lars_bergquist Posted June 2, 2011 Share #61 Posted June 2, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't think that v.3 lenses were ever made with goggles. So it has to be a v.1 or a v.2, and the 2 is instantly identifiable from the aperture tab, and the deeply sunk front lens. So cut the Angst. The old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 2, 2011 Posted June 2, 2011 Hi lars_bergquist, Take a look here Summicron 35mm first type: any info. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted June 2, 2011 Share #62 Posted June 2, 2011 Luigi, the reproduction is so-so and the picture is quite small, so that I doubt that it's worth the effort. But you can clearly see both the deeply sunk front element, and the characteristic aperture tab. And what must be the same original photo is also reproduced larger and better in Laney: Leica Collector's Guide, 2nd edition, p. 218, top of the page. Here, the picture is crystal clear: The aperture tab sticks out at appr. 9 o'clock, while the focusing tab stands at 8 o'clock. You can see both prongs of the finger tab. Unfortunately, only the last three digits of the number are identifiable! Semper Idem FOUND ! Never noticed it : I stupidly bought, many years ago, the Italian version of Laney... ... is so incredibly full of typos, errors in translation and mismatchings picture/text that from years I do not take care anymore of its pics...(even Puts' new compendium is a masterpiece of editing, in comparision... ) ; is undoubtly a V2, as you say... pity not to have other references... is a curios story,,, I wonder if JC has something about ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted June 3, 2011 Share #63 Posted June 3, 2011 FOUND ! Never noticed it : I stupidly bought, many years ago, the Italian version of Laney... ... is so incredibly full of typos, errors in translation and mismatchings picture/text that from years I do not take care anymore of its pics...(even Puts' new compendium is a masterpiece of editing, in comparision... ) ; is undoubtly a V2, as you say... pity not to have other references... is a curios story,,, I wonder if JC has something about ... No sorry, have an another cat to skin in this moment (Dobbiaco). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 3, 2011 Share #64 Posted June 3, 2011 No sorry, have an another cat to skin in this moment (Dobbiaco). AH !!! "Alpen Cup" I see... Good Shots... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kherberos Posted June 4, 2011 Share #65 Posted June 4, 2011 I received my "new" lens this morning. It is in an absolutely as new condition. Not a single mark on it, nor inside it (same for the goggle). I am impressed, and very happy. I report because I have some further observations/questions to make (sorry…). Comparing the 1960 M39 summicron 35mm f/2 with this goggled edition, I noticed some variations. a) the lens cap, original I think, is VERY light. Ultra thin aluminium (I think it is aluminium). But the one attached with my M39 1960 version is much more sturdy. Was Leitz "saving" on caps etc. on the later lenses's editions? I find the focusing ring quite stiff. It needs much more strength in order to be moved. Not rough, not at all, but needing more strength. Is this is because the lens is actually new in condition, like in "never used"? Or is this normal anyway? Or is this just because de greases are old? I am wondering if things could evolved nicely just by using the lens a lot… but my 1960 32 f/2 is clearly smoother that this 1969 goggled sample. Does it make sense to have the greases changed? c) the black dot, showing the aperture setting, is a bit off centered to the right (meaning the value are a bit on its left). On my 1960 screw mount 35 f/2, the black "arrow" of the mount, the center of the infinite markings of the distance scale, and the black dot marking the aperture are perfectly alligned. On this 1969 goggled sample, the dot falls a little bit (but a clearly noticeable bit) to the right of the aperture value (the values are perfectly alligned with the center of the infinity marking – number, or "," when a decimal value –). For example, on values showing a decimal, like 5,6, the dot falls between the "," and the "6" of the 5,6. Would it be sample variation? A normal design in later production summicron 35 v1? Or just a flaw that should not be? I would greatly apreciate informations on that, even if I am splitting hair in 4… As far as I know, all the 1959-1965 v1 summicron I had the occasion to "see" (internet), including my screw mount sample, are perfectly alligned. But then, I am not of great knowledge about those lenses anyway… Comparing the aperture "hole" size with my screw mount 35 f/2, they seem the same, despite the uncetered dot of the goggled lens. d) the aperture ring of the 1969 sample is also less crisp in operation than its old brother screw mount version of 1960. Any knowledge to share? And the focus falls nicely on 0,65m, as wizard and Michael said! And it is spot on, as far as I can tell with an easy test (meaning: closer that 0,70m, which is not telling so much). It is a superb lens, and on a BP MP, and