Jump to content

Are there notable optical/coatings differences between late & early serial numbers of R lenses? Did Leica make undocumented changes over the years?


Bigbuddha319

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So I've found some pretty good deals on the 50mm and 90mm Summicrons. They're in respectable condition, have clean optics, are 3-cam and the latest/2nd versions of the lenses, but have very early serial numbers (278xxxx and 283xxxx respectively).


 


According to this wiki: https://www.l-camera..._x_Focal_Length it would appear that those were in fact the first production year of the 50mm and 90mm summicrons making the ones I want to buy from 1976 and almost 40 years old.


 


So I was just wondering if people have ever noticed or if it's ever been reasonably inferred that the higher/later serial numbers of these lenses were improved over the years or had higher contrast, improved sharpness, etc.? Or if the the look and optics for the Leica R lenses were pretty consistent across their entire production span.  Besides the addition of ROM contacts, I assume no optical changes were made to the latest version of R lenses, but sometimes the dedicated lens community will notice otherwise.


 


For example, it was well documented that certain Contax Zeiss lenses that were made in the 90s which had later serial numbers were noticeably sharper than the ones that had earlier serial numbers from the 70s-80s (I'm not talking about AE vs. MM; merely certain lenses like the 50mm f/1.7 got sharper over the course of it's production life).


 


I just want to make sure that regardless of the serial number for theses lenses, assuming the optics and body are in good condition, that I will be able to get the same image quality from an early serial numbered lens as a late one. So basically, assuming you had a mint copy of a 50mm summicron from the 70s and a mint copy from the late 90s, pictures taken with the two lenses should look practically identically in terms of color, sharpness, CA, etc.?


 


Thank you!!


Edited by Bigbuddha319
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The short answer is that lenses of different batches are optically identical but not do not provide identical rendering.

 

As usual with any similar product, the manufacturer never shares the naked truth.

 

You have two factors which differ in the optical formula:

1- The glass batch is different as well as the cooling and all the low end process

2- The coating is different

 

So although the formula remains the same, for anal people like myself, there are in certain cases, a perceptible difference in lenses produced at different times.

For example, I draw your attention to an old lens artifact which does not exist anymore such as glass bubbles.

At the time pre early 80's, this was considered as a plus point for lenses and even mentioned as such by Leica.

 

I have the same focal length lens of different eras and I prefer the old one with a bubble. The Lux 80 comes to mind and I prefer the version with a sweet bubble!

As a matter of fact I collect a certain range of Leica R glass in duplicate - triplicate and quadruplicate. They all have the same formula but different renders.

 

I repeat, this is being anal about the issue and by and large, such differences go unnoticed by the majority of photographers with only few arguing which year batch produces the best render.

These are endless argument similar to vintage wine or cars collectors and others.

 

If the render is good, then the lens is good.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Leica changed coatings over the years, as did all other lens makers, as multi-coating technology changed. I remember reading in one of the Leica magazines about Leica engineers comparing images on some R lenses when considering new multi-coating, and noting the improvement in flare. That was several years after I bought my Leicaflex SL in 1969, and I remember thinking the 50 Summicron could use the improvement in some lighting conditions.

However, that original Summicron is still excellent, and compares well in sharpness to the later model I have. Differences are subtle, not drastic.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end it's the photographer that matters most especially for portrait photography, light and composition and model are 1000% more important than the camera/gear that is used...

 

In general I try to get later serial numbers simple because I prefer the modern glass... I have a 1990's Summilux-R 80mm that is simply great, don't think the tiny difference with a pre 1980 model would even show in print. OR would even be distinghuised.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you guys have said is correct, but I would to add that it has to be considered sample variation too... two lenses from different years may render differently one from each other because of subtle modifications of glass formulas and coating, yes, but also because there was - and still there is today - a bit of sample variation between every copy of a lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I once saw a comparison between two copies of the 80 Lux. One came from the Wetzlar era and the other Solms, roughly 10-15 years apart in production year. The pictures were shot on the same roll of slides. Which is to say a fair comparison.

 

There was no difference in sharpness or resolution, but the wetzlar copy was noticeably warmer by I'd day 200 degrees kelvin. Not mistakeable side by side but nothing that can't be equalised in post production. Also, the solms copy showed greater transmission of highlight details where in the same places the wetzlar is slightly fuller. I did prefer the look of the wetzlar at the time as I thought the warmth of the images went well with the mandler look.

 

This was years ago on a web site dedicated to Leica discussions which no longer exists. The author speculated it was due to costing changes. And indeed coatings on the two copies showed different colors in the reflection which of course means they were letting slightly difference proportions of different Color frequencies pass through. Newer Leica coatings are known to be more magenta in color and is mixed slightly different from one lens model to the next to achieve some target color neutrality. Erwin Puts reported the values for a few lenses somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have noticed differences in older and newer versions of the R lenses. I have older and newer copies of the last version of the 50 2.0 and also the 80 1.4. The newer versions were both ROM lenses made in Germany and the older ones were both made in Canada. In both instances, the Canada versions perform much better in Infrared and the German versions are better with visible light. I believe the optical formulas are identical, so it must be the coatings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No issues on the 90s. But on the 50s there may be differences, as both version I and II were manufactured manufactured with in 3 cam configurations, so not sure which version you are asking about, According to Doug Herr version II had better coatings hence better flare control, less field curvature, and better contrast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...