philipus Posted June 10, 2012 Share #21  Posted June 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Philipus Pub work is good for 50, 75 and maybe 90, but streets and some landscapes you might want to have a 35. Problem is do you need a 1.4 or 2.0. Personally I want to have the 1.4 and then stop down from there only for artistic interpretation. Having something wider seems the way to go, but if you want a 4 lens setup then the 75 might be good for you.  As Depeche Mode sang, it's a question of time. And the order in which I should buy my lenses Eventually I will have added a 35, 75 and 135. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Hi philipus, Take a look here Purchase/Repair Advise 75mm Summilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
darylgo Posted June 10, 2012 Author Share #22 Â Posted June 10, 2012 Daryl: Does your lens have the vertical type as shown by the blue arrow below, and is it "00" or a different number? Â My lens looks almost identical, the vertical number is placed exactly as yours and says 50. Ironically where you placed your focus would be my infinity focus. Two additional variations are: 1- your lens has stippling, mine is smooth, 2- your f1.4 depth of field indicators have two lines (near and far), mine is one line and the same as the focus index. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 11, 2012 Share #23 Â Posted June 11, 2012 My lens looks almost identical, the vertical number is placed exactly as yours and says 50. Ironically where you placed your focus would be my infinity focus. Two additional variations are: 1- your lens has stippling, mine is smooth, 2- your f1.4 depth of field indicators have two lines (near and far), mine is one line and the same as the focus index. Â Yes, Leica once again screwing around. I was hoping we might find some indications that pointed to those lenses that don't work with the digital M, but Leica's meandering around manufacturing standards.... oh god, I'm in one bad mood and will shut-up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted June 12, 2012 Share #24 Â Posted June 12, 2012 Are there two or three versions of this lens? I see three model numbers in the Wiki (11 814 - 11 815 - 11 810 LLC - 165). Â I understand that it is optically the same construction in all versions. But if one is to believe Rockwell, then there's a pretty big weight difference between the (two) models he lists, 625g for the one with built-in hood (11815) and 490g for the 11814 with bayonet hood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 12, 2012 Share #25  Posted June 12, 2012 Are there two or three versions of this lens? I see three model numbers in the Wiki (11 814 - 11 815 - 11 810 LLC - 165).  Type 1 Type 2 Type 2 Anniversary  The weight difference is probably due to body materials.  Regarding the earlier comment about a stippled finish - the photo of mine, a type 1, was taken with flash so that detail and texture is most visible. I do not know if there really is a difference in finish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted June 12, 2012 Share #26 Â Posted June 12, 2012 Thanks Pico. Â I have found this post where it is said that the first version is the lightest. This is the only corroboration I've seen so far of Rockwell's statement that v1 and v2 weigh differently. Â Apparently, according to the same post, v1 doesn't focus as closely as v2's 0.75m. Â So there's a trade off here, closer focus vs weight. Â Do all versions have the same long focus throw? Â Cheers Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted June 12, 2012 Author Share #27  Posted June 12, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Type 1Type 2 Type 2 Anniversary  What is the Type 2 Anniversary?  The weight difference is probably due to body materials.  I would second that as the primary reason but have no evidence. Upon initial examination my lens had green stuff growing inside the barrel, I cleaned it off and it left exposed metal. An email inquiry to Don Goldman, he said it might be a reaction of the brass. Brass = heavy?  Regarding the earlier comment about a stippled finish - the photo of mine, a type 1, was taken with flash so that detail and texture is most visible. I do not know if there really is a difference in finish.  Pretty sure it's smooth, no stippling. My copy was purchased used with an unknown history. I am almost certain that it has gone through a repair process of one kind or another, some parts look new while others have some wear. Smooth surface could be a replacement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted June 13, 2012 Share #28 Â Posted June 13, 2012 I routinely send any used lenses to Leica NJ for their recalibration and comments on what meets specs and what does not and then take appropriate action. In the US 6 bit coding includes the above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted June 13, 2012 Share #29 Â Posted June 13, 2012 To answer my own question, I just discovered that Puts (Leica Chronicle) states the following about weight and minimum focus distance: Â 1v (11814) 490g / 100cm 2v (11815) 600g (Wiki says 590g) / 75cm 2v Anniversary ed. (11810) 560g / 75cm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.