Jump to content

wizard

Members
  • Posts

    6,838
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wizard

  1. The biggest difference between the v4 and the asph is the rendering at full aperture. The v4 is quite a bit more dreamy, aka less sharp, especially towards the edges, whereas the asph even at full aperture renders pretty sharp. Stopped down, both lenses are not very different. My asph seems to produce more vignetting even stopped down, so I often use the v4, also because it is more compact. But if performance at full aperture is important, the asph wins hands-down.
  2. Thank you for confirming that the 2/35 v4 was originally sold without any hood cap. You are correct in that front hood caps were not available fo M lenses (I am not sure whether some may have been available for R lenses), but I was referring to hood caps in general. For a lens designer, designing or at least contemplating a hood cap, whether front or otherwise, does not seem a too far fetched assumption. Be that as it may, those nubs on the 12524 appear to be another one of those Leitz/Leica mysteries that we won't be able to solve without inside knowledge.
  3. I have seen a very similar camera in a little shop near the Leica shop in Nuremberg/Germany last year. Beautifully made, and goes to show what 'travel camera' meant in those days 🙂.
  4. Sometimes, engineers do think ahead 🙂, so the responsible person may have provided the nubs just in case a hood cap is being offered at a later point in time. Hood caps were available for other Leica hoods at the time, so that would have been a natural assumption.
  5. Well, those nubs are there for some reason. Elsewhere I have read that they should be of help in dismounting the hood from the lens, but in my view that does not make any sense at all, since upon dismounting the hood, you have to press the two buttons of the hood firmly with one hand, leaving no room to access the nubs with your other hand. Anyway, those nubs do their retaining job on my hood fairly well, whether that was their intended purpose or not. Cheers, Andy
  6. I have checked overnight, and you are exactly right. My hood is the original 12524, but the hood cap is the 14043. I beg to differ here, because the 12524 hood does have retaining nubs, they are even visible on the photo of the 12524 hood you have included in your post. However, the retaining nubs on the later 12526 hood are more pronounced (as is also visible in the photo of the 12526 hood included in your above post). In my personal experience, the 14043 hood cap is retained on the 12524 hood ok, that is, it does not fall off by itself by any means. Of course, if the hood cap catches something when wearing the camera with the lens and hood cap attached, it does come off pretty easily. A click-in hood cap that is flush with the edge of the hood would have been a much better solution.
  7. When I bought my Summicron 35/2 v4 used years ago from a forum member, it did come with an original hood cap. And, as correctly noted, the 35/2 asph v1 uses the same hood and cap. But you are correct, of course, in that we have all become wimps more or less, and are no longer prepared to expose our cherished Leica glass to the hostile elements 😉.
  8. I agree that Leica seems to have done a much better job with the caps of their R-lenses line. Those caps are more robust and generally stick to the lens a lot better than their M-lens counterparts.
  9. There is a reason, and lct has pointed in that direction already. The contemporary lens hoods for your lens would not fit on the lens if a larger diameter filter were mounted on the lens. The reduced original filter diameter is just small enough to pass through the inner opening of the clip on lens hoods.
  10. Kann ich bei mir jetzt nicht feststellen. Allerdings wirken die Farben tatsächlich sehr Dia-like, was mir persönlich als alter Diafotograf aber bestens gefällt. Sehr natürliche Farbwiedergabe, ohne diese heutzutage übliche Überbetonung von rot und/oder grün.
  11. wizard

    Leila

    Wonderful capture. And I agree with Stu's suggestion, the shot in my view is even better without the lower third of the image.
  12. wizard

