jpattison Posted January 29, 2010 Share #1 Posted January 29, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have just been looking at the "November 1967 Leitz General Catalogue of Photographic Equipment" It has prices in UK Pounds Shillings and Pence (20 S to the £, 12 P to the S, shown as "£ S D" for those younger listeners). 35 Summaron f2.8 for M4, M2 and M1 = £61 51 shillings and 4 pence 35 Summaron f2.8 for M3 (finder attached) = £79 0 8 35 Summicron f2 for M4 etc = £77 17 1 35 Summicron f2 for M3 (+finder) = 93.17 9 35 Summilux f1.4 for M4 etc = £58 6 4 35 Summilux f1.4 for M3 (+finder) = £67 12 0 Why was the Summilux cheaper? Just wait till they build that time machine! John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Hi jpattison, Take a look here 35 Summilux in my 1967 Catalogue !. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted January 29, 2010 Share #2 Posted January 29, 2010 Strange indeed... but also in the USA the price of the Summilux was lowered from, for example, 1964 to 1968, but keeping anyway the highest price of the 35 mm trio : here are the data (ungoggled/goggled 1964 and 1968 , US$ incl. taxes) ___________1964________1968 Summaron : 117/156____123/159 Summicron : 159/165___ 163/198 Summilux : 219/249_____ 183/213 The lowering (60 to 20 $ !) of the difference vs. the Summicron can have a sense... Summilux did not had any modifications and its production costs were probably very similar to Summicron... very strange that in England it went for less, even than the Summaron ! Or it is a typo, or... I wonder if there is something related to the fact that Summaron/Summicron could maybe come from Germany, while Summilux was a Canada only lens... some question on duties... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpattison Posted January 29, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted January 29, 2010 I wonder if there is something related to the fact that Summaron/Summicron could maybe come from Germany, while Summilux was a Canada only lens... some question on duties... Not sure, as the illustrations show both the Summicron and Summilux as Leitz Canada Regards, John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted January 29, 2010 Share #4 Posted January 29, 2010 Leitz French Catalog from 1971 11309 Summicron 2/35 : 1,185.38 Francs 11870 Summilux 1.4/35 : 1,264.14 Francs looks more than normal for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 29, 2010 Share #5 Posted January 29, 2010 Maybe the image quality was a factor. In those days the Summicron was a much better lens at every aperture except f/1.4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 29, 2010 Share #6 Posted January 29, 2010 Both the Summicron and the Summilux were modified double-Gauss lenses. But while the v.1 Summilux was modified by adding one element, the v.1 Summicron added two! The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 29, 2010 Share #7 Posted January 29, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Both the Summicron and the Summilux were modified double-Gauss lenses. But while the v.1 Summilux was modified by adding one element, the v.1 Summicron added two! The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar Hum... can be you have touched the point... until 1969 the Summicron was made with 8 elements... a costly construction, while the Summilux had seven: in 1969 the Summicron was made with 6 elements only, and this could explain the more "natural" pricing of 1971 quoted by JC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted January 29, 2010 Share #8 Posted January 29, 2010 Maybe the image quality was a factor. In those days the Summicron was a much better lens at every aperture except f/1.4. John, I am little confused : "Summicron" - "f/1.4" ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 29, 2010 Share #9 Posted January 29, 2010 John, I am little confused : "Summicron" - "f/1.4" ... A poor attempt at humour. As I understand it, the Summicron of those days was equal to or better than the Summilux at all apertures f/2 and smaller. In other words, the only aperture at which the Summilux was superior was f/1.4 - an aperture that the Summicron cannot provide. I was suggesting that the reason for the comparatively low price of the Summilux was that it was in most respects inferior to the Summicron, while even at its unique f/1.4 the results were not very impressive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted January 30, 2010 Share #10 Posted January 30, 2010 Did you ever contemplate that the catalog might have been in error?-Dick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted February 2, 2010 Share #11 Posted February 2, 2010 I'm pretty sure its to do with import duties etc into the UK. In those days before the EU it would be cheaper to bring in a lens from Canada (a commonwealth country) than Germany. In the price list which came with the June 1966 Leitz catalogue which I have, the prices are as follows :- Summaron 35 2.8 11306 £61 5s 4d 11106 (M3) £79 0s 8d Summicron 35 11308 £77 17s 1d 11108 (M3) £93 17s 9d Summilux 35 11870 £58 6s 4d 11871 (M3) £67 12s 0d Making the Summilux cheaper than the Summaron! In the illustrations you can see clearly that the Summaron is marked WETZLAR, the Summilux CANADA, while on the Summicron the lettering has been fairly crudely obliterated, presumably the US and Canadian markets where absorbing all the Canadian Summicron production. In the September 1969 UK price list, the prices where as follows :- Summaron 35 2.8 11306 £77 18s 5d 11106 (M3) £100 1s 0d Summicron 35 11308 £105 0s 1d 11108 (M3) £126 18s 6d Summilux 35 11870 £79 1s 6d 11871 (M3) £91 9s 11d The Summilux is still cheaper than both for the M3, but not for the M2! Unfortunately I dont have a catalogue for this to see the illustrations, but production soures must have differed. I dont think there are misprints as the net price, Purchase Tax and totals all add up in each case. I also have a November 1966 price list for Canada (Walter A Carveth, the importer at the time) where I was working in 66-69, prices there are :- Summaron 35 2.8 11306 $142.00 11106 (M3) $180.00 Summicron 35 11308 $156.00 11108 (M3) $186.00 Summilux 35 11870 $210.00 11871 (M3) $219.00 I bought a 11108 Canadian made Summicron for my new M3 in 1968 as it was only a few dollars more than the German made Summaron. Curious that the Summaron and Summicron M3/M2 version price difference was much higher than with the Summilux, again perhaps the M3 Summilux being sold was Canadian whereas the M2 version had to come from Germany. Well there we are, some interesting delving into my meagre archives! Best Wishes, Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Smith Posted February 28, 2010 Share #12 Posted February 28, 2010 The reason why the 35mm Summilux lens were cheaper than the other 35mm lenses in the UK in the 1960's was because the import duty on anything made in a Commonwealth country was less than on imports from non Commonwealth countries. Germany was not in the Commonwealth neither was the EU fully in existance and the UK did not join the newly fledged EU until the 1970's. I bought a second hand 35mm Summilux early 1965 for £40. A lot of money then! In many ways the best Leica lens I've ever owned. With its OLLUX hood a collector bought it for £1100 in 2002! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted March 6, 2010 Share #13 Posted March 6, 2010 While you are back there please get me a BP M4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted March 10, 2010 Share #14 Posted March 10, 2010 In the September 1969 UK price list, the prices where as follows :- Summaron 35 2.8 11306 £77 18s 5d 11106 (M3) £100 1s 0d Summicron 35 11308 £105 0s 1d 11108 (M3) £126 18s 6d Summilux 35 11870 £79 1s 6d 11871 (M3) £91 9s 11d Best Wishes, Gerry And now, a c.1969 vintage 35mm Summilux M is listed for £899 ! Just in at a well known UK dealer. But maybe earnings are 10x 1969 levels now so does not seem too expensive. Cheers dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted March 11, 2010 Share #15 Posted March 11, 2010 And now, a c.1969 vintage 35mm Summilux M is listed for £899 ! Just in at a well known UK dealer. But maybe earnings are 10x 1969 levels now so does not seem too expensive. Cheers dunk I paid the equivalent of £66 in Canadian dollars for my M3 in 1968. Its been money well spent .. Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.