Anodised silver replacing chromed brass

[colint544]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It seems that Leica are gradually phasing out chromed brass lenses in favour of anodised silver aluminium ones. The new 35mm Summicron ASPH and 50mm Summicron APO exemplify this trend. I always thought it was nice to have a choice between genuinely different versions of the same lens, but increasingly there's only one version of a lens, albeit with a choice of two colours. Sometimes it's just available in black.

 

What does anyone think - is this simply cost cutting/streamlining of lens production, or does it even matter?

[Exodies]

Or is it a more exact manufacture? Tolerances are getting tighter.

[4X5B&W]

One doesn't have to be a metallurgist to know there is significant differences between machining brass and aluminium, and certainly brass is a more durable metal especially when chrome plated.

 

There is a weight gain going from Aluminium to Brass, but some people may find that attractive.

 

So what we now have is chrome "looking" lenses that are the same weight and durability as anodised aluminium.

These may be attractive to some people.

Personally I like the look and feel of real brass lenses of modest size, a 90 mm Summon ASPH for instance has no appeal for me.

 

YMMV

[NB23]

Cheap cheap cheap.

 

Nothing beats a Brass lens. Aluminum is simply a lazy ass option.

[jaapv]

Well, the weight difference gets tiresome in the long run, and aluminum has proved to be fine, as all black lenses are as good as their bright chrome cousins.

[edwardkaraa]

Silver/chromed lenses are just esthetically nice but in actual use, they cause unnecessary reflections and once scratched it looks too obvious. For actual use I only buy black.

[dugby]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both types.

 

1) Summilux-M ASPH 50mm LHSA, brass (11628) weighs 460g.

2) Summilux-M ASPH 35mm FLE, black aluminium weighs 320g.

3) APO-Summicron-M 50mm, black weighs 300g.

 

I found that on all-day excursions, my neck happily accommodates my chrome M240 with either the FLE or APO. But I tire quickly with my brass 50 Lux.

 

I've tried multiple times to endure all day with brass 50 Lux, but repeatedly I tire with its weight on my neck. So now the 50 Lux only gets used with a tripod.

I should declare that I am a slight built (58kg) person, so heavy weights on my neck are more noticeable.

 

When I bought the black APO 50, I was aware that a silver was coming, but I didn't know it would "not" be brass. I wanted the lightest 50 APO.

 

Whilst the brass lens has the beautiful cold-metal feeling albeit nose heavy, black aluminium feels invisible.

[pgk]

Cheap cheap cheap.

 

Nothing beats a Brass lens. Aluminum is simply a lazy ass option.

 

Given the size of the lenses I very much doubt that the differential in cost of machining or metal used is really material. I'd suspect that it has more to do with design and usage condition requirements for which a single material will be easier and more effectively utilised in a design than two different ones will. I seem to remember that the thermal expansion coefficients of brass and aluminium are different which probably means slightly different tolerances are needed or that binding may occur at different temperatures. Brass, despite its weight is softer and (as I know) can distort if impacted, whilst aluminium is less prone to this though may 'dent' easier and even crack if sufficient sudden force is applied. All in all, brass may be the more traditional material but may not actually be the better one to use.

 

[As an aside I remember using a IIIB many years ago with a collapsible Elmar in very cold weather. The brass aperture lever finally became impossible to move as it contracted and tightened up.]

[NB23]

Both are well within acceptable tolerance of any measurable variable (weight, heat, cold, impact...). It's not about that. Aluminum is simply a lazy ass offering when it comes to a Leica lens that's supposed to be Silver Chromed Brass.

 

I may be snob, but there are Cuban cigars, there is New York Pastrami and Cheesecake, there is Czech beer, there is Champagne, there is french Wine... And there is Leica Brass with all its glory and history.

 

Aluminum is simply cheap.

 

Heavy wood doors require brass knobs. No one will ever install aluminum knobs on classic, timeless, expensive, historical doors. Aluminum knobs are for cheap doors.

[Exodies]

I don't like to touch aluminium; there's something electrically creepy about it.

[ELAN]

I too dislike the feel of aluminum... hate the touch of my MacBook Pro and iPhone 6, but thankfully the Leica aluminum lenses with their plating are not as bad to the touch.  I do love the substantial feel of my brass lenses... they just feel right... and I always get a kick when I mount one on my M.  Yes, the extra weight of brass is a drag, and sometimes I leave them home because of their weight, but given a choice I always buy the brass version.

[pechelman]

As an engineer, i really dont understand many of these comments in this thread as they relate to the actual quantifiable properties of these materials. I have no comment on qualitative aspects.

 

The only time I've ever used anything similar to brass is bronze when I need a bushing. Bronze is also quite suitable for some marine applications, but I dont work there. 

