Difference in quality between Leitz Canada and German lenses?

[nwphil]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 9, 2019 by nwphil

[RexGig0]

I “voted” with my wallet, confidently buying a Leica Canada Elmarit-M 28mm version III, recently. The Mandler design and visual signature were the real reasons, but the C-A-N-A-D-A on the lens’ face seems to add to the “cool” factor, rather than detract from it. 😀

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

On 10/9/2019 at 1:03 AM, pedaes said:

You need to delve into the history, but I think Canada probably offered financial incentives and Leica had a strong US base in the New York Office. This then starts to broaden, and you ought to learn how the Leica family managed to get Jewish workers out of Germany during WWII by 'transfering' them to the NY Office. Google "Leica Freedom Train". 

Not only that, but the setting up of a second facility was meant to secure the survival of the company in case of a nuclear war as Russia and the USA had designated NorthWest Europe as a Nuclear battlefield. Canada was simply a safer place. Key personnel was transferred as well. Paranoia of the times, but probably justified. 

[EddieJ]

19 hours ago, adan said:

I actually actively look for Canadian lenses from the peak (1977-1985) of the Mandler Era. I really like their rendering, and I've never had one break in 20 years. I did buy a 35 Summicron v.4 that already had the "unscrewing front" problem - but it was a complete non-issue unless one was silly enough to grab the lens hood only to mount/unmount the lens.

1) Leitz built a factory in the Western Hemisphere in 1952 primarily because the Wetzlar factory was dead in the sights of any Warsaw Pact invasion of West Germany, only about 100km/60 miles from the Fulda Gap through which Eastern-Bloc tanks could travel easily, and quite close to the major US command/air base at Rhein-Main (Frankfurt) - a prime target. They needed a back-up plan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap

A lot of the Midland employees were - German. Including the "Three Walters" who managed the installation.

Of note, all of North America (including Canada and Mexico) has generally been 28% or less of Leica's global market. They did not want to be close to the U.S. especially - they just wanted to be far away from Russia and East Germany.

2) Leitz chose Midland because the town did offer to pay for the factory - but also because it was in a non-nuclear country and somewhat remote. Not worth an H-bomb by itself. (Leitz was engaged in some military optics production during the Cold War - it's still in use as a part of Raytheon https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/optical_tech )

3) It is true that part of how ELC persuaded ELW to approve continued production of the M system after the M5 fiasco (1976-77) was by rationalizing the manufacturing overall (i.e. figuring out how to keep the price relatively competitive). The "reborn" M4-2 was simplified and made with revised materials (zinc top/bottom plates, rougher-but-tougher steel gears in place of brass, deletion of self-timer). And as camera production started up there were some QC problems (lenses had been the primary product of ELC). That is part of where the myth about "Canadian quality" comes from.

4) It is also true that production of the Mandler designs transferred back to Germany once the Solms factory was built, thus the "German" versions of the same lenses are also generally about 5-10 years younger. Wear and tear is wear and tear.

I do think some of the comments above reflect a general lack of knowledge about Leitz/Leica's actual history in the face of world events. In the Canadian era:

5) Leitz/Leica was not all that much of a premium brand, and rangefinders in particular were rapidly falling out of fashion, marketing-wise. SLRs were King of the Mountain. They were simply a German optics company trying to stay afloat (and very nearly not making it - several times) in the face of rising Japanese competition.

6) "Summarits" did not exist at all except for the tail end of the 50mm f/1.5 production in the 1950s. Today's Summarits didn't exist until 2007 or so. The "entry level" Leica M lens (to the extent that Leica produce "entry-level" at all) from 1960 until the mid-1990s (revival of the f/2.8 Elmar), was the 50mm Summicron. Leitz began building it "cheaper" even in Germany (the revised late-1960s-70s 6-element versions replacing the 1950s "Rigid" 7-element).

7) The era happened to coincide with the need to revamp wide-angles for the prospect of use with ttl metering. That is to say, retrofocus designs that left room for a metering arm or metering sight-line to the shutter (or SLR mirror), behind the rear element. It was a new ball game for Leitz to work with such designs, and the early efforts done in-house, and not by Minolta or Schneider, were - how shall I say this - less than optimal wide-open (21 and 28 Elmarit M, 28/35 Elmarit/Summicron R - nevertheless I never use anything but the 21 Elmarit). But that was a function of the time, not the place.

Fascinating story.

