35mm Summilux Pre-Asph Questions

[blackdot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used this lens years ago on film, but stupidly sold it. Just ordered another one, but unfortunately it does not have the hood. Back in the day, the only way to mount a UV filter was to use the hood, but has anyone come up with a simple filter adapter since then? I ordered one of the new Chinese replicas, but if there is something lower profile, that would be nice.

 

Also, is there a way to identify which Canadian lenses do not work on the digital bodies (specifically M246) by serial number or other outward sign?

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

This is one of my longer use lens with love/hate periods.

Purchased, sold so many times as many of us.

Some ideas...

- we can use filter E49 in the 12504, in place of Serie VII

- I managed to use 12524 ( Wiki M lens hoods ) square plastic hood when I don't use filter (no filter thread on the lens) ,with some "customizations" :

a . rubber ring to prevent turning as the 35 Summilux lacks cut-out of the Summicron IV,

b . I've seen some vigneting at corners, so I filed inside of hood 4 corners

c . not to have VF blockage, I drilled a hole at corner as seen on some modern hoods

- 1 meter close focus limit can be or not limiting factor

- at f/1.4-2 this lens is very flarey (hood can not help ! ) so I use without hood in most cases

😇

more fun with other 35mm lenses ...

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/302110-two-35mm-lenses/?do=findComment&comment=3831095

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/256126-35-summilux-pre-asph-vs-35-summicron-pre-asph-vs-35-summicron-asph-2016-edition/?do=findComment&comment=2977909

 

[Raymondl]

9 hours ago, blackdot said:

I used this lens years ago on film, but stupidly sold it. Just ordered another one, but unfortunately it does not have the hood. Back in the day, the only way to mount a UV filter was to use the hood, but has anyone come up with a simple filter adapter since then? I ordered one of the new Chinese replicas, but if there is something lower profile, that would be nice.

 

Also, is there a way to identify which Canadian lenses do not work on the digital bodies (specifically M246) by serial number or other outward sign?

 

 

I have this lens. I purchased this back in 2017 for what I thought was a decent price. I don’t understand why it has gone up so much since then. 
 

back to the question. 
 

My lens came with the series 7 filter and hood. Looking online for a reasonable replacement I came across this - https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Metal-Lens-Hood-for-Leica-12504-Summilux-Summicron-M-35mm-1-1-4-1-2-Lens-Black/152375063917?hash=item237a42f56d:g:KecAAOSwgZ1XrHu9

Did you order a hood with the ability to accept series 7 filters ? 

As for a series 7 filter replacements I found this thread - 

 

my issue now is my lens hood + filter is fairly expensive to replace (if I lose it)... 

 

[luigi bertolotti]

10 hours ago, blackdot said:

Also, is there a way to identify which Canadian lenses do not work on the digital bodies (specifically M246) by serial number or other outward sign?

 

By serial number, is impossible... the problem (common to all digital M) is in this black baffle :

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!

Which on some items, on a very wide span of Canada items (from 60's to 90's) is shaped so that prevents to focus at infinty (not on the depicted item) ... it can easily be filed to fix the issue : even a do it yourself job provided that one protects correctly the back glass and pays attention to metal dust. 

6 bit coding is doable.. even if the mount is not interchangable... I didn't paint my item, though... (tried on another lens and resulted a "dirty job",, but with right products and  right tools one can achieve a good result)

Btw... old lenses like mine have the plus of a std. E41 filter thread... 😉 and the OLLUX is very well made hood

Edited November 7, 2020 by luigi bertolotti

[Pyrogallol]

I bought one recently and posted a few test pictures here.

I found a battered but reasonably priced 12504 hood on the bay of e, a Chinese copy would probably have been just as good.

 

Edited November 7, 2020 by Pyrogallol

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I have one that I purchased back in the 1970's (for around $300), I had always used a slipon series 6 filter adapter and had amodified 12585 lens shade. When a couple of years ago I looked for the proper lens shade 12504, I was surprised that the Leica ones were going for $200 and more. I did find a Chinese copy for $40, not Leica construction but works. I have series 7 filters which it was made for, but I also use 49mm filters. One problem is my infrared 49mm doesn't fit well and I have to be careful when setting it up as the thereads barely connect.

[blackdot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

By serial number, is impossible... the problem (common to all digital M) is in this black baffle :

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!

Which on some items, on a very wide span of Canada items (from 60's to 90's) is shaped so that prevents to focus at infinty (not on the depicted item) ... it can easily be filed to fix the issue : even a do it yourself job provided that one protects correctly the back glass and pays attention to metal dust. 

