90mm f/2 Summicron-M III question

[ernst_leitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone with a clue to this?

According to the serial numbers list @

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/90mm_f/2_Summicron-M_III

Numbers 2813801–2814900 (Lens nos. 2814052 & 2814349 are 90 mm not 35mm as listed) were Summicron-M f= *3.5 cm 1:2 (black.1) made in 1977

My 90 Summicron III is number 2814630. What year was it made? Might there be more 90s made in that range?

[lct]

Does the built-in hood cover the aperture ring when it is collapsed?

[ernst_leitz]

Yes it does.

[lct]

So it is probably an early sample like 2814052 & 2814349 you referred to above.

[lct]

Would you have some photos of your sample? Just curious.

[ernst_leitz]

Would you have some photos of your sample? Just curious.

 

Any idea about production year?

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!

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you much. Production year is difficult to find out because the lens was launched in the end of 1979 (officially in 1980) with the regular hood not covering the aperture ring. The serial number says 1977 but i doubt that pre-production samples were made so early. I would ask in the Leica Collectors & Historica forum if you don't find a better answer here, or i would ask Leica directly.

[adan]

The optical design (per erwin puts) took three years from design to appearing on the market (it was the era when Leica nearly shut down the whole M line, so likely there was some indecisiveness in whether to build it or not).

 

That could partly explain the mismatch between the serial number and the actual date of production - but ALSO, as has been said many times before, in that era Leica assigned serial number in blocks. Say a block of 4000 sequential numbers were assigned to go on the next 4000 90 f/2 lenses as of 1977. If it took 4 years to sell 2000 90 f/2 lenses, those numbers would still be going onto "new" lenses 4 years later.

 

As to the early lens hood design that covered the aperture ring (intended to maximize compactness while also giving the hood a more effective length - but also Mother Leitz's way of forcing you to be a good boy and use your lens hood), that changed within a year or so to the shorter hood that did not cover the aperture ring.

 

Which was less effective as a lens hood (slightly), but much less of a PITA in use.

[lct]

Thank you Andy. Was the early design a pre-production model? Just curious as i seem to recall that the 90/2 had the late hood when it was announced in 1979.

[adan]

Not pre-production - just fairly brief production.

 

I've actually owned a couple with the early aperture-covering hood (and yes, at least one had a "1977" serial number despite being a 1980 lens). They also took 49mm filters - filter thread is inside the engraving ring, as you can see from E_leitz's photos, rather than outside as in the revised E55 barrel.

 

Also note the serial number on the aperture ring, due to the "Lens Made in Canada" taking up so much room on the front engraving ring. Same as the early 35 Summicron IV and 90 Tele-Elmarit II.

 

Roughly speaking, it was like the 75 Summilux introduced around the same time - which originally had a separate bayonet lens hood, but within a couple of years was revised to have a sliding built-in hood.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/75mm_f/1.4_Summilux-M

 

Or the v. III 28mm f/2.8 also of the same vintage - which originally had a "wasp waist" barrel like the v. II, but was soon reintroduced with a straighter barrel.

 

I get the feeling Leitz Canada's mechanical designers at that time (as opposed to Mandler's optical design team) were a bit unsure of themselves, going by the number of lenses of the same generation (and same optics) that soon (by 1982) underwent external revisions as the M line re-established itself.

 

The "tiger claw" convex focus tabs were another brief experiment of the time, soon abandoned.

[lct]

Yes my tiger-claw 50/2 and 35/2 are from 1979 also but i had never heard of the long-hood 90/2 then. Just retrieved LHSA's Viewfinder of Oct.-Dec. 1979. The "new" 90/2 is presented page 16 (pic below) as a "new formula lens that is shorter and lighter than its predecessor". It had the short hood then apparently but i may be wrong.

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!

[adan]

It looks to me as though LHSA (or Leica, if it was a factory handout picture) just extended the hood part way for that picture, to reveal the aperture ring. Otherwise, readers would no doubt have queried, "What - no aperture ring??!!"

 

Other "tells" that identify the early version III:

 

- A stepped rim to the lens hood - possibly to make it easier to pull out. Or possibly to make it fit an existing-diameter rubber lens cap.

- shallow DoF scale, compared to the later version, where it reached all the way to the lens mount

- wider or thicker aperture ring (front to back) and slightly thinner focus ring - attributes shared with the early hoodless 75 Summilux.

- a slightly thinner barrel overall. The early version also weighed 60 grams less.

 

Compare that LHSA picture to this - the real "short-hood" design (a 1983 sample).

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/90mm-f2-m/D3S_6019-straight-1200.jpg

[lct]

Yes you're right thanks. Just found another long-hood with 1977-like serial number presented like this on e**y.

[luigi bertolotti]

Yes you're right thanks. Just found another long-hood with 1977-like serial number presented like this on e**y.

...and me too have one (2814779 ,usual Long Hood, number on side) i think they are far from rare,at the end.

[ernst_leitz]

What are the dimensions for a short and long lens hood respectively?

[lct]

Long (acc. to LHSA): 79 x 63.7mm

Short (my 1995 sample): 77 x 62+mm

[ernst_leitz]

Thank you all for the information. I now know a bit more.

[tobey bilek]

I ordered the first version when it hit the store. What came in a few weeks was version two. My guess is very few of version 1 were made.

 

ver 1 uses 49 mm filters, version 2 is 55