Were wartime black Summarex lenses coated?

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 32 Minuten schrieb willeica:

The 'prototype' lens was marked and, indeed, advertised as a 9cm lens.

True, but it would appear from the above cited French language article that the size of the 'Summar 9cm' marked lens was exactly the same as that of the later Summarex and, further, that the 'Summar 9cm' marked lens was X-rayed and was determined to have the same optical layout and even lens curvatures as the later Summarex. That to me means that the 'Summar 9cm' marked lens was in fact a prototype of the later Summarex lens and had the same focal length as the Summarex. Ideally, of course, the original prototype test should be tested for its focal length, but I would be willing to bet high on its focal length being identical to the later Summarex.

Andy

[willeica]

11 minutes ago, wizard said:

True, but it would appear from the above cited French language article that the size of the 'Summar 9cm' marked lens was exactly the same as that of the later Summarex and, further, that the 'Summar 9cm' marked lens was X-rayed and was determined to have the same optical layout and even lens curvatures as the later Summarex. That to me means that the 'Summar 9cm' marked lens was in fact a prototype of the later Summarex lens and had the same focal length as the Summarex. Ideally, of course, the original prototype test should be tested for its focal length, but I would be willing to bet high on its focal length being identical to the later Summarex.

Andy

You could well be right. It does not really concern me what exact focal length it had. What the available evidence confirms is that such a prototype lens existed and it would have been referred to as a 9cm lens as that is how it was marked. I always try to deal with the available documented evidence. The documentation would include what was marked on the lens. I also have to assume that Thiele saw some documentary evidence for what is in his book. It is an amusing thought that Leitz eventually sold the 8.5cm lens to the Military by just changing the markings on the lens. Now, that would be a story and a half! 

William

[Advertisement]

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

[wizard]

vor 26 Minuten schrieb willeica:

What the available evidence confirms is that such a prototype lens existed and it would have been referred to as a 9cm lens as that is how it was marked.

William,

One of that prototype lenses, marked as a 'Summar 9cm' lens,  is shown in the above posted French language article next to two Summarex lenses. The 'Summar 9cm' marked lens (note that between the figures in the article it is incorrectly referred to as a Summarex lens, but it is clearly visible from the illustrated photograph that the lens on the right hand side is marked 'Summar 9cm'), apart from minor details such as a missing tripod mount, looks EXACTLY like the two Summarex lenses pictured next to it. Further, the article mentions in relation to this 'Summar 9cm' marked lens: Le cadrage est identique à la meme distance. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand this to mean that the field of view of the 'Summar 9cm' marked lens was found to be identical to the Summarex lens (at the same distance), which if true must mean that the focal lengths of those two lenses are in fact identical.

How Leitz sold the Summarex lens to the German army is beyond any of my knowledge though.

Andy

[zeitz]

For an f1.5 lens, the difference between 8.5cm and 9cm is such that a different thread pitch in the focusing mount would be needed for accurate rangefinder focusing.

[pippy]

26 minutes ago, wizard said:

...The 'Summar 9cm' marked lens...apart from minor details such as a missing tripod mount, looks EXACTLY like the two Summarex lenses pictured next to it...

Something I find interesting is that the aperture blades of the chrome-finish Summarex curve in the opposite direction to those seen in the other pair of lenses and, as might be expected taking this into consideration, the aperture itself closes-down in the opposite direction. Any particular reason for this change of orientation to the way the iris closes?

Philip.

Edited April 8, 2021 by pippy

[willeica]

33 minutes ago, wizard said:

William,

One of that prototype lenses, marked as a 'Summar 9cm' lens,  is shown in the above posted French language article next to two Summarex lenses. The 'Summar 9cm' marked lens (note that between the figures in the article it is incorrectly referred to as a Summarex lens, but it is clearly visible from the illustrated photograph that the lens on the right hand side is marked 'Summar 9cm'), apart from minor details such as a missing tripod mount, looks EXACTLY like the two Summarex lenses pictured next to it. Further, the article mentions in relation to this 'Summar 9cm' marked lens: Le cadrage est identique à la meme distance. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand this to mean that the field of view of the 'Summar 9cm' marked lens was found to be identical to the Summarex lens (at the same distance), which if true must mean that the focal lengths of those two lenses are in fact identical.

