Please correct me if I'm wrong about 75mm APO-Summilux-M ASPH f/1.4

[Peter Branch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps someone may need to correct me but those of us caught up in the M8 launch saga were offered the opportunity to purchase a new lens for something like 1/3 below German list price direct from the factory.  (Leica UK & UK Dealers hated the whole idea- but that is another story.)  I bought my 28mm f/2 Summicron-M ASPH through this offer. 

 

I can't immediately put my hand on the list from which one had to choose but I'm certain it included the 75mm f/1.4 Summilux-M.

 

The point is that all of the lenses listed were stated to be 6-bit coded except for the 135mm.  It was acknowledged at the time that the 75mm lenses were from remaining stock as they were no longer in production and that quantities were limited.  It may be that the lenses sold as part of this scheme were factory converted to 6-bit prior to sale and thus qualified as being coded from new.

 

Others may have a different recollection.

[jdlaing]

Im not sure this is right. I have a late Canadian version, and soft it isn't, except at f/1.4 - bear in mind that wide open, the depth of field on the 75 Summilux is thinner than a Noctilux at f/0.95. I have a landscape on my wall taken with the 75 Summilux on my Monochrom - at 1 metre on the long side, it is tack sharp with extraordinary detail.  I haven't checked this, but my recollection is that Puts and others say the late German lenses were no different from the Canadian versions, save that the German versions often used the Canadian parts to make those late lenses. 

 

The 75 Summilux was made from 1980 to 2004. The M8 introduced in 2006 - no 75 Summiluxes were 6 bit coded from new. 

Errrr..... 2007, not 2004. There were some made with 6 bit.

[IkarusJohn]

Errrr..... 2007, not 2004. There were some made with 6 bit.

From Erwin Puts Chronicle:

 

 

Summilux-M 75mm 1:1.4  Period (in catalogue): 1980 - 2004 Code: 11814, 11815 (from 1982); 11810 (from 1998)

Wouldn't be the first time he's been wrong ...

[jdlaing]

From Erwin Puts Chronicle:

 

Wouldn't be the first time he's been wrong ...

Wiki is your friend.

 

Shows 2007

[IkarusJohn]

So which is correct?

 

Actually, it's not really a critical question. Apparently (again, according to Puts) it was the second most expensive Leica lens (after the Noctilux) at the time, and was a slow seller.  It was in stock and sold as new for many years after production ceased - both could be right. 

[IkarusJohn]

Seems to work pretty well with the Leica T as well.

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!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps someone may need to correct me but those of us caught up in the M8 launch saga were offered the opportunity to purchase a new lens for something like 1/3 below German list price direct from the factory.  (Leica UK & UK Dealers hated the whole idea- but that is another story.)  I bought my 28mm f/2 Summicron-M ASPH through this offer. 

 

I can't immediately put my hand on the list from which one had to choose but I'm certain it included the 75mm f/1.4 Summilux-M.

 

The point is that all of the lenses listed were stated to be 6-bit coded except for the 135mm.  It was acknowledged at the time that the 75mm lenses were from remaining stock as they were no longer in production and that quantities were limited.  It may be that the lenses sold as part of this scheme were factory converted to 6-bit prior to sale and thus qualified as being coded from new.

 

Others may have a different recollection.

My recollection too.

[lct]

Not sure about 2007 but the 75/1.4 # 11810 was available in EU (France) in 2006 and was slightly less expensive there than the 50/1 (3150 vs 3290 EUR). 

[IkarusJohn]

Bower & Clark in the 8th Edition of the Leica Pocket Book lists production period as 1980 - 2007.  No mention of whether or not the last year of production included 6 bit coding (M8 started production join 2006) - it would be odd if they didn't.

 

I had mine coded when I had it serviced (mine was made in 1992).

[pico]

The dates would put this item in question - supposedly '84, but with late model lens shade and focus cam actuator.

 

EDIT: Nope. I was wrong. The built-in hood was available in '74.

 

[michaelwj]

the continuous universe expansion caused the shipping price of unicorns to increase dramatically. 

 

I think they use unicorns in all their lenses, this is the only logical explanation for the inflation in their prices. Its because the universe in inflating! It's all so obvious.

 

Off topic (but somewhat related to the OP), isn't it interesting how the direction of a company appears to be at the whim of the head lens designer?

 

Cheers,

Michael

[Mornnb]

Off topic (but somewhat related to the OP), isn't it interesting how the direction of a company appears to be at the whim of the head lens designer?

 

Cheers,

Michael

Which is the right approach. To quote Steve Jobs:

"Good PR educates people; that’s all it is. You can’t con people in this business. The products speak for themselves."

 

You don't get the best products possible by putting the finance or marketing guys in charge.

[CheshireCat]

No marketing in charge ? I really wish it was the case.

Instead, products like the LK edition are released.

And products like the Summilux 28 are not.

[adan]

Uhh - trust me. The head lens designer serves at the pleasure (or, if you prefer, "whims") of the CEO and/or company owner.

