Summicron-M 1:2 50

[Phil d'Yvoir]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My lens, réf. 11826, n°3954597, was made in 2003.

I would like to know if this lens is Type 4 or another Type.

Thank you very much.

Phil

[leicanet]

Hi Phil,

your lens should be the current (type V) version.

 

Regards

[lars_bergquist]

There has existed the following versions of the 50mm Summicron (optical versions – mere changes in the mount do not count here):

 

• Summitar* ('Summitar Star'): A prototype Summicron, slightly different from the following. Never commercialised, so no 'version'

 

• Collapsible Summicron. Seven elements. 1953 – 1956. Version 1

 

• Rigid Summicron. Seven elements but different design. 1957 – 1968. Includes the Dual Range Summicron with near focusing mount. Version 2

 

• Summicron, six elements 1969 – 1979. Version 3

 

• Summicron-M, six elements 1979 and current. Optical redesign. Version 4

 

There is considerable confusion in the field, as some people count changes in the mounting as different 'versions', even small changes. But unless we want complete arbitrariness and confusion, we must count the optical designs only.

 

The current v.4 Summicron has seen many types of mounting, not only the first one with focusing tab and separate hood from 1994, and the current one with the sliding hood, but also a screw mount version from about 2001. And there have been different finishes ... but let us not lapse back into the 1950's, when a hoary Model 1953 Chevrolet was changed into the wonderful new 1954 Chevrolet by a change to the grille.

 

Your Summicron is a v.4 Summicron-M, second model mount (sliding hood). And let me add that this is the opinion of all knowledgeable writers on the matter.

 

The old man from the Age of the 5cm Elmar

[lct]

Type 6, optical version 4 IINW.

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!

[lars_bergquist]

If you go that way, the number of 'versions' is close to infinite. And completely arbitrary. I don't know where you got that table from. Typography is cheap (I know). But the consensus says to go for optical, not mechanical criteria.

 

A language is based on (a) common understanding. It cannot be one-person arbitrary because you are, ideally, talking to someone else. Var fan har du fått den där tabellen från? And that is a major European language ....

 

Den gamle från boktryckeriet

[lct]

I don't read Swedish if any sorry. The OP asked about types. I just tried to be objective in my Excel table above. If you see any mistake in the latter please be kind enough to explain it to me and i will correct it immediately.

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To put in accord everyone, I'd personally suggest the "dot" way... ; 1st digit=optical design DOT 2nd digit=variant of body (within the optical design) DOT letter=minor variants DOT finishing (c b p t...)

 

to say Summicron 50 2.1.a.c = rigid, first, italic letters on front ring-single scale, chrome...