Summar 5cm variations

[Hello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, jerzy said:

the lowest collapsible which I have seen  is indeed 167176, next one is 167425, Hahne is quoting 167594 as lowest SN converted 

your lens has been collapsible from the very beginning.

@Giuligibazzi - you are correct, we will never know for sure. But quoting (free translation) Hahne from the same publication: " the first batch of SN assigned was 167001 until 168000. Engraving dept received the order on 14.03.1933, lenses were Summar. The last 150 SNs were used for Sumus",  and further: "on 19.09.1933 tha second batch was assigned, within this batch some lenses were Sumus"  And finaly: "the third batch was assigned on 30.11.1933 and as well in this batch some of them were Sumus".  Pls not that Hahne is using in his article Summar for rigid and Sumus for coll. And front ring is different for rigid and collapsilble.
Last remark is that the dates quoted above are not production dates. Final assembly and shipment could have been later, maybe even months. Currently I am working on IIId (my another thread) and there   are even years between starting assembly and the  final shipment.

 

That's good to know. I appreciate the clarification on it's origins as collapsible. I'm glad I saw it and saw it's potential.

[willeica]

21 minutes ago, jerzy said:

the lowest collapsible which I have seen  is indeed 167176, next one is 167425, Hahne is quoting 167594 as lowest SN converted 

your lens has been collapsible from the very beginning.

@Giuligibazzi - you are correct, we will never know for sure. But quoting (free translation) Hahne from the same publication: " the first batch of SN assigned was 167001 until 168000. Engraving dept received the order on 14.03.1933, lenses were Summar. The last 150 SNs were used for Sumus",  and further: "on 19.09.1933 tha second batch was assigned, within this batch some lenses were Sumus"  And finaly: "the third batch was assigned on 30.11.1933 and as well in this batch some of them were Sumus".  Pls not that Hahne is using in his article Summar for rigid and Sumus for coll. And front ring is different for rigid and collapsilble.
Last remark is that the dates quoted above are not production dates. Final assembly and shipment could have been later, maybe even months. Currently I am working on IIId (my another thread) and there   are even years between starting assembly and the  final shipment.

 

I have been out all day and am just coming back to the developing discussion. I was using the Thiele list which does, in fact, mention 'Sumar' (rigid) and 'Sumus' (collapsible) for all batches of the Summar, where this could not have been the case. The example shown above appears to have an infra red R mark which, according to van Hasbroeck, did not appear until the 8th variant of the Summar. There are two possible theories here; either this was a converted lens or it represents a later use of an unused SN, which may explain Hahne's comments above. Either way ,it would be nice to have a link to the list of the Summars which are said to have been converted 'in period'.

William

[Advertisement]

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

[willeica]

Just another point has set me musing. If 167594 was the first lens converted, what were the lenses before this number? Were these all collapsible? Or did nobody with a rigid model lower than SN 167594 have it converted? There are some strange conundrums here which are not yet explained. The perceived wisdom always was that the rigid model came first and this was followed by the collapsible model with some conversions of the former to the latter. That may or may not be true, but it seems difficult to be definitive about this.

William

[Hello]

8 minutes ago, willeica said:

Just another point has set me musing. If 167594 was the first lens converted, what were the lenses before this number? Were these all collapsible? Or did nobody with a rigid model lower than SN 167594 have it converted? There are some strange conundrums here which are not yet explained. The perceived wisdom always was that the rigid model came first and this was followed by the collapsible model with some conversions of the former to the latter. That may or may not be true, but it seems difficult to be definitive about this.

William

Absolutely on the definitive. Still fun to ponder regardless and keeps the conversation going and evolving and the knowledge preserved in the process is a nice side bonus, lol. Either way, I appreciate all of you helping out when the time arises.