Excellent background and thank you for sharing. Do you have any links for further reading?

Prior to getting my M4 BP I was looking at a M4-P with 50f2 70th Anniversary kit, beautiful condition.

https://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Leitz/M4-P-70-Jahre-(70th-Anniversary).html 

During my research I came across this site http://nemeng.com/leica/002bc.shtml I sought advice from many colleagues and the majority of the comments centred around Germany v Canada build quality. What do you want to have hanging around your neck: Leica Germany or Leica Canada etc... Much of this I felt was brand snobbery, the brand of camera and its inclusivity with street photography. Indeed I was razzed.

However the Leica M rangefinder I started with the M4 BP I found to be an incredibly manufactured piece of beauty. Deft and weight the black lacquer *warm to hold, my only 2 lenses a 50 Summilux *non-coded and 35 Summicron ASPH *coded exquisite to hold, focus and adjust the aperture. My user M6 black chrome feels like an old friend *the ashen finish only equal to a single malt scotch ... so beautiful to hold and shoot with.

Ok enough now.

 

If you can post anything further re ELCAN, Cheers.

 

 

[Stein K S]

1 hour ago, EddieJ said:

Fascinating story.

Excellent background and thank you for sharing. Do you have any links for further reading?

Prior to getting my M4 BP I was looking at a M4-P with 50f2 70th Anniversary kit, beautiful condition.

https://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Leitz/M4-P-70-Jahre-(70th-Anniversary).html 

During my research I came across this site http://nemeng.com/leica/002bc.shtml I sought advice from many colleagues and the majority of the comments centred around Germany v Canada build quality. What do you want to have hanging around your neck: Leica Germany or Leica Canada etc... Much of this I felt was brand snobbery, the brand of camera and its inclusivity with street photography. Indeed I was razzed.

However the Leica M rangefinder I started with the M4 BP I found to be an incredibly manufactured piece of beauty. Deft and weight the black lacquer *warm to hold, my only 2 lenses a 50 Summilux *non-coded and 35 Summicron ASPH *coded exquisite to hold, focus and adjust the aperture. My user M6 black chrome feels like an old friend *the ashen finish only equal to a single malt scotch ... so beautiful to hold and shoot with.

Ok enough now.

 

If you can post anything further re ELCAN, Cheers.

 

 

Your description sound like... well; true sincere passion! Thanks 😄

[adan]

2 hours ago, EddieJ said:

Fascinating story.

Excellent background and thank you for sharing. Do you have any links for further reading?

Mostly I've just "absorbed" that information from many sources over the years, discussion of products and their origins - and having lived through part of it. But the book 50 Years Leica M, by Gunther Osterloh (HEEL, 2004) summarizes it well.

(The book price astounds me - I was given my copy by my Leica rep a few years ago!) https://www.amazon.com/50-Years-Leica-German-English/dp/3898803538

But this link covers the same ground with some additional material:

http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-very-important-part-of-leica-history.html

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Everybody,

1 of the ways that there is no difference between Leitz in Germany & Leitz in Canada is in the number of letters in their respective City's names: "Midland" and "Wetzlar" both have 7 letters. This can be of some importance when engraving lenses & some other pieces of equipment.

Best Regards,

Michael

[egrossman]

1 hour ago, adan said:

Mostly I've just "absorbed" that information from many sources over the years, discussion of products and their origins - and having lived through part of it. But the book 50 Years Leica M, by Gunther Osterloh (HEEL, 2004) summarizes it well.

(The book price astounds me - I was given my copy by my Leica rep a few years ago!) https://www.amazon.com/50-Years-Leica-German-English/dp/3898803538

But this link covers the same ground with some additional material:

http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-very-important-part-of-leica-history.html

Although I live in San Francisco, I just ordered the book from Amazon.co.uk for about $42 (used, but like new).

[luigi bertolotti]

15 hours ago, jaapv said:

Not only that, but the setting up of a second facility was meant to secure the survival of the company in case of a nuclear war as Russia and the USA had designated NorthWest Europe as a Nuclear battlefield. Canada was simply a safer place. Key personnel was transferred as well. Paranoia of the times, but probably justified. 

