rob_x2004 Posted June 24, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted June 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) What are the scuffs on the m8 bayonet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 Hi rob_x2004, Take a look here How file down a pre-asph 35mm Lux?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
russell Posted June 24, 2007 Author Share #22 Â Posted June 24, 2007 The scuffs are just from the all the different lens that I have. They are not really scuffs, but more like grease patches that clean up with one wipe. The filed out area isnt as ragged as it looks in that picture. Now that I have it for a day, it's still a bit too tight for me and I might have to have another go at it. On the other hand, since it is focusing all the way now, I might just wait until I can find a repair guy to do the full works including coding for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grduprey Posted June 25, 2007 Share #23 Â Posted June 25, 2007 I have the titainium version of the pre-asph summilux, and have no focusing problems what so ever. Â Gene Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodor Heinrichsohn Posted June 25, 2007 Share #24 Â Posted June 25, 2007 I have 35/1.4 Canada # 2348108 and no problems with focus at any distance. The focus itself is spot on with my M8. At least two other posts state that their 35/14's focus correctly. Is the explanation that there was a change in construction with later lenses? The optics are said to have remained the same. It would be sensible for Leica to publish information as to which lens numbers do interfere with the M8 and which don't so as to save many users a feeling of uncertainty. Teddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell Posted June 25, 2007 Author Share #25 Â Posted June 25, 2007 Gene and Teddy, your lenses focus down to .9 meter or to 1 meter? I just want to check out a theory that it's the .9 meter lenses that have the problem. My serial no. is 339xxxx Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted June 25, 2007 Share #26  Posted June 25, 2007 Gene and Teddy, your lenses focus down to .9 meter or to 1 meter? I just want to check out a theory that it's the .9 meter lenses that have the problem. My serial no. is 339xxxx  Mine focuses to 0.9 metres and has the problem. Ser. # 30515xx It's not possible to remove enough shroud without losing protection for the rear element.  Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell Posted June 26, 2007 Author Share #27 Â Posted June 26, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Gravastar, read the steps above I explain in this thread. You only need to file down a small portion. Then the protection remains in place. You only need to file out about 1cm worth of shroud. And to make it also mountable at inf you'd prob have to take out about 2.5 cm or so; which should still leave enough shroud for protection. FWIW, my 21mm f4 SA also doenst have any protection - but that's from the original design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpo Posted June 26, 2007 Share #28 Â Posted June 26, 2007 ??? http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/27581-summilux-35-canada-preasph-m8-focussing.html !!! By best regards Roberto Piero Ottavi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted August 17, 2010 Share #29  Posted August 17, 2010 From the M9 instruction book: – Some examples of the Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 (not aspherical, manufactured from 1961–1995, Made in Canada) cannot be fitted to the LEICA M9 or will not focus to infinity. Leica Customer Service can modify these lenses so that they can be used on the LEICA M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted August 17, 2010 Share #30 Â Posted August 17, 2010 That warning is also in the M8.2 manual. Interestingly, it's not in the M8 manual. I suppose that the problem had not been determined at the time that the M8 manual was written. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombii Posted August 19, 2010 Share #31 Â Posted August 19, 2010 Russell, I had one that was close to the same S/N as yours and it started binding at 10M. The binding wasn't the shroud to the body but the helical with the rangefinder coupling. You could see where the coupling arm had been rubbed. Sent it to Sherry Krauter and she wouldn't do it herself but wanted to send the lens and body to Leica NJ. I didn't want to send the body in since that was the only lens I'd had a problem with. If you haven't taken a close look at the coupling arm, you should. Â Rod Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted August 19, 2010 Share #32 Â Posted August 19, 2010 Had mine modified by CS in Solms and given a CLA at the same time. Works perfectly now. Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 20, 2010 Share #33 Â Posted August 20, 2010 Russell-- Just the title of the thread makes me feel faint. Â I didn't read the other posts for that reason, so I'm sure I'm just repeating here. Â If I'm not mistaken, all you need to do is send the lens to Leica to have the lens adjusted. Contact them and ask, before you start a diy lens destruction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted August 20, 2010 Share #34 Â Posted August 20, 2010 Russel. I have this same lens. I implore you to send to DAG in Wisconsin. The fee is very small to make the corrections. Most important is not just the filing down, but to test & calibrate the lens, which he does to perfection. You will lose good frames if you take a short cut. DAG is the best & although it may take some weeks to a month, when you get the lens back, it will be perfect. Mine is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etruscello Posted August 30, 2010 Share #35  Posted August 30, 2010 I can confirm, by mean of my experience, the superlative commentaries about Don Goldberg. He performed for me on my 35mm Lux pre-asph the very operation discussed here. The results were perfect: meticulously done, with no damage to the glass or body and, if anything, focus was enhanced as well as expanded to infinity! Good turn-around time and fair price. (He'll code it too, very professionally.) Send inquiry to dagcam@chorus.net . Tom  P.S. The 35 lux pre-asph is my favorite lens -- it's worth the fuss to prepare it for the digital M. It is the equal to any Leica wide-angle from f2.8 on. At f2 it matches the pre-asph Summicron (slightly weaker corners, which do not show up on the M8). And at f1.4 it produces, to my taste, the best bokeh of all Leica lenses. The f1.4 image IS sharp and contrasty, but unlike the lux asph creates a romantic glow and a sense of three-dimentionality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampguy Posted August 31, 2010 Share #36 Â Posted August 31, 2010 My 3,28x,xxx '83 or so Canadian one works fine. I guess they used different shrouds at different times during the long production. Â RichC - I don't think the infinity ones on the tab are rare, just a certain date/time range. A lot of folks have disabled them, or prefer the ones without it. It's kind of a unique thing though, I don't know of any other tabbed lenses that did infinity locking that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPH1962 Posted August 31, 2010 Share #37  Posted August 31, 2010 The very late ones such as the titanium ones that are made in germany (mine has 357xxxx) fit perfectly well on both M8 and M9 - nice lens in any case... and so small :-)  rgds  JPH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell Posted September 4, 2010 Author Share #38 Â Posted September 4, 2010 >look at the coupling arm Perhaps. I would have given this a look. Â >DAG I live in the UK so the postage and risk of having to prove back that I don't need to pay UK VAT when it's mailed back makes DAG tricky. Â re:screwing up my lens with DIY Yep. It was nerve wracking but I wanted to try. Also to save some money. Â What happened? It went back to Solms and they replaced the shroud and everything is normal now. This did cost something of course. The lens is fine with no scratches or anything(expect that good old half-moon flare you get when a direct light source is just out of frame; this you cannot get rid of!) Â re:titanium I'm dying to try a titanium side by side with my lens to see how they both handle the same flare conditions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted July 21, 2014 Share #39 Â Posted July 21, 2014 Has anyone noted if the M has the same interference problem with these 35 Luxes? I recently picked up a 1979 version that won't quite get to infinity on my M9, but I'm hoping to upgrade to the M before the year is over. I'm trying to decide if it's worth sending the lens for modification or just investing in the new body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted July 21, 2014 Share #40 Â Posted July 21, 2014 Has anyone noted if the M has the same interference problem with these 35 Luxes? I recently picked up a 1979 version that won't quite get to infinity on my M9, but I'm hoping to upgrade to the M before the year is over. I'm trying to decide if it's worth sending the lens for modification or just investing in the new body. Â Mine works fine on the M 240. I think the throat is a lot bigger and the interference is gone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.