this. The documents are reproductions of originals in German. Some are handwritten.

 

William

  • Like 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...