    Lily

    Perfectly captured, as always. She has a very distinctive face.
  13. And there was me, thinking of the British Queen. What a positive surprise!
  14. We have exactly the same saying in Germany, too. So good luck in finding the item, it is out there somewhere!
  15. Men have always been hunters and gatherers, so it is deeply anchored in our genes 🙂. At least that's what I tell my wife when she starts complaining 😁.
  16. I don't have a problem with you having the last word on this, William, but I DO have a problem when you are turning my words into something I never said. My point was not missing paint in general, it was about deliberately scratching off original paint to better reveal original engravings. And even that does not harm my mental health at all, but one may question the mental health of the person who did that or had this done. Andy
  17. Worin besteht dann bei diesem Objektiv der Sinn der Kodierung? Die manuelle Eingabe der Brennweite ist ja mit dem Objektivtyp verknüpft. Wenn ich also ein unkodiertes Tri-Elmar der Kamera manuell als 35mm mitteile, dann habe ich doch das gleiche Ergebnis wie bei einem kodierten Tri-Elmar, oder?
  18. Mich würde interessieren, als was dieses Objektive standardmäßig kodiert wird. Als 28, 35 oder 50mm Objektiv? Im manuellen Menü muss man nämlich die Brennweite jeweils umstellen, wenn das Exif die richtige Information haben soll. Eigentlich wäre es möglich, über eine Abfrage der Bildfeldwählerstellung eindeutig zu ermitteln, auf welche Brennweite das Objektiv gerade eingestellt ist, aber man sagte mir, dass eine solche Abfrage seitens der digitalen M Kameras nicht stattfindet. Das würde dann aber bedeuten, dass die Kodierung nur für eine Brennweite stimmen kann und man trotz Kodierung immer noch manuell die eingestellte Brennweite der Kamera mitteilen muss, sofern es sich nicht um die eine kodierte Brennweite handelt. Grüße, Andreas
  19. Good lord, William, why should I? I told you already that I have no stake whatsoever in the auctioning of this camera. The marketing blabber about how original 105 allegedly is triggered my interest and made me go the extra mile to obtain some unbiased information on that camera. I do note that the materials of the auction house indicate (see your own post above) that 'no parts were replaced in the process', which goes to show that they themselves are interested in conveying the understanding that 105 is 'as original as possible'. If they would be transparent, they would clearly indicate which parts have been changed. And, William, in your responses you have so far not explained why original paint was removed from the cover plate to better reveal the engravings. Would you do that to one of your own cameras? Not if that camera is of any value, I trust. Let's face it, some people have a massive financial interest in this camera, and they obviously do not appreciate any information that would even potentially put a risk to their interest. But it is not my job to spoil the party, which is why I will certainly not approach the auction house. All the discussion in this forum on 105 is between Leica aficionados and connoisseurs, no more, no less. Come on, dunk, you and I know that new shutter blinds are an entirely different matter. I wasn't mentioning fresh lubricants either. The parts that have been changed on 105 well after Oskar Barnack had passed away are of a different nature, as many or all of them could have remained. Not to mention the stupid idea of 'revealing' the engravings by scratching away original paint. You are quite correct in that 100% originality almost never exists, and I am completely fine with that. But trying to evoke the notion of originality when in fact there is less originality than meets the eye is another matter. I am done with this now. May the future owner be a happy one. Andy
  20. There you go, so we are exactly on the same page regarding this topic. Let alone scratching original paint off the cover plate to better reveal engavings like serial no., etc. As it was done with 105. William, it does seem that Conrad (note that he spells his first name with C instead of the more common K) did prefer the 'Oscar' spelling of his father's first name. Oskar had no influence on the spelling of his first name in Conrad's unpublished book and on his headstone. I already did enough of my homework in the present case, so I will not try to uncover Oskar Barnack's certificate of birth, but let me tell you this: I would bet a substantial amount of money on the fact that his birth certificate shows 'Oskar' as the spelling of his first name (and I am sure his passport had the same spelling of his first name). And I would not be surprised if Conrad's birth certificate would show 'Konrad' as the first name given to him by his parents. Appparently, Oskar's son for whatever reason preferred to use 'C' instead of 'K'. There was a time in Germany where the 'C' spelling