[Giuliobigazzi]

A theory could be that the vast majority of conversions were done before shipping, after the demand for the collapsible became apparent. And actually very very few were sent in by customers for conversion.( the ones with circular aperture)Maybe the lenses up to 167594 consisted of mostly rigid and a few collapsible. These may already have been shipped, before the decision was taken to convert most of the rigid to collapsible. Again, only theories...

[jerzy]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb willeica:

Just another point has set me musing. If 167594 was the first lens converted, what were the lenses before this number? Were these all collapsible?

William, I have seen 61 lenses with SN between 167014 and 167590, with exception of 3 lenses all of them were rigid

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, jerzy said:

William, I have seen 61 lenses with SN between 167014 and 167590, with exception of 3 lenses all of them were rigid

Which leads me back to my original sense that 167176 was originally a rigid lens which was converted to a collapsible. Either that or the lens was not made until much later, when the R Mark was in use, using a much earlier unused SN.

William

 

[jerzy]

vor 54 Minuten schrieb Giuliobigazzi:

 And actually very very few were sent in by customers for conversion.( the ones with circular aperture)

since few yewars I am looking for collapsible with circular aperture, if you have seen one pls let me know.
well, the only 2 I have "seen" are  those below, result of my experiment to build circular aperture in collapsible, lenses were 333xxx and 206xxx, both hex orginally.

Some time ago I described here in Forum my experiment

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!

[samiba]

Am 30.10.2018 um 16:41 schrieb samiba:

Maybe my collapsible black rim with ser. No. 167812 adds further information to your discussion. It was after market coated, probably in the 1950ies.

It has 12 curved blades and the notch at 2.9.

Delivers sharp and contrasty pics with a very swirley bokeh.

Cheers, Michael

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!

In the meantime I have received information from the archives.

The Summar (Ser. No. 167812) is listed as a Summarkup without any further explantion and was delivered to Vienna on 1933.09.14 and was additionally converted on 1934.02.22 without explanation of what was done.

That was all I was able to gather at Leica Wetzlar.

Best, Michael

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by samiba

[jerzy]

Thx for update Michael. Sumarkup was rigid, repair in 1934 was conversion to collapsible, most probably.

[samiba]

I have also been searching for a late Summar to cover the production length as good as possible.

So was able to find a fine late sample with Ser. No. 503553, shortly before the end of production run.

Did exchange the idea with Jerzy of getting a coating for it but refrained because of stupid costs at the companies available for this job.

Here it is....

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!

Edited August 19, 2019 by samiba

[Pyrogallol]

Just acquired a bound set of Leica News and Technique from issue one in 1935 to 1939.

An interesting note from issue two in February 1935 says that the hexagonal diaphragm of the collapsible Summar was specially for the Agfa colour process.

Also Interesting note about the results being no different to other diaphragms considering the debate elsewhere on the forum about the bokeh of different diaphragm shapes.

I will add some other little snippets I come across, the experts may already know them.

 

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!

[eastwestphoto]

Yes the dome shape kept the F:stop marking's accurate for the setting. As to the Bokeh effect, Leitz is incorrect  There is a noticeable difference on a mirrorless camera , magnified 25x in the shape of the out of focus background at F;2.  Maybe for 1933, no thought to care, but in 2019, its noticeable. Unfortunately finding a original," Sumarkup" lens is very hard these days and quite expensive. So only someone on this blog who has the original uncoated lens and a uncoated 1933 collapsible could do the test at F;2. Both lenses would have to be serviced and unscratched. So the test criteria must be equal and perfect. Use of a sunshade is a MUST! 

[willeica]

I have shown photos on this forum, perhaps even on this thread, showing that, wide open, the collapsible Summar (I have 11 of them) with hexagonal iris has just as 'good bokeh' as the rigid Summar (I have 1 of them) with a round iris. It is only when you stop down the collapsible model that you get hexagonal highlights. In some cases, however, those highlights are quite attractive. Leicadom is full of mythology and what my mother used to call 'old wive's tales'.

