Type 1, type 2 etc. ?

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, camera literature (like gun literature) is often sloppily written and full of factoids that get repeated across editions and titles. I try to get my facts right. This means that I have to collate information from several sources and do all the reality checks (i.e. looking at actual cameras and lenses) I can. I spent most of my working life, first as a historian, then as an editor of reference literature. I am probably a pervert of sorts ...

 

The old man from the Age of Printed Encyclopedias

[Advertisement]

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

[farnz]

Lars,

 

We are indebted to you.

 

Pete.

[fursan]

Lars,

 

We are indeed indebted to you. Thanks also to the kind folks who have taken of their

time to respond.

 

May the Light shine on you.

[luigi bertolotti]

Lars, you really posted a very well in depth history of the Lux... and I feel comforatble for You didn't blame me for having posted a little semiserious history on the same topic... based on real facts (as your post confirm) but maybe a little humorous and not so nice towards Leitz... really my rough statement "let's call 1,4 the old 1,5 design... who cares...." is someway exaggerated.. and probably really uncorrect (between my lenses, I have not a Summilux 1st design... Never tested if is really more luminous than Summitar... but after all I believe in what you've said...).

 

Stop here... moderators can really move all this to the Historical section... which of course I visit regularly...

[ho_co]

Lars--We are indebted to you.

And addicted.

 

Thanks very much for the Summilux info!

 

--HC

[adan]

Fursan: Back to your original question - a "for instance"

 

Back in the 1960's Leica made a 28mm Elmarit for the M cameras. It was a true symmetrical wide-angle lens that was very compact, and sat very deep inside the cameras (as opposed to the retrofocus design SLRs use to clear the moving mirror) That was version one of the 28 Elmarit.

 

When Leica first introduced ttl metering with the M5, this design would not allow metering, and could even break the camera if used without modification, so soon Leitz Canada designed a retrofocus 28 Elmarit that sat further forward in the camera, allowing room for the metering system. This was version 2.

 

But Leitz was still a bit inexperienced in retrofocus design, so V. 2 was a bit weak on corner resolution. By 1980, they had a new optical design, that was larger, but quite a bit better in the corners. This was V.3, also designed by the Canadian factory.

 

Once Leica began including 28mm lens frames in the viewfinder (with the M4-P) it became apparent that the V.3, while excellent optically, blocked a bit too much of the viewfinder, especially with the lens shade attached. So - back to the drawing board for v. 4, designed after the move to Solms, which was smaller and also added a bit more contrast to better match some of the other new designs being adopted.

 

Now we have version 5 of the 28 Elmarit - the E39 ASPH.

 

Every one of these lenses has subtle differences in how it draws an image on the sensor or film - as well as handling differences. Therefore it is often useful to know which "version" was used for any given picture. And since Leica has used the same name - Elmarit - for all the 28 f/2.8 designs, the only way to distinguish is by "version number".

 

Nikon, also, has had at least 3 28 f/2.8 lenses over the years - but since Nikon has also had additional designations, like: Nikkor-O, AI, AI-S, AF, AF-D, AF-S, people have tended to use those, rather than the optical version number, to make distinctions.

[fursan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Adan,

 

Thanks for that lucid explanation. I am begining to get it..I think!

 

Best.

[wlaidlaw]

Lars,

 

Another question to our resident lens history guru - I have been told that my 50mm f2 Summitar (late hexagonal diaphragm model serial 980100 - on my late father's IIF, bought new in New York in 1953) also contains some exotic element glass. Both Thorium and Lanthanum have been mentioned. Thorium would be interesting as it would mean that the lens would be radioactive, if not very dangerous (Thorium is an alpha particle emitter). It would seem to me that Leica revised the Summitar and almost immediately brought out the collapsible Summicron as a replacement - I am sure there must have been some logic behind it.

 

Wilson

[geoff]

FYI,

 

Dan Colucci of Antique & Classic Cameras has recently posted some fairly educational comparison pages detailing all of the different versions for the following Leica M lenses:

 

• 28mm Elmarit-M Lenses along with the 28mm Summicron-M ASPH
  
• 35mm Summicron-M Lenses
  
• 50mm Summicron-M Lenses
  

 

Information provided includes photos, serial number ranges, production dates, used prices and other interesting facts.

 

 

Geoff

myspace.com/geoffotos

[lars_bergquist]

Lars,

 

Another question to our resident lens history guru - I have been told that my 50mm f2 Summitar (late hexagonal diaphragm model serial 980100 - on my late father's IIF, bought new in New York in 1953) also contains some exotic element glass. Both Thorium and Lanthanum have been mentioned. Thorium would be interesting as it would mean that the lens would be radioactive, if not very dangerous (Thorium is an alpha particle emitter). It would seem to me that Leica revised the Summitar and almost immediately brought out the collapsible Summicron as a replacement - I am sure there must have been some logic behind it.

 

Wilson

 

The Summitar was launched in 1939 and contains no exotic glass, not even with lanthanum (which has no radioactive isotopes that I know of). I think that your source has confused the Summitar with the famous 'Summitar Star', which was actually a Summicron prototype in disguise. You know that automobile manufacturers do this sort of thing with test pre-production cars. So this was a prototype 1st version (collapsible) Summicron, engraved 'Summitar*'.