6 bit coding is doable.. even if the mount is not interchangable... I didn't paint my item, though... (tried on another lens and resulted a "dirty job",, but with right products and  right tools one can achieve a good result)

Btw... old lenses like mine have the plus of a std. E41 filter thread... 😉 and the OLLUX is very well made hood

The depth of the baffle roughly matches the photos of the one I bought, so maybe I'm ok!

 

59 minutes ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

I have one that I purchased back in the 1970's (for around $300), I had always used a slipon series 6 filter adapter and had amodified 12585 lens shade. When a couple of years ago I looked for the proper lens shade 12504, I was surprised that the Leica ones were going for $200 and more. I did find a Chinese copy for $40, not Leica construction but works. I have series 7 filters which it was made for, but I also use 49mm filters. One problem is my infrared 49mm doesn't fit well and I have to be careful when setting it up as the thereads barely connect.

If the slip on S-VI adapter works, then that it a very cheap solution! I even have a Leica UV for S-VI from an old Leicaflex lens.Ordered.

 

 

4 hours ago, Raymondl said:

I have this lens. I purchased this back in 2017 for what I thought was a decent price. I don’t understand why it has gone up so much since then. 
 

back to the question. 
 

My lens came with the series 7 filter and hood. Looking online for a reasonable replacement I came across this - https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Metal-Lens-Hood-for-Leica-12504-Summilux-Summicron-M-35mm-1-1-4-1-2-Lens-Black/152375063917?hash=item237a42f56d:g:KecAAOSwgZ1XrHu9

Did you order a hood with the ability to accept series 7 filters ? 

As for a series 7 filter replacements I found this thread - 

 

my issue now is my lens hood + filter is fairly expensive to replace (if I lose it)... 

 

I ordered the same Chinese hood as in your link. I wonder if it also takes 49mm like the original?

Edited November 7, 2020 by blackdot

[tommonego@gmail.com]

All the 49mm filters I have except the IR fit fine in the Chinese lens shade. I have a new B+W IR blocking filter for my M8 that just slides in. 

[blackdot]

1 minute ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

All the 49mm filters I have except the IR fit fine in the Chinese lens shade. I have a new B+W IR blocking filter for my M8 that just slides in. 

That's good news! I may have an extra B+W UV in that size somewhere.

[farnz]

4 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Btw... old lenses like mine have the plus of a std. E41 filter thread... 😉 and the OLLUX is very well made hood

I had assumed that the OP's question was about the 35/1.4 Summilux pre-asph 'version 2' (serial no. > 2,166,701)* but since Luigi has mentioned the OLLUX are we talking about the 35/1.4 Summilux pre-asph 'version 1' (serial no. < 2,166,701)* since the OLLUX does not fit the version 2?

*'Laney': Leica Accessory Guide 2nd Edition; June 2002 ISBN 1-87-47-07-26-X; Pub: Hove Collectors Books

Pete.

[luigi bertolotti]

1 hour ago, farnz said:

I had assumed that the OP's question was about the 35/1.4 Summilux pre-asph 'version 2' (serial no. > 2,166,701)...

*'Laney': Leica Accessory Guide 2nd Edition; June 2002 ISBN 1-87-47-07-26-X; Pub: Hove Collectors Books

Pete.

Yes me too assumed this... but the "baffle issue" is indeed common to both versions (but not present, afaik, in the last "made in Germany" items)

[UliWer]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb blackdot:

...

Also, is there a way to identify which Canadian lenses do not work on the digital bodies (specifically M246) by serial number or other outward sign?

I don‘t think you can identify by numbers whether a certain lens has the problems with the „baffle“ described by Luigi above. You have to try with your camera.

There are differences between the digital M camera bodies. My canadian Summilux No. 3081435 does not work properly with the M9, but it does with the M10 and M10 Monochrom. The M10 - with a slimmer body - has a protruding bayonet ring, which the other digital bodies don‘t have. This helps, though I‘d recommend to try even with an M10 body before buying the Summilux. (Same with the dual scale 50mm Summicron).

It is said that the later Leitz Wetzlar examples of the Summilux don‘t have the problem. I was looking for a long time to find one, but was reluctant since they are rarer and more expensive (the Summilux already being way too expensive on the second hand market...), so I was happy to find a Candian version which works with the M10. 

[blackdot]

Just now, UliWer said:

I don‘t think you can identify by numbers whether a certain lens has the problems with the „baffle“ described by Luigi above. You have to try with your camera.