"Aluminum" is superior in just about every way to brass for the application of making lenses. And to simply think of "aluminum" as one generic material is also a gross oversimplification. There's a huge difference in aluminum alloys, so without knowing exactly what brass and aluminum alloy Leica or any manufacturer is using, all of this is just speculation, but;

 

Any day of the week though, I'll take a 7075 aluminum over any brass out there for lens components, or pretty much any engineered component in the world. And when I might prefer brass over aluminum, I can almost guarantee you I'd rather prefer steel or titanium over brass. 

 

Between a typical brass (~65/35) and 7075, they have a similar hardness, but the aluminum has a higher yield strength. And more importantly, aluminum is vastly more machinable so more precise lens components can be made. Combine that with the strength to weight inherent with aluminum, also leaves significantly more design space for optical elements and focusing mechanisms whilst keeping the overall external size smaller. (and lighter of course)  Maybe someone could argue that the CTE difference between brass and aluminum might be in favor of brass, the difference is so small that it is probably insignificant for the very small temperature differentials seen in use (~delta 150F?) and very small sizes of lenses (appx ~3" max characteristic length) would result in about ~.0009" less linear  displacement over that entire range. For a telescope that might be an issue, but not for a handheld camera.

 

www.matweb.com for properties

[NB23]

My engineer friends don't understand why I prefer 10,000$ Rolex to 5.99$ digital watches. They keep on telling me that the digital watches are so much more accurate.

 

They are right though, I could save 9,993.01$.

[TomB_tx]

I worked for a company about 1970 that produced tons of brass parts for valves and other gadgets, and we saw brass as the cheap line, as it was so easy to run through automatic machines. While the material price began to climb even back then, the scrap from machining sold for good return also, so brass was the budget line.

Aluminum does machine well, but is more abrasive to cutting tools than brass.

I see valid issues that would push Leica to standardize on aluminum:

Plated brass parts have to be machined to different dimensions to allow for the build-up of plating thickness, so the brass parts would have different dimensions during machining. This makes opportunity for setup mistakes, getting the right dimensions on the wrong material.

The modern lenses have much tighter tolerances due to the optical and alignment demands, and the tolerances would have to be designed and adjusted for the different material properties. A single material with different color finishes will make it easier to get more precise assemblies.

Environmental concerns have reduced the quality of hard chrome plating, as companies that have stayed in the plating business have had to adjust chemistry and processes. Chrome plated car parts have almost disappeared as a result, and the ones you find as replacements don't last. Now the best replacement "chrome" car parts are stainless steel instead.

Every new Leica lens I've bought from 1968 has been black finished aluminum, so this change doesn't affect me. However, the 1.5 Nokton I chose is chrome plated brass, and it is gorgeous. But the Nokton doesn't have the complexity and tolerances of a Summilux ASPH.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

Haven't the body castings (Not the Top Plates or the Removable Bottoms) of both Screw Mount Leicas & Film M Leicas always been made of mostly aluminium?

 

They seem to hold up reasonably well.

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[jdlaing]

Hello Everybody,

 

Haven't the body castings (Not the Top Plates or the Removable Bottoms) of both Screw Mount Leicas & Film M Leicas always been made of mostly aluminium?

 

They seem to hold up reasonably well.

Best Regards,

 

Michael

I don't think so. Maybe in later years.

[4X5B&W]

As an engineer, i really dont understand many of these comments in this thread as they relate to the actual quantifiable properties of these materials. I have no comment on qualitative aspects.

 

 

 

It's pretty simple really, you can't chrome plate Aluminium !!

 

While brass is fairly soft....machines beautifully BTW, chrome plating is really hard and wears REALLY well.

Anodized aluminium does not compare to chrome plated surfaces for wear.

 

Hope this helps.

[4X5B&W]

Hello Everybody,

 

Haven't the body castings (Not the Top Plates or the Removable Bottoms) of both Screw Mount Leicas & Film M Leicas always been made of mostly aluminium?

 

They seem to hold up reasonably well.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

 

No, they were made of.....chrome plated brass, up until the later M6's that had a cast aluminium top plate (for ease of manufacture), all bottom plates were brass.

[michaelwj]

Isn't the Kaufmann family in the Aluminium business somehow?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

No, they were made of.....chrome plated brass, up until the later M6's that had a cast aluminium top plate (for ease of manufacture), all bottom plates were brass.

 

I think that it was Zinc not aluminium. Aluminium is now being used at last I believe but I can't remember which current model uses it.

 

FWIW I supply underwater camera housings which are made from aluminium due to its resistance to corrosion (its eloxal finished) in the marine environment which is pretty caustic. Problems can occur when metals are intermixed but otherwise it lasts very well and I'm still getting 10 year old housing serviced (long time in the digital world - camera life limits housing life not the other way around.

 

If you like brass then fine, enjoy it. But don't think that its a superior material because it almost certainly isn't. FWIW when aluminium first hit the market it was a very expensive 'super metal' - familiarity and our disposable use of it has changed our attitude to it. If brass was as usable in disposable situations I think that the liking for it would be rather different.