the 0,85 finder, it is an ultra combo. I read some advices on the internet, telling the goggles were clumsy etc., etc. Actually, holding them now, attached to the lens, I find the set really well made, and sturdy, and the goggles are very clear. Very nice to use. Thanks again for any informations you may provide, Cheers, Laurent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted June 5, 2011 Share #66 Posted June 5, 2011 a) may be not the original one better to have it CLA, I think the grease had came off, I found one with its original box and the red velvet was blackened in the bottom by the escaped lubricant and the lens was hard to adjust. d) As you said your M39 was certainly more used so the aperture ring is more "freely" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kherberos Posted June 5, 2011 Share #67 Posted June 5, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank You jc! I was reluctant about a cla, because of the extraordinary mint condition of the lens. I suppose that having the greases changed would mean disasembling the lens… But, after all, changing the grease does not mean touching the optic cell, right? So I may be worrying too much about how a cla of the helecoid only would affect the optical unit. For the aperture ring being less crisp, I meant the M39 was feeling more "crisp/clicky", than this mint goggled 35mm, which ring turns more easily (but, fortunately, not freely). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kherberos Posted June 6, 2011 Share #68 Posted June 6, 2011 Some images in order to illustrate what I was reporting about the black dot aperture marking, and the thin cap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twotone Posted June 6, 2011 Share #69 Posted June 6, 2011 Kherberos, were did you buy the lens as a matter of interest? Tony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kherberos Posted June 6, 2011 Share #70 Posted June 6, 2011 Yep : at a good reputation french web shop, if I trust different feedback sources : French Camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron (Netherlands) Posted June 6, 2011 Share #71 Posted June 6, 2011 I checked again the lens serial nr, and I confirm what I said earlier. 2 313 922 The wiki @ the top of this page shows in 1969 there were 4400 35mm Summicrons made all 6 element. #2312751 thru #2314750 were 2,000 shown as chrome mounts. #2316001 thru #2318400 were 2,400 in black mounts. None are shown goggled. In my database I have at least 6 lenses with serialnumbers within this range that were all 8 element version 1 lenses. Especially the ones in the range 23138xx are all goggled. Further 2313485 is a non-goggled black version 1 summicron (since I am a true fan of the Summicron 35mm I have about 500 of them currently stored in my database almost all with their full serialnumber). I had never seen a goggled version with a number higher than 2313885. But now we have the one of course of our new member Laurent with a higher number - thank you for the pictures Laurent, however it was to small for me to read the serialnumber. The Wiki information is IMHO most certainly incorrect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kherberos Posted June 6, 2011 Share #72 Posted June 6, 2011 I will upload a close up pict tomorrow, with readable serial number. Wizard wrote also that his v1 summicron was even with a newer serial number than mine. Cheers, Laurent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron (Netherlands) Posted June 6, 2011 Share #73 Posted June 6, 2011 I will upload a close up pict tomorrow, with readable serial number.Wizard wrote also that his v1 summicron was even with a newer serial number than mine.Cheers, Laurent Thanks Laurent, and I will certainly add both numbers to my database. greetings from Holland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted June 6, 2011 Share #74 Posted June 6, 2011 (since I am a true fan of the Summicron 35mm I have about 500 of them currently stored in my database almost all with their full serialnumber). Very impressive ! can I ask you the interest about ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron (Netherlands) Posted June 6, 2011 Share #75 Posted June 6, 2011 Very impressive ! can I ask you the interest about ? Hello JC, Of all the Leitz lenses I started to use on my cameras, I liked the 35mm summicrons more than the other lenses. Firstly because I like using the 35mm as focal length in general - I am more into landscape photo's than into portraits for instance. Secondly, because these summicrons could deliver very sharp pictures but are quite small compared to other lenses. I also like there handling (especially of type I and II). Since these summicrons were not particularly cheap if compared to 50mm lenses, I started a little study about their market prices before I bought one. Later I became interested in comparing the different types and started a little collection, using the 35mm even more. Quite automatically this database kept growing since I wanted to know more about the different types and their variations (especially of type 1 and type IV). However my 35mm collection