Also, US Army was a good potential Customer (and it was, indeed) , and a facility based in Canada was surely of help to be qualified as a trustable source… and after many years, the former E.Leitz Canada is still today a manufacturer for military gear (and keeps the "ELCAN" brand)

[derleicaman]

Adan has done a good job of summing up the history of E Leitz Canada and Wetzlar. I was acquainted with both Mandler and Walter Kluck, who was the head of ELCAN, as they were featured guests at several LHSA meetings. Both of them had many interesting stories to tell us in attendance. While most know of Mandler and his legacy of wonderful Leica lenses, Walter Kluck is not as well known.

Leica was on the rocks after the failure of M5 and SL2, and Wetzlar was ready to throw in the towel on the M series. Kluck single handedly brought production of the M to Midland. Yes, things like the self-timer disappeared as a cost saving measure. The official story was there was no room for the mechanism in the body to accommodate the Leica Motor. This was hogwash as I have an M4-P prototype with self-timer in my collection. When I showed it to Kluck he admitted it was eliminated for cost savings.

It is a fading memory of how Leica was on the brink for many years, really only turning around with the intro of the M9. I well remember being at a PMA show and had scheduled an interview with HP Cohn’s successor as CEO. All of a sudden, there was an uproar at the Leica stand as all of the German personnel left at once. The German banks had called in Leica’s loans and we all thought the company was done.

Over the years, many cost saving (making things cheaper) were done to help the company survive. The cast zinc top cover was one example. These came in with the later M4-P cameras and of course the M6. The fact was that the dies to form the brass top plates had worn out, and Leica could not afford to replace them. Cast zinc was a cost saving measure. Honestly, they were crap compared to brass, but at least they didn’t dent as easily. But there were also problems with the plating process, and this was the “bubbling” from the zinc oxidizing that occasionally occurred on both M and R top plates. 

Brass top plates returned with the later M6 cameras with the capability of milling them from brass billets with CNC machines. This made the LHSA Black Paint camera possible, as a black paint camera needs a brass shell to properly “brass” with wear for the desired patina.

Again, it wasn’t until Kaufmann came on the scene and the M9 was introduced that finally reversed Leica’s downward slide to oblivion.

Edited October 13, 2019 by derleicaman

[LocalHero1953]

Fascinating, thank you! I hope all this history is written down somewhere?

[Matlock]

42 minutes ago, derleicaman said:

The cast zinc top cover was one example. These came in with the later M4-P cameras and of course the M6. The fact was that the dies to form the brass top plates had worn out, and Leica could not afford to replace them. Cast zinc was a cost saving measure. Honestly, they were crap compared to brass, but at least they didn’t dent as easily. But there were also problems with the plating process, and this was the “bubbling” from the zinc oxidizing that occasionally occurred on both M and R top plates. 

 

Leica made quite a play of the fact that the zinc top plate didn't dent as easily as the brass ones (and that had been a problem at times), however if you have dented a top plate it is quite possible that more damage has been caused elsewhere. Marketing is a wonderful science. Whilst the "bubbling" certainly did occur it was relatively rare and I have never experienced it myself.

[AndreasG]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Matlock:

Whilst the "bubbling" certainly did occur it was relatively rare and I have never experienced it myself.

My experience is different, a 1985 R4s was sent twice to Wetzlar for a free replacement of the top cover but only a few years later again it looked like chicken pox and measles, I gave up then.

[Matlock]

1 minute ago, AndreasG said:

My experience is different, a 1985 R4s was sent twice to Wetzlar for a free replacement of the top cover but only a few years later again it looked like chicken pox and measles, I gave up then.

Fair comment, but we can only speak as we find.

 

[EddieJ]

4 hours ago, derleicaman said:

Adan has done a good job of summing up the history of E Leitz Canada and Wetzlar. I was acquainted with both Mandler and Walter Kluck, who was the head of ELCAN, as they were featured guests at several LHSA meetings. Both of them had many interesting stories to tell us in attendance. While most know of Mandler and his legacy of wonderful Leica lenses, Walter Kluck is not as well known.

Leica was on the rocks after the failure of M5 and SL2, and Wetzlar was ready to throw in the towel on the M series. Kluck single handedly brought production of the M to Midland. Yes, things like the self-timer disappeared as a cost saving measure. The official story was there was no room for the mechanism in the body to accommodate the Leica Motor. This was hogwash as I have an M4-P prototype with self-timer in my collection. When I showed it to Kluck he admitted it was eliminated for cost savings.

It is a fading memory of how Leica was on the brink for many years, really only turning around with the intro of the M9. I well remember being at a PMA show and had scheduled an interview with HP Cohn’s successor as CEO. All of a sudden, there was an uproar at the Leica stand as all of the German personnel left at once. The German banks had called in Leica’s loans and we all thought the company was done.