 

If Andreas Kaufmann didn't like the direction Peter Karbe was taking (or the Leitz family hadn't liked what Walter Mandler was producing), the head lens designer would be out the door.

 

The new "direction" of Leica lens design really began under previous optical design chief Lothar Kölsch, starting with the 35 f/1.4 Aspherical around 1990, coincident with the sale of the Canadian factory and consolidation of optical design in Solms. It's been driven by everything from market preferences (pinker color balance for skin tones, more contrast as color negatives supplanted color slides) to new technology (ability to mass-produce aspheric surfaces through molding rather than grinding) to the disappearance of old technology (environmental bans on certain metals in glass formulas). As well as the goals of the designer - and the company he works for.

[Mornnb]

Uhh - trust me. The head lens designer serves at the pleasure (or, if you prefer, "whims") of the CEO and/or company owner.

 

If Andreas Kaufmann didn't like the direction Peter Karbe was taking (or the Leitz family hadn't liked what Walter Mandler was producing), the head lens designer would be out the door.

 

I would argue the freedom given to the lens designer to achieve his vision means Andreas Kaufmann understands the importance of design and engineering to Leica's success. And that it is a creative process that comes from a human beings vision.

Leica is primarily an engineering company and if the quality engineering isn't there, the whole thing will start to fall apart. Kaufmann would appear to appreciate this.

[tobey bilek]

I never saw a Mandler "look" which all his very different lenses have in common, excepting those with close design roots. But I would love to hear what I should be looking for

 

I agree the 75 Lux is best portrait lens all around, excepting some special effect lenses perhaps. Trouble is, a really good copy is not that easy to find, or so I read. Lately I walk around with a 28 cron on the M9 and 75 lux on the A7.mod:

 

Trler B

 

 

 

 

You can deny or not believe,  but that was what I was told by the rep,, Kevin Ryan, at the time.   He went to work for the microscope division if you care to trace him down.

 

There were stories in Leica Photography .   Glass was mixed in platinum crucibles.

 

Lead was removed from crystal glasses at the same time.  So much for tradition.

 

 

 

 

ed Post by unoh7, on Flickr

 

elevators by unoh7, on Flickr

 

The 75 Lux does pretty much everything real well. Excellent for infinity landscape as well as close up. It's heavy but compared to what you often drag with the A7 it's fine. And the A7 can go to 8k when you want to shoot daylight WO

 

On the M9 I think it's my biggest magnifier, as my 90s only go to a meter.

 

Back Yard by unoh7, on Flickr

 

 

 

I find this interesting. Would like to learn more about the leaded glass grinding and which element etc.

 

This glass actually cooled for ten years?

[tobey bilek]

This glass actually cooled for ten years?

That is what the rep, Kevin Ryan,  told meat the time.  Went to work for microscope division.

 

Glass Works was written up in Leica Photography .   Glass was made in platinum crucibles.   Wonderful article with beautiful pictures. 

[IkarusJohn]

This glass actually cooled for ten years?

 

I seem to recall when I bought mine, it cooled for 12 months.  Perhaps that explains the period in which it was very hard to find.

 

If the glass in my Noctilux cooled for 10 years, that means the glass was cast in 2003 ... unlikely, given that this was 4 years before the M8 was released and 6 years before the M9.

[espahbodb]

Im not sure this is right. I have a late Canadian version, and soft it isn't, except at f/1.4 - bear in mind that wide open, the depth of field on the 75 Summilux is thinner than a Noctilux at f/0.95. I have a landscape on my wall taken with the 75 Summilux on my Monochrom - at 1 metre on the long side, it is tack sharp with extraordinary detail.  I haven't checked this, but my recollection is that Puts and others say the late German lenses were no different from the Canadian versions, save that the German versions often used the Canadian parts to make those late lenses. 

 

The 75 Summilux was made from 1980 to 2004. The M8 introduced in 2006 - no 75 Summiluxes were 6 bit coded from new. 

 

I don't think its because of the lens quality (glass quality) i think the later editions were calibrated better, a friend of mine sent his 75Lux Canadian version for 6bit and general service and when it came back it was way sharper than before. the difference was visible at 1.4 anyway.

 

my older one is version I which I keep it as backup and its visibly softer even at f/2.8. I'm sure there is no difference between Canadian version II and gerry ver III.

 

BTW 75 summilux version III 11810 was made from 98 to 2007 in solms.i got  mine in 2008 and came in with six bit already done maybe the dealer ordered them like this.

the Ver III is also a bit lighter due to a change on focusing mechanism.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

I don't think its because of the lens quality (glass quality) i think the later editions were calibrated better, a friend of mine sent his 75Lux Canadian version for 6bit and general service and when it came back it was way sharper than before. the difference was visible at 1.4 anyway.

That applies to all rangefinder lenses and not just the 75 Summilux, though having just had mine calibrated for the second time in 5 years, I do wonder if it is susceptible to going out of alignment.