was regarded more elegant or posh (and some people still think so today), so that may have prompted Konrad to use the 'Conrad' and 'Oscar' spelling. All of that, however, cannot change the truth. To the best of my knowledge, all written documentation published during Oskar Barnack's lifetime used the 'Oskar' spelling of his first name. Which means it is safe to conclude that 'Oskar' is the correct and true spelling of Mr. Barnack's first name. What his son did after Oskar had passed away is obviously beyond Oskar's influence. Dunk, you seem to overlook the fact that we are not talking about a regular Leica camera here. Rather, this was considered a piece of camera history as of 1939. Why else would 105 have been exhibited in the Deutsches Museum, which is the biggest and most renowned museum of science and technology in Germany. Oskar's son knew that, and any owner after him as well. And, as I have pointed out already, 105 is not likely to have been used to any siginificant extent after 1939, it was just too precious even back then. Even if certain parts were replaced, you would not 'lose', 'discard' or 'scrap' the original parts, given the value of that camera. Cheers, Andy
  21. Interesting photo. From how the light (flash, I presume) is reflected, it would appear that the film rewind knob (and likely any changes associated therewith) had already been changed at the time the photo was taken (chrome reflects the light more than black, and in 1939 the film rewind knob was black). So it might have been the first US owner who had those changes done. Maybe not, but then again, why on earth did someone engrave the finder with those words? And skipped the original tubular finder (the one shown on the 1939 photograph, that is) in the process? William, I have no assets whatsoever in this camera and its upcoming auctioning. Out of my own interest in Leica cameras, I simply did some due diligence which I believe all the renowned experts you are constantly referring to could (and perhaps should) have done, too. What I uncovered is information that is publicly available, and I did not have to pay any money to obtain that information. Please don't take it personally, but the whole story about 105 at least to me 'smells' a little bit, as that story attempts to invoke the notion that 105 as it will be auctioned soon very much corresponds to the camera which Oskar Barnack himself had used. Which simply isn't true, as discussed above in detail. That does not mean that the provenance of 105 is in any way dubious, it is merely about what this particular camera in its present state is and what it isn't. To me personally, 105 would have had much more (historic) value if it still represented the state it was in when Oskar Barnack last touched this camera (I would not be against a CLA though). But each to his own, the future owner will hopefully be happy with his/her purchase. Andy
  22. William, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Of course many older Leica cameras were altered and upgraded, but those were cameras that were altered and upgraded because they were still used. 105, however, was a museum piece already in 1939. Why would anyone alter or upgrade a museum piece? I am sure Conrad Barnack would not have done that, as he was clearly aware of what this camera is. After all, it was him who loaned it to the Deutsches Museum in Munich, first in 1939, and then again in 1954. And since Conrad Barnack lived far from Munich (several hundred kilometers), he is very unlikely to have ever retrieved 105 from the Deutsches Museum during the time 105 was there. Which all boils down to the fact that Conrad Barnack likely never used 105 after 1939. As pointed out earlier, if he was in need of a camera to take photographs, I am sure he had at least one other more contemporary camera available, and would have used that camera instead of first having to modify his father's old camera to get up to speed. I have no idea what the first US owner paid for 105, but even back then it must have been a more substantial amount, as otherwise I am sure Conrad Barnack would not have sold 105 in the first place. So it must have been clear to the first US and each successive owner that this is a rare piece of camera history. And why would anyone 'upgrade' such a rare piece of history? Any serious car collector would not 'upgrade' a very early Daimler Benz car by swapping the original internal combustion engine for an electric motor, just because electric cars are en vogue nowadays. I fully agree. And since the association is the main factor here, isn't it handy that 105 even says 'Oscar Barnack' on its finder? 😁 I am sure the camera will fetch an enormous amount of money regardless of what is being discussed here. And I have no regrets for the future owner paying that amount of money. You know, you gotta spend your money somehow. And I'll leave it at that. Cheers, Andy
×
×
  • Create New...