Over the years, many cost saving (making things cheaper) were done to help the company survive. The cast zinc top cover was one example. These came in with the later M4-P cameras and of course the M6. The fact was that the dies to form the brass top plates had worn out, and Leica could not afford to replace them. Cast zinc was a cost saving measure. Honestly, they were crap compared to brass, but at least they didn’t dent as easily. But there were also problems with the plating process, and this was the “bubbling” from the zinc oxidizing that occasionally occurred on both M and R top plates. 

Brass top plates returned with the later M6 cameras with the capability of milling them from brass billets with CNC machines. This made the LHSA Black Paint camera possible, as a black paint camera needs a brass shell to properly “brass” with wear for the desired patina.

Again, it wasn’t until Kaufmann came on the scene and the M9 was introduced that finally reversed Leica’s downward slide to oblivion.

Thank you for the update.

Interesting period of time. To see (read) that Kluck with that vision and foresight will forever be the person who oversaw the continuation of the Leica M.

[plasticman]

What an extraordinary thread.

A simple, factual question was asked, and essentially no-one answered it, but rather went off on an array of responses including taking offense or talking around the subject or pointing to other google results (which I'd already read) which didn't answer the question either.

I'm thinking about buying an older Summicron 50 - my current 50s are rendering a bit too 'modern' for my taste - so I'd just like to know: does the German-made Summicron in the version referred to in the original post have metal internal parts or not?

PS: For anyone who wants to tell me that "I shouldn't worry" etc - I should add that I had to have an expensive repair on my Summicron 35 because of exactly this problem.

Edited May 12, 2022 by plasticman

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, plasticman said:

does the German-made Summicron in the version referred to in the original post have metal internal parts or not?

Probably best to e-mail all known Leica service people, one of them probably knows.

[plasticman]

37 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Probably best to e-mail all known Leica service people, one of them probably knows.

This is a good tip, because scouring the internet for hard information renders no facts whatsoever - just a lot of people decrying the "snobbery" of anyone querying the quality of the Canadian lenses.

otoh I have a feeling the service people probably have better things to do than give me buying advice. 

I'll probably hedge my bets and buy a German version - but it goes against the grain to judge the Canadian lenses harshly without this simple fact being answered anywhere (as far as I can find). And for all I know the German lenses of this vintage may also have plastic internal parts. 

[logan2z]

1 hour ago, plasticman said:

And for all I know the German lenses of this vintage may also have plastic internal parts. 

I can't help but notice the irony of your user name here  

FWIW, I'm an ex-pat Canadian and, all else being equal, I'd choose the German lens over the Canadian lens.  For no other reason than, to my mind at least, Leica means 'Made in Germany'. Call me shallow...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

3 hours ago, plasticman said:

'm thinking about buying an older Summicron 50 - my current 50s are rendering a bit too 'modern' for my taste - so I'd just like to know: does the German-made Summicron in the version referred to in the original post have metal internal parts or not?

Probably metal.

However, the lens in the video is a 1980-ish Leica Summicron-M v.4 - which has exactly the same glass and optical formula as today's 50mm Summicron-M.

If you don't like today's 50 Summicron-M rendering, you probably will not see significantly "less modern" rendering by getting one made after 1980 in any country. With the caveats that the coatings have been upgraded, and, of course, that contrast-softening haze and dust are more likely to have accumulated in the earlier copies (Canadian or German).

If you really want "pre-modern" and "Made in Germany," you would need to look to the 50 Summicron v.3 (1969-1979). Designed by Walter Mandler, built in Wetzlar (although probably Canada as well). My 50mm v.3 (c.1970) is marked "Lens Made in Germany."

It was also an effort at cost-reduction over the 7-element 1950s-60s 50 Summicrons. However this image of the v.3 from our own Leica Wiki includes a cutaway, and I don't see any obvious plastic (unless it's painted to look like the aluminum - the yellow parts are the brass - mounting flange, focus cam, and focus helix) :

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

I've seen discussion of the v.3 (1969-79) compared to the v.4/5 (1980-today) in which the v.4/5 is described as producing "more wirey" imaging. (v.5 is the current lens since 1994, with built-in sliding lens hood - v.4 is the same glass without the sliding lens hood).

Here is a recent example from my v.3 on an M10 - at f/2.8.