In the 1930s this type of thing was irrelevant and it is only since the 'digital turn' that photographers have really started to obsess about such matters.

The Agfa process and the f2.9 mark were some of the reasons why some Summars were converted from rigid to collapsible. The owners would not have considered collector value 80 years into the future or the vagaries of a thing called digital photography and obsession with a thing called 'bokeh'.

William

[eastwestphoto]

willeica,

                Do the test again at F: 3.2, between the Hex iris and the round iris, I would like to see it magnified in the background. Thanks, Don

[willeica]

4 minutes ago, eastwestphoto said:

willeica,

                Do the test again at F: 3.2, between the Hex iris and the round iris, I would like to see it magnified in the background. Thanks, Don

I have a lot of other things to do other than making photos 'commissioned' by forum members. I will post the photos I have already made again later on today or tomorrow. You need to get over this obsession with bokeh, however, particularly anything that might involve pixel peeping, which is something I think may be injurious to your 'photographic health'.

William

[eastwestphoto]

I am only interested in the Summar's Bokeh, as its a double Guass lens. No other, there is a Bokeh group on Facebook and believe me its an eye opening photo group, full of education. Give it a try. Regards, Don

[Pyrogallol]

In the 30’s getting your Summar converted from rigid to collapsible was a good idea, no one knew the rigid would be so desirable 80 years later. Maybe the same will apply to digital Leicas that still have their original sensor in 80 years time ?

[alan mcfall]

 

Here are my Summar lenses, a few rigid, more Black Rim collapsible (original and conversions of rigid), no Tropen, mostly just the common leica lens of the mid 1930's.  I need to look to see if any have an added coating. Mostly just acquired when purchasing camera bodies I wanted. Similar to Jerzy, my database of the first 3000 lenses, lots 167xxx, 186xxx and 190xxx contains about 160 entries.  I originally thought all of these were originaly rigid, with the collapsible starting at 193xxx,  but posts above indicate that factory produced collapsible lenses exist in small runs within these lots. The last 150-200 lenses in the 167xxx lot seem to be dominated by collapsibles; too many to be customer requested conversions after the sale. My lenses, 167913 and 167956 are collapsible and I always assumed they were owner requested conversions, but now perhaps we know they were produced or converted before shipment.

167421
167501
167913
167956
186111
186154
186353
186587
193260
194372
198747
207037
209279
216830
219745
227516
243711
247438
256027
268047
282491
282715
285241
313951
334012
335507
345243
347419
348328
348394
353104
368980
382753
418503
446270
496524
503441
503755

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

6 hours ago, alan mcfall said:

 

Here are my Summar lenses, a few rigid, more Black Rim collapsible (original and conversions of rigid), no Tropen, mostly just the common leica lens of the mid 1930's.  I need to look to see if any have an added coating. Mostly just acquired when purchasing camera bodies I wanted. Similar to Jerzy, my database of the first 3000 lenses, lots 167xxx, 186xxx and 190xxx contains about 160 entries.  I originally thought all of these were originaly rigid, with the collapsible starting at 193xxx,  but posts above indicate that factory produced collapsible lenses exist in small runs within these lots. The last 150-200 lenses in the 167xxx lot seem to be dominated by collapsibles; too many to be customer requested conversions after the sale. My lenses, 167913 and 167956 are collapsible and I always assumed they were owner requested conversions, but now perhaps we know they were produced or converted before shipment.

167421
167501
167913
167956
186111
186154
186353
186587
193260
194372
198747
207037
209279
216830
219745
227516
243711
247438
256027
268047
282491
282715
285241
313951
334012
335507
345243
347419
348328
348394
353104
368980
382753
418503
446270
496524
503441
503755

Thanks Alan. An impressive collection indeed. You might like to compare the variant details with my comparatively small collection here:

As for the SN 167 xxx batch, it may well be the case that Leica used some unused SN numbers at a later stage for collapsible models. This may be as likely as the upgrade theory.

William