35mm Summilux FLE

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've taken the liberty of adding cross references in the entries for the 21 S-E and the 12465 hood.

 

Leica data sheets should list (correctly!) the hood type and number

 

I completely agree and find it odd that a company that places such importance on accuracy as a concept would not provide this information. Take the technical data sheet of the 21 S-E; it simply says (which evidently is the source for the Wiki's entry):

Filter mount/Lens hood

Non-rotating

Female thread for screw-on filters size E46

Male thread with stop for lens hood (included in delivery)

[trond]

I just noticed that the 35FLE/SE21 hood has the same internal thread as a E49mm filter.

 

The hood slides nicely onto the outside of the Summicron 28mm, and does not vignette.

 

I someone made available a 46/49mm male/male thread ring, it would be possible to use the 35FLE hood on the Summicron 28mm.

 

A much more compact and elegant arrangement than the ugly plastic hood supplied with my Summicron 28.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[trond]

 

The investigation revealed to me that, unless my rheumy old eyes fail me, there are also two rings somewhat similar to O-rings, not much more than a millimeter thick, one in the hood and one on the lens.

 

The old man from the Screw-Ball Age

 

Dear Lars,

 

Thank you very much for this discovery!

 

I have both the 35FLE and the SE21, both with annoyingly loose hood treads, turning constantly and crating vignetting problems om my images.

 

I did as you did, and checked the hood and lens with a magnifier.

 

I find that the lens is fitted with the mentioned rubber ring, but both my hoods lack this rubber ring.

 

I suspect this to be a mistake, and that this is the reason why my hoods are so loose.

 

Can people try to verify this on their own lenses?

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[trond]

FWIW, I've owned two of these FLE lenses and both have the 'rattle'. My previous version 35 Summilux also made the same noise. I've always assumed it is normal.

 

I also thought this to be normal.

 

I have the 35FLE, and it has been serviced twice at Leica in Solms.

 

Both times I complained about the rattling, but the lens came back the same way without being fixed or with any comment.

 

I found that the SX21, SX24 and Apo-Summicron 75 also rattles.

 

SX21 and SX24 much more so than the 35FLE.

 

The SX21 also serviced two times in Solms, but it did not cure the rattle.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[philipus]

I find that the lens is fitted with the mentioned rubber ring, but both my hoods lack this rubber ring.

 

I meant to check this earlier but only got around to it today. I believe the hood of my lens does not have such an O-ring unfortunately. Here are two close-ups. The three male threads are clearly visible. The flat, broader area below them (that is, towards the front of the hood) is the same coarse metal as the inside of the hood.

 

Luckily it attaches very firmly to the lens.

 

Edit: About the Summitar (one of my favourite 50s) - I didn't know it was sold with a protective ring. Does anyone know the part number/code?

 

Philip

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!

[Paul J]

The O-Ring is on the lens, not the hood. It's very small.

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I finally was able to get a 35mm FLE last week. Yes, it has a great hood system (much better than the 28mm Summicron), and yes it has a rubber O-ring on the outside (the threaded part) of the lens. And yes, it rattles a little bit.

 

Seems like a nice lens. But unfortunately mine focuses behind the subject. And pretty badly. After just getting it (new in the box) it has to be packed up and sent back to be repaired.

 

The focus point was on the guy in the green shirt in the image below.

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!

[farnz]

Oh that's tough luck. Was the chart at closest focus distance or 1 metre?

 

Pete.

[CalArts 99]

Oh that's tough luck. Was the chart at closest focus distance or 1 metre?

 

Pete.

 

It was near to closest focus. But I've tried it using numerous distances and apertures on a tripod using a stationary object and it always focuses behind the subject. It's way off. Any other suggestions for testing? I've tested it under all sorts of circumstances for the past few days and it just won't seem to focus correctly (my other lenses are fine.)

 

Yes, disappointing. Especially after waiting so long for it (both financially and with its limited availability.) I'm sure it will be fixed but it does reveal the issues of a digital sensor and the M focusing mount and the optical M rangefinder. With film we seemed to usually be okay, but now things are so much more critical. I sometimes wonder if it's really a feasible system for digital over the long run.

 

But when it all does work, the files are quite nice and you feel like it's worth the effort.

[farnz]

No, I would have done the same as you except perhaps with marked newspaper if I couldn't find the test chart.

 

Pete.

[CalArts 99]

No, I would have done the same as you except perhaps with marked newspaper if I couldn't find the test chart.

 

Pete.

 

Thanks for your comments. I thought it might be the rangefinder and so I tested all my lenses. I did discover that my 28mm Summicron (also relatively new) is also off (back focuses.) It's not as bad as the new FLE but it's off. I simply didn't notice it in real world use probably because of the focal length and DOF and using smaller apertures. It looks fine in prints but not with pixel peeping (sometimes I feel that digital with its pixel peeping is a curse )

 

I have perfect vision without needing spectacles and my 50mm Summilux is perfect at all distances and apertures. I think I carefully ruled out everything else. I did expose a roll of slide film with the FLE on my M6 but haven't yet had it processed.

