plasticman

Quick follow-up that includes a lesson that I've tried to learn many times before but apparently failed: last Friday I saw a local ad for a 14268 which I bought instantly for around $10 including delivery - it arrived today in perfect shape and indeed fits very securely. I also got a notification today that informed me that the 14268 I'd bought on eBay on the 24 May from the UK and which (as I already belly-ached about) ended-up costing me around $78 is now "on its way". The lesson (which I never learn) is: always be patient! The item you've searched for and only found a couple of examples will turn up somewhere else. In the case of older camera equipment that's almost always true, in my experience. Thanks again for the broad Leica knowledge that was offered in this thread!

Just a quick note that's orthogonal to your question: a few years ago while on vacation and using an OM1n with an internal meter and Portra160, I didn't notice that a combination of settings meant that I over-exposed the film by at least 4 or 5 stops (maybe as much as 6 or 7 stops?). I realized my mistake when I was home again, and thought I'd lost all the images. When I got the film developed the negatives were indeed very dense - but they looked great when I scanned them! I actually like these shots more than most of my vacation images. Film has an amazing ability to tolerate poor craftsmanship 😀

The film vs digital debate has been done-to-death, so I'm not going to re-hash it yet again, but to quickly state my personal preference: I'm enjoying using the M10 alongside film of various formats, but I ultimately prefer the look of color-negative film over digital. This includes the period when I was using medium-format digital last year (Hasselblad X1D). I've taken a 35mm film together with a medium-format film camera on vacation a few times - usually when it's a driving holiday, as taking 35mm and MF cameras in carry-on, along with all the film, gets way too bulky and impractical on flights in my experience. I really enjoy the result, and the shooting is more consistent and feels more harmonious to me. I have owned a lot of film cameras the last 10-12 years and have not experienced any problems other than a light leak on the bellows of my Fujica GS645Pro, and losing the figures on the display of my Ricoh GR1 - both of which are well-known and well-documented problems. I own a Mamiya 6 and (knock on wood) have had zero problems with it, and it feels totally solid and reliable - it certainly does not feel like an "old film camera". Try taking a look through the amazing rangefinder and you may never want to use even a Leica, ever again. The idea that film users are constantly nursing broken cameras is just part of internet chatter which happens on forums when old guys have too much time on their hands. The whole "it will need a CLA" is mostly hot air. My attitude is fix it when (if) it breaks, imo.

I bought this straight away! Thanks! Very gratified to see the maker is in Malmö. Earlier today I made the mistake of ordering the 14268 from a seller in the UK. The cost for the cap was already pretty absurd for any normal person at £30, but I'd also forgotten about the consequences of Brexit: not only was the postage much higher than I recall, I was also pre-charged £15 for import fees - so after PayPal calculated the exchange the cost to me was around 760sek (around $78!) Hope I never drop that old bit of moulded plastic... (edit: and just in case any future person reads this in a hurry - I'm referring to the 14268 discussed at the beginning of the thread, not the hood-cap referenced in my quote - which ships from Sweden)

I'm thinking that if I'm ever on Who Wants to be a Millionaire and I can ring a friend to settle the final question about Leica lens-caps and which one is suitable for a 1955 Summilux, then there's only one phone number I'll need.

Indeed, the cap I'm referring to is the 14043. It barely clings to the hood - a little bit like an alpinist free-climbing a vertical rock-face and placing the merest tips of two fingers in a tiny indent on the otherwise sheer block of granite. Whenever I use the lens with the hood and this cap, I take a spare with me. An outing almost always entails re-tracing my steps to find the lenscap lying somewhere in the dust along the route I've trodden.

Yes I overlooked this reason as I rarely use a hood on a 50mm lens. Somehow I still think it a pity that a solution is not in place for the lens-cap. I should mention I also have a 14038 - the clip-on 'modern' version that grips from the inside - but it sticks out so far (like the rim of a hat) that I find it catches on clothing or other things and pings off at the slightest provocation. At least none of these are as bad as the cap for the rectangular Summicron 35 hood, that falls off when anyone looks at it. I think I've spent a few hundred dollars over the years replacing that idiotic piece of plastic. Although on reflection it's obviously me that's the idiot. I think I already mentioned on the forum that one day I lost the cap on a walk in woodlands outside Stockholm, and a couple of days later, walking in a totally different part of the town, I found another one lying on a bridge. Thousands of them must be lost every year - in the end a good way to fleece some extra cash from stupid people like me who have no better way to spend money.