and database is not restricted to the summicron but also encloses the different summarons and 35mm elmars. However I still like these summicrons the most. Btw when the database really began to grow, the different ranges of serialnumbers became more clear to me....it became also clear that the general info about these serialnumbers for instance on Wiki and in different books on Leica gear is not (fully) correct... As for use: I prefer and use the 35mm as a standard lens, because it is much more compact than the 50mm Summicrons, and has less weight (and indeed makes a perfect standard lens on my M8.2) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kherberos Posted June 6, 2011 Share #76 Posted June 6, 2011 Ron, Finally it won't wait till tomorrow, as I managed to make the kids sleep earlier. But it is dark now, and I am afraid the picts won't be really nice. Anyway here there are. In the "customer" part of the forum, I chimed in on this "black dot marking" relatively to its off centered nature (see above post) comparing to my 1960 LTM 35 f/2, as there was another thread about v2 showing this characteristics as a "feature" of its design. Was wondering why a 1969 v1 cron, in this respect, would share this "feature" with the v2 production… I am not a specialist, not at all, but if my goggled 35 f/2 is not a v2 in the disguise of the v1 (I think not), then, why is that? Maybe wizard, with its even more recent serial number will be able to report if he can observe the same thing I was showing on the picts I posted earlier. Weird, or normal for a v1 35 f/2 from 1969 on? Anyway, here are the picts with the readable serial. I join also picts of my LTM 35 f/2. Ron, are you chasing also the screw mount 35 f/2? If so, you may be interested in adding the serial number of this one too. Cheers, Laurent PS: the Panasonic LX-5's 24mm is nice… but it is a distorsion machine… sorry for the "ovoid lenses" picts… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kherberos Posted June 6, 2011 Share #77 Posted June 6, 2011 And 2 poor profile shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron (Netherlands) Posted June 6, 2011 Share #78 Posted June 6, 2011 And 2 poor profile shots. Thanks very much Laurent, lovely Summicrons your have there! However I am not sure if I fully understand the issue about the off centered indicator. Do you mean that the indicator of the f-stops does not fully align with the triangle indicator of the distance scale? If you mean that the indicators of the Summicron 2nd type are not aligned: that is true because that Summicron has two tabs (one for focussing and one for the f-stops), which would otherwise - in case of alignment - interfere with each other. Here is a picture of my 2nd type Summicron with the off-centered indicator: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted June 7, 2011 Share #79 Posted June 7, 2011 Hello Everybody, I think I know what might be causing some of the confusion. I have a Leitz catalog somewhere which I cannot locate right now. I think it is a small, tall, color catalog printed in English in Germany by Leitz. It also includes the first Noctilux. In it are photos & a description of the 6 element successor to the chrome plated 11308 shown in the same chrome plated mount as its 8 element predecessor. The first 8 element 11308 has a chrome plated lens mount designed for use on the M2. The same lens was numbered 11108 when goggled, adjusted & sometimes differently engraved for the M3. The chrome plated mount & lens in the first 11108 & the 11308 were the same except for the goggles, the engravings & internal mechanical modifications for the M3. The 11308 was also the basis of the chrome plated mount & lens made for the screw mount version SAWOO except for the engraving & the screw thread in place of the bayonet mount. The first black paint version of the 8 element 35mm Summicron for the M2 mount 11307 was based on the early 11308 mount w/ black paint in place of chrome plating. Later the 1st 6 element 35mm Summicron lens changed mounts to a different black anodized design w/ a protruding aperture control tab. Best Regards, Michael BTW: I think this is the same catalog that shows a black anodized, knurled dimple & smooth peak focussing ring 50mm Summicron w/o infinity lock w/ straight sided instead of slope wallled depth of field aperture numbers where it couples to the camera body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kherberos Posted June 7, 2011 Share #80 Posted June 7, 2011 Do you mean that the indicator of the f-stops does not fully align with the triangle indicator of the distance scale? OK, so my observation has nothing to do with how does the v2. Thanks ! But as I pointed it in the post #68 (see the picts), the f markings are perfectly alligned. Which is not alligned is the black dot on the front part of the lens, which is slightly off centered to the left. It seems to work perfectly, but I was thinking that anything should be in perfect allignment fron te arrow on the mount, through the infinite markings, the distance values and, finally, this dot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.