Summilux 35 question

[defektive]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been doing a bit of research on the different versions of the 35mm summilux produced prior to the aspherical ones. Can anyone tell me where the one marked "M" fits in (summilux-M 35mm)? I have serial numbers and specs on the first two types but there is no mention of this one. Is it the same optically as the type 2 or are there differences?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ho_co]

Sam, you've already uncovered more than I was aware of. So far as I'm aware, there was only one optical formula for the pre-aspheric 35/1.4.

 

I was unaware of there being a type I and a type II.

 

Only after introduction of the reflex cameras did Leitz/Leica start engraving the M or R, to distinguish between the two lines; so I would guess that the "M" designation marks a more recent vintage than those without "M."

 

Keep us posted what you find out! An interesting question!

[farnz]

Sam,

 

The second version had new glass types, a cemented last group and an air space between elements 2 and 3, which the first version didn't. The hoods are also different with the hood for the first version being rare and expensive.

 

According to Hove all the version 2's were marked Summilux-M but the first version didn't have the '-M'.

 

Pete.

[adan]

Howard covered the naming - Leica simply added "-M" to lens names once it became necessary to distinguish them from the "R" lenses for the SLR.

 

The non-ASPH/Aspherical 35 Summilux is optically identical in any version, which covered the years 1961 until discontinued in 1993.

 

There were several mechanical variations - versions with goggles for use on M3s, focus tabs with and without infinity locks, black, chrome, external diameter changed from 46 to 42mm, some changes to the rim that protected the rear element, and likely coating changes.

 

So realistically, there is either just ONE version (optically) or 4-5 versions (considering all the little things that could be and were changed at some point in its 30-year+ life).

______________

 

EDIT - Pete, Erwin Puts begs to differ - lists only one unchanging optical design for the 35 Summilux in his Leica Lens Compendium (also published by Hove). Your description is accurate for the 50mm Summilux.....(optical spacing, cemented elements etc. - change occured in 1961).

[farnz]

Andy,

 

You're absolutely correct I was looking at the 50 Summilux. Sheesh! (I put it down to brain fade.) Apologies for misleading you, Sam.

 

Pete.

[lars_bergquist]

What, really is a 'version'?

 

First, mounts are often revised – often in ways which are not visible to the user – for reasons of improving production, or mechanical integrity, or user convenience, or whatever. But mount revisions are not usually counted as versions. For instance, the current 50mm Summicron was at first produced with a mount with a focusing tab, and had a snap-on hood, then in a completely revised mount without tab and with a built-in collapsible hood. But both count as version 4, in the general consensus.

 

Similarily, goggled lenses v. non-goggled, do not count as 'versions' but rather as 'variants' because both are optically identical. And the 50mm NF Summicron was optically identical to the v.2 'rigid' lens, so it is the same version.

 

Optical revisions are a more ticklish matter. They occur more often than we think, and mainly because rational production demands it, or because a glass has become unavailable and had to be replaced, so the lens had to be recomputed. But as long as the design (in contradistinction to the actual numerical computation, where a change of a third decimal is a Change) is unchanged, and the perfomance of the lens is not noticeably affected, the version is usually seen as unchanged.

 

If the lens design is changed, however, there is usually a change of versions, even if performance is not materially affected. One example is the 35mm Summicron v. 2 and v.3, where the dimensions of some elements were changed. Here of course is a problem. For what exactly do 'not', 'not materially' and 'not' really mean? And are different coating technologies design changes?

 

Complete consistency will for ever be an illusion. Also, remember that Leitz/Leica have never operated with the 'version concept'. But we can at least try to make clear to ourselves what we are talking about.

 

The old man from the Age of the Kodachrome