Thanks @lct The depth and breadth of Leica-knowledge on this forum sometimes amazes me. I'll get hold of a 14268, in that case. Only a pity that Leica doesn't have a deeper metal lens-cap. I like the look not only for aesthetic reasons, but because this sort of 'old-fashioned' lens and cap are genuinely less intimidating to people - they instantly assume it's a film camera, even when on the M10, and somehow it bothers them less (in my experience).

If I should be allowed a first-world-problem rant for a moment - is it just me that's disappointed by small inconsistencies and problems like this with Leica equipment? I certainly hope this filter fits the newer lenses better than the older ones, otherwise I see no reason why at least the ribbed part of the filter shouldn't match the ribbed edge of the lens. It's these tiny details that I expect to be right. But as I said, the filter may sit wonderfully flush with the edge of the newest Summicron?

Quick question about the old Leica filters: I bought a new Leica UVa II 13031 E39 filter to go onto the Summicron 50 rigid (first iteration of that version - with the single-scale and focus-tab). I'd forgotten about the stupid problem this filter causes, which is that it's slightly smaller than the lens barrel, and so the metal cap just falls off. This happened to me before on my DR Summicron, so I have no idea why I made the same mistake again other than stupidity. The question is whether the older UVa filters from Leica were dimensioned to fit the lenses, so that I can continue using the metal caps (which I like)? The cap doesn't need re-flocking as it fits snugly when the filter is not attached.

This is an admirable attitude - why worry if everything is going fine with your equipment? My interest in reviving the question was because all other things being equal if I was about to buy a lens, and there might exist differences invisible to both the seller and the buyer, but which could impact the reliability or longevity of the lens, then it would be preferable to choose the lens that was less likely to have a problem in the future. As I mentioned earlier in the thread - I speak here as someone who has suffered this specific fault in my Summicron 35, which entailed an expensive fix. Anyone reading the thread in the future should note that no-one appears to be certain that the equivalent German version of the Summicron from this era has metal internal parts, so the entire discussion is unresolved. I circumvented the issue by taking Adan's advice - what I was really after (without initially realizing it) was an earlier version anyway.

I found what looks to be a pristine Summicron Rigid on a local online dealer, and bought it after getting assurances from the seller about the internal clarity of the lens. Thanks for the advice after my post, always valuable to get some other perspectives.

I think I have the v3 (so difficult to keep track of the version numbers) - the DR - which I use on an M2. But it can’t be used on the M10 - which is what I wanted to ‘soften’ with an old lens. I thought about the rigid 50 instead, but just duplicating the optical formula of the DR felt a bit lame. Maybe an old Summarit is what I should be looking for? But then they seem to suffer badly from scratches, haze and fogging… I miss the times when it was still possible to handle and try lenses before buying…

This is a good tip, because scouring the internet for hard information renders no facts whatsoever - just a lot of people decrying the "snobbery" of anyone querying the quality of the Canadian lenses. otoh I have a feeling the service people probably have better things to do than give me buying advice. I'll probably hedge my bets and buy a German version - but it goes against the grain to judge the Canadian lenses harshly without this simple fact being answered anywhere (as far as I can find). And for all I know the German lenses of this vintage may also have plastic internal parts.

What an extraordinary thread. A simple, factual question was asked, and essentially no-one answered it, but rather went off on an array of responses including taking offense or talking around the subject or pointing to other google results (which I'd already read) which didn't answer the question either. I'm thinking about buying an older Summicron 50 - my current 50s are rendering a bit too 'modern' for my taste - so I'd just like to know: does the German-made Summicron in the version referred to in the original post have metal internal parts or not? PS: For anyone who wants to tell me that "I shouldn't worry" etc - I should add that I had to have an expensive repair on my Summicron 35 because of exactly this problem.