Leica 23mm f2 Summicron-TL ASPH Lens with Case, #4265480, is in excellent cosmetic condition. It has minor paint wear on the bayonet where the hood mounts. I rate it at 9+.
The glass is clean and clear with no haze, fungus, or marks. No internal dust. Mechanically, this lens is in proper working order. The aperture blades function properly and are free of oil. The focus ring turns smoothly. This lens comes with original soft case, hood, filter, front and rear caps. This Leica 23mm f2 Summicron-TL is ready to roll! Serial number is clear, so it can be registered with Leica. Genuine Leica E52 UV filter included. (Not shown) Email your location and we can work out shipping.
I have one of leica c1 kirin beer limited edition and I want to know how many leica made this compact camera in limited?
By Jim J
I have a 1936 IIIa (s.n. 184223) that is in need of a lens, and I am now in a position to purchase one. I am leaning towards an f3.5 Elmar, as I think it complements the design of the camera beautifully both in compactness and in general appearance. The other lenses that are possibilities look a bit heavier and some even a bit too modern (even though some of them are not) for an 85 year old camera. I do have some points that I would appreciate comments on from those who know more about things Leica than I do, before I part with my cash.
Firstly, condition. Quite a few lenses of this age have either dust or haze in the optics, and others have light marks. Would I be correct in assuming that dust or haze (provided the haze is not excessive) could be fixed with a CLA, as could a stiff aperture ring or focusing ring, but marks would generally not go away?
Secondly, coatings. I see that, as a rule, Pre-War lenses are clear, and Post-War lenses are coated, and I understand the basic reasoning behind coating lenses is to cut down internal reflections but, in lenses of this quality, is there really much of a difference between the two?
As for the lenses that I’m looking at:
Elmar f3.5: My preferred option, as it is so light and compact and just looks so right on a Barnack Leica;
Elmar f2.8: Aside from the extra f-stop, is there any reason for preferring this over the f3.5 Elmar? I find it does not have quite the same visual appeal as the f3.5 Elmar, but it could be useful in low light situations.
Summar f2: Maybe another lens to consider. Again, not quite the same visual appeal as the f3.5 Elmar, but it could also be useful in low light situations.
Summitar: From what I can see, it appears to be an updated and improved version of the Summar. Compared with the Elmar, and even the Summar, it looks a trifle bulky (yes, I know it isn’t really).
Summicron: I’m not so keen on this one, as I find the appearance of the earlier lenses more appealing. I would also prefer to fit my camera with a lens that’s a bit closer to what it originally had. I have heard that the front element is made of an unusually soft glass, which means that these lenses are often badly scratched. Is this so?
Thank you in advance for helping a newcomer to the world of Leicas.
I'm starting a new topic regarding the issues found in my newly purchased Leica MP, the purpose of this is to share any ideas that could lead to a solution,
this is not a rant about Leica lack of QC which we all know is becoming an issue.
After receiving my camera I run a roll of Kodak TriX 400, after developing the film I found a trace of scratches, I did several test with other films which I didn't develop (in case the scratches were being caused by my development process):
Bergger Pancro 400,
They all show the same type of scratches.
This is an undeveloped roll, https://ibb.co/RbxynrM
I found several threads with people claim the source of this issues was the pressure plate so I checked mine in order the find anything that could be the reason, the screws in the plate don't match the position of the marks in the film and the surface of the plate in my camera feels smooth and flat, I wondered if maybe the reason could be the bridge that has the connection for the light meter but after more inspection it was obvious that the plate keeps the very flat and it does not touch that area.
I did another test in which I rub some film on the surface of the plate, to my surprise the film was very scratched, I did the same against the plate in my 1958 M2 and it didn't do a single one.
I also did a couple of prints to verify the scratches appear and unfortunately the scratches are visible even on a middle size print.
This is the print, the scratches appear in the top and the bottom https://ibb.co/VpKsdfb
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.