There are differences between the digital M camera bodies. My canadian Summilux No. 3081435 does not work properly with the M9, but it does with the M10 and M10 Monochrom. The M10 - with a slimmer body - has a protruding bayonet ring, which the other digital bodies don‘t have. This helps, though I‘d recommend to try even with an M10 body before buying the Summilux. (Same with the dual scale 50mm Summicron).

It is said that the later Leitz Wetzlar examples of the Summilux don‘t have the problem. I was looking for a long time to find one, but was reluctant since they are rarer and more expensive (the Summilux already being way too expensive on the second hand market...), so I was happy to find a Candian version which works with the M10. 

The seller told me it works fine on his M10, and from the pictures, the baffle does not look especially deep, so it will probably be ok on the M246. I'll find out soon!

[UliWer]

Please be careful! As far as I know the M246 has no protruding ring for the bayonet like the M10. So I don‘t find a reason why your lens should work properly - unless it is altered.

[luigi bertolotti]

Surely this issue has been discussed in depth in the forum...don't remember when but probably 10 years ago or similar 🙄 (I seem was still when I had M8...) but I remember that some people did report how they solved the problem (which I think can still fixed by Leica CS - but probably at a no little cost... - my M240 manual says like this in the "lens compatibility" section)

Edited November 7, 2020 by luigi bertolotti

[blackdot]

38 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Please be careful! As far as I know the M246 has no protruding ring for the bayonet like the M10. So I don‘t find a reason why your lens should work properly - unless it is altered.

Of course! Close focus first, then slow turn to infinity..

[rcusick]

They do... I just sold the Pre-FLE and bought the FLE. 

Pre-FLE

• Very "Warm", classic rendering; at the same time doesn't scream "classic lens"; nice balance of old and new; medium contrast (again much better than classic lenses) 
• Nice bokeh
• Wide open not as sharp as more modern lenses; particularly in the corners
• I never witnessed focus shift, but I shoot either wide open or stopped down; I don't shoot at f2, f2.8
• A bit "front" heavy

FLE

• Very modern, clean and transparent; LESS contrast than the Summicron APSH, but not by much; I actually really like that it seems less "harsh" than the Summicron
• SHARP AS TACK at every aperature
• Bokeh is great; if I was nit-picking, I might say its slightly more busy than the FLE
• I don't know if there's less focus shift (see above)
• Better balanced (due to floating lens elements)

[blackdot]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

Since the original post seems resolved, and since a lot of the people who answered seem very knowledgeable, may I dare to briefly and temporarily highjack the thread to ask if anyone can tell me the main differences between the 35mm Summilux ASPH pre FLE versus the most recent FLE version ? Do they render very differently ? 

Thanks in advance. 

Resolved indeed! Sidetrack all you like :).

 

I just got my old 'lux delivered, and it mounts fine and infinity is fine. Woo!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rcusick]

Reason I got rid of the FLE...

I decided to divide my lens "collection" along two different goals:

 

Vintage (mostly to shoot on my M4):

21mm CV 

35mm Cron v4 (for color)

35mm lux pre-apsh (for B&W)

50mm cron v4

90mm macro elmar

All are 39mm (so I carry only two filters at one time)

 

Modern (mostly to shoot on my m10R):

21mm Super Elmar

35mm FLE

50mm lux

75mm summarit

90mm elmarit

All are 46mm (so I carry only two filters at one time)

 

Make sense?  The Lux Pre-APSH was superfluous and also funded the purchase of the FLE.

 

 

[rcusick]

Yes and no... I've found that really sharp lenses - 35mm lux pre apsh, 35mm cron, 35mm summaron - retain their sharpness but still pale compared to modern lenses.  Less sharp lenses - 35mm cron v4 - where on my m10 I never noticed a difference with other vintage lenses - does look less sharp (but I usually can fix in LR).  Overall - sharpness differences are more pronounced (but then again - only people who stare at images time and time again would notice).

The big benefit is in contrast resolution.  I think there's about a stop or two of better contrast (particularly shadows) with the M10-R.  This really helps older single-coated lenses.

Overall - vintage lenses still look vintage (which I like sometimes).  The Cron V4 and 35mm pre still have their unique traits.  I accept that and embrace it when I'm in the mood.

What I really like about the FLE (verus the cron APSH) is how transparent it is.  It doesn't beat you over the head with its contrast like the Cron does (or the 35mm biogon for that matter).  Really sharp, transparent, amazing lens.   I was really surprised.