 

I like the lens design and build quality and it looks nice overall to me despite the focusing issue. I did a few frames backing off from the focus point and got a couple of sharp images. I think it will be great with film. I think it is a bit 'clean' looking with digital, or kind of 'technical' looking (for the lack of a better word.)

[IkarusJohn]

Sounds like the lens needs adjusting. My FLE is the easiest lens to focus, I find.

[hoppyman]

The Wiki lists the 12465 hood for the 35 FLE and the 24 E-M.

 

Edit: Perhaps we should add a reference to this hood in the entry for the 21 S-E.

 

Philip I have both 35 and 24 lenses, both from earliest production batches. Despite the common external thread size and very similar hood appearance, they are not interchangeable. The reference to E46 for the internal threads is correct of course.

On my two year old 35 there is #12465. I noticed that lens has a 5mm extension of the front body (forward of the thread). On the 24 the hood is #12464 and the extension is about 1 mm.

Also I just examined both of mine closely (using a reversed Summilux 50 ASPH as my loupe!) Both lenses have the O ring. Neither hood has its own O ring. That is my hoods are identical to your photo (and mine fit perfectly with the proper tension and indexing). It is possible to displace them in handling certainly. I've only seen this very rarely.

[lars_bergquist]

Edit: About the Summitar (one of my favourite 50s) - I didn't know it was sold with a protective ring. Does anyone know the part number/code?

 

Philip

 

Summitar lenses are sold without hoods. You buy these as extras. Therefore, the protective ring sits on the lens at delivery.

 

The official factory photographs of Summitar lenses show these with the rings in place. They are the foremost 'rings' of the lens mounts in the pictures. Being parts of the lens itself at delivery, they do not seem to have any parts numbers.

 

Comically, the traditional snap-on lens front caps have numbers (E39 is 14038, E46 is 14231) probably because they are not seen as parts of the lens but as general accessories. Likewise, the rear cap is 14269.

 

The old man from the Screw-Ball Age

[jaapv]

Use a computer screen under 45 degrees. The moire will give you the exact point of focus.

I think floating element lenses are particularly prone to this problem out of the box, as the tolerances on the FLE mechanism are extremely tight.

It was near to closest focus. But I've tried it using numerous distances and apertures on a tripod using a stationary object and it always focuses behind the subject. It's way off. Any other suggestions for testing? I've tested it under all sorts of circumstances for the past few days and it just won't seem to focus correctly (my other lenses are fine.)

 

Yes, disappointing. Especially after waiting so long for it (both financially and with its limited availability.) I'm sure it will be fixed but it does reveal the issues of a digital sensor and the M focusing mount and the optical M rangefinder. With film we seemed to usually be okay, but now things are so much more critical. I sometimes wonder if it's really a feasible system for digital over the long run.

 

But when it all does work, the files are quite nice and you feel like it's worth the effort.

[wattsy]

Summitar lenses are sold without hoods.

 

I think you meant Summarit lenses.

[lars_bergquist]

Of course I do – silly typo. But of course the single Summarit lens came, and went, during my time.

 

The old, old man

[philipus]

Hi Geoff, long time!

 

I just received an email from Jimmy Hughes at Leica Mayfair who had very kindly tested the hoods on the 35mm FLE and the 24mm f3.8.

 

He was actually able to screw the 12464 onto the 35 FLE and the 12465 onto the 24mm f3.8. I would assume the lenses he tried on are from later batches so perhaps the interchangeability has changed over time?

 

Cheers

Philip

 

Philip I have both 35 and 24 lenses, both from earliest production batches. Despite the common external thread size and very similar hood appearance, they are not interchangeable. The reference to E46 for the internal threads is correct of course.

On my two year old 35 there is #12465. I noticed that lens has a 5mm extension of the front body (forward of the thread). On the 24 the hood is #12464 and the extension is about 1 mm.

Also I just examined both of mine closely (using a reversed Summilux 50 ASPH as my loupe!) Both lenses have the O ring. Neither hood has its own O ring. That is my hoods are identical to your photo (and mine fit perfectly with the proper tension and indexing). It is possible to displace them in handling certainly. I've only seen this very rarely.

[hoppyman]

Hi Philip.I just happened to wake up and am waiting for announcements from Germany!

I don't know about any production changes for these lenses or hoods along the way. Each of my lenses was from very early production. The thread is the same and you can swap them but mine do not index to the correct spot. There may have been a change in the internal clearance diameter for filters too.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lars_bergquist]

Geoff, the 12465 hood of my v.2 35mm Summilux ASPH, bought in 2010, does indeed have a slightly smaller internal diameter than that on my 21mm Super-Elmar, purchased in late 2011. The older hood cannot slip over a B+W filter, but the later one can.

 

I am also grateful for the clearing up of the matter of the 24mm Elmar hood. I always thought it looked to have a longer cylindrical part than the 12465.

 

The old man from the Age of the IROOA