 

It is true that this prototype series used one rear element made from thorium-containing glass. It is also said that the rearmost element was of heavy lead glass, so that radiation from the collapsed lens would not fog the film! Star lenses were handed over to some professional photographers for testing, but they were returned to the factory afterwards, and the lens is now extremely rare. It is possible that certain very early screw thread production Summicron lenses from 1953 used this glass, but accounts differ. I do not know of any serious investigation – how would you round up all remaining 1953 Summicron lenses for testing? Rest assured however that no Summitar lens will ever set your smoke detector screaming.

 

The Summitar may look so-so in MTF graphs, but it was and is a useful lens. A recent issue of 'Viewfinder', the bulletin of the Leica Historical Society of America, carried a number of very nice pictures made on colour negative film in Summitar-equipped IIIf cameras by an American couple during a cruise on the Danube last year. Some fellow passengers asked "how many megapixels does it have?" The Summitar was actually marginally superior to the v.1 Summicron wide open! The advantage of the Summicron was that it was the world's first 'speed lens' that delivered results stopped down comparable to those of medium-speed lenses such as the Elmar.

 

The old man from the Age of the IIIa

[wlaidlaw]

The Summitar was launched in 1939 and contains no exotic glass, not even with lanthanum (which has no radioactive isotopes that I know of). I think that your source has confused the Summitar with the famous 'Summitar Star', which was actually a Summicron prototype in disguise. You know that automobile manufacturers do this sort of thing with test pre-production cars. So this was a prototype 1st version (collapsible) Summicron, engraved 'Summitar*'.

 

It is true that this prototype series used one rear element made from thorium-containing glass. It is also said that the rearmost element was of heavy lead glass, so that radiation from the collapsed lens would not fog the film! Star lenses were handed over to some professional photographers for testing, but they were returned to the factory afterwards, and the lens is now extremely rare. It is possible that certain very early screw thread production Summicron lenses from 1953 used this glass, but accounts differ. I do not know of any serious investigation – how would you round up all remaining 1953 Summicron lenses for testing? Rest assured however that no Summitar lens will ever set your smoke detector screaming.

 

The Summitar may look so-so in MTF graphs, but it was and is a useful lens. A recent issue of 'Viewfinder', the bulletin of the Leica Historical Society of America, carried a number of very nice pictures made on colour negative film in Summitar-equipped IIIf cameras by an American couple during a cruise on the Danube last year. Some fellow passengers asked "how many megapixels does it have?" The Summitar was actually marginally superior to the v.1 Summicron wide open! The advantage of the Summicron was that it was the world's first 'speed lens' that delivered results stopped down comparable to those of medium-speed lenses such as the Elmar.

 

The old man from the Age of the IIIa

 

Lars,

 

Thank you for that information - I have checked my Summitar and no star after the engraving unfortunately. Do you know therefore what Leica's purpose was in revising the Summitar so late into its life and was the hexagon diaphragm simply a cost saving exercise, applied to the same lens arrangement and formulation as before. I understand nearly all the post-war lenses like mine are coated but it was rather primitive in comparison to the contemporary Zeiss T coatings.

 

Wilson

[lars_bergquist]

Lars,

 

Thank you for that information - I have checked my Summitar and no star after the engraving unfortunately. Do you know therefore what Leica's purpose was in revising the Summitar so late into its life and was the hexagon diaphragm simply a cost saving exercise, applied to the same lens arrangement and formulation as before. I understand nearly all the post-war lenses like mine are coated but it was rather primitive in comparison to the contemporary Zeiss T coatings.

 

Wilson

 

Well, as I wrote, the Summitar Star was not a Summitar at all, but a disguised Summicron prototype. Leitz coating was not necessarily more primitive than what Zeiss did; Leitz had produced coated optics for the Wehrmacht since the early war years (including the 85mm 1.5 Summarex, in 1943) but Leitz did not find it necessary to trumpet the fact, as Zeiss did with their 'T' and later 'T*' engravings. But the hexagon diaphragm did really cut costs!

 

The old man from the Age of he Summitar

[jaapv]

Well, as I wrote, the Summitar Star was not a Summitar at all, but a disguised Summicron prototype. Leitz coating was not necessarily more primitive than what Zeiss did; Leitz had produced coated optics for the Wehrmacht since the early war years (including the 85mm 1.5 Summarex, in 1943) but Leitz did not find it necessary to trumpet the fact, as Zeiss did with their 'T' and later 'T*' engravings. But the hexagon diaphragm did really cut costs!

 

The old man from the Age of he Summitar

 

 

The process of lens coating was probably taken from the Dutch company Oude Delft in 1940, when the Germans overran the Netherlands. Theÿ perfected and patented a process of coating called "Delfineren"by which they would custom-coat lenses on an individual basis. These had exactly the same blue sheen the original Leitz and Zeiss coatings had.

[wlaidlaw]

The process of lens coating was probably taken from the Dutch company Oude Delft in 1940, when the Germans overran the Netherlands. Theÿ perfected and patented a process of coating called "Delfineren"by which they would custom-coat lenses on an individual basis. These had exactly the same blue sheen the original Leitz and Zeiss coatings had.

 

Hmmmm. Zeiss were coating lenses pre-war e.g. the military version of the 50mm Sonnar f1.5 but I understand the process was regarded as a military secret and these were not sold to the general public. They were however exhibited on a number of occasions, so the fact that they could produce coated lenses was in the public domain.

 

Zeiss were also producing coated lenses for use in military rangefinders. We had a 1938 vintage Busch-Zeiss artillery rangefinder in our physics lab at school some 40+ years ago. I seem to remember it had violet blue coloured lenses but of course they might have been fitted later.

 

Wilson