How Leitz sold the Summarex lens to the German army is beyond any of my knowledge though.

Andy

I am sure you are right, but if someone had handed me that lens (not ever having seen such a thing as an 8.5cm Summarex as it did not exist at that time) I would refer to it as a 9cm lens. Then there are the other two Summarex lenses listed by Thiele as 9cm and the 1943 Leitz brochure which shows a lens described as a 9cm Summarex.

I am not really that interested per se in the actual focal length of the lens in the article, but the story of how the issue with the German Military was resolved could be interesting. I can't wait to see the wrap up in Bill's article for LHSA Viewfinder.

William 

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I post below the original of the Summarex letter and the wartime delivery book that I was sent copies of.

Wilson

 

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!

[derleicaman]

41 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

I post below the original of the Summarex letter and the wartime delivery book that I was sent copies of.

Wilson

 

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!

Thanks for doing this for me Wilson. Can you also post the delivery record showing both pages? I asked Wilson to do this so you all could see the originals of these.

All of your input is very valuable to me, as I have been working on this article for some time. With some of the postings here, I am rethinking some of the points I was going to make in the article. Thank you all for that, and keep the comments coming!

You will note that the delivery record shows the lens number, the item in this case the SOOCX, the "B" notation indicating "Belag" or coated. It also shows the shipping date, who it was shipped to and the order number. Note that most of these lenses went to Berlin, with the order number 29777. Of special note is lens number 593 015. I believe the notation states is was a Summarex without focusing mount, please correct me if I am wrong. It also shows delivery to the Reichspost in Berlin on 6.7.43, with the order number 11643. Now what was this lens? What purpose did the Post have for a high speed lens without focusing mount? Keep in mind that the Reichspost was in charge of many research projects, many of them top secret. One of these projects was the nuclear weapons program! They also were in charge of developing broadcast television, which they did with the 1936 Olympics.

As they say, curiouser and curiouser!

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by derleicaman

[wizard]

vor 21 Minuten schrieb willeica:

I am sure you are right, but if someone had handed me that lens (not ever having seen such a thing as an 8.5cm Summarex as it did not exist at that time) I would refer to it as a 9cm lens. .....

I am not really that interested per se in the actual focal length of the lens in the article,

That's exactly what this is all about. Just like you, not knowing of any later Summarex 8.5cm lens, I would have referred to the Summar or Summarex lens as a 9cm lens, if it was marked and advertised as a 9cm lens (which it was). And I do not care that much about the focal length of those lenses either, but if it turns out (as evidenced by the quoted article) that their focal length was indeed the same, then this would be a strong indication that the 'Summar 9cm' marked lens (and also the 'Summarex 9cm' marked lens) was in fact a Summarex 8.5cm lens in disguise.

vor 23 Minuten schrieb wlaidlaw:

I post below the original of the Summarex letter and the wartime delivery book that I was sent copies of.

Thanks so much, William. This original contains significantly less typos, none of which alter the general meaning though. Interestingly, however, it is apparent from this original that the letter does not refer to 9cm lenses, but instead to the 9cm lens (singular). Whether this a pointer to the originally advertised 9cm Summar (or Summarex) lens is not clear, but it may well be (although the letter does not mention the focal length of the Summarex lenses that were actually ordered with order no. 4465). So in the end, Leitz may indeed have sold the same lens to the army by simply marking it as a 8.5cm lens! For what it is worth.

Andy

[wizard]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb derleicaman:

Of special note is lens number 393 015. I believe the notation states is was a Summarex without focusing mount, please correct me if I am wrong.

There is a typo in the lens number you quoted, it should be 593 015. And the comment "Summarex ohne Stutzen" means that a only a Summarex lens head was supplied to the Reichspost. Speculations abound!

Cheers,

Andy

[derleicaman]

2 minutes ago, wizard said:

There is a typo in the lens number you quoted, it should be 593 015. And the comment "Summarex ohne Stutzen" means that a only a Summarex lens head was supplied to the Reichspost. Speculations abound!

Cheers,

Andy

Thank you Andy, I just caught my typo and corrected it. I wonder why the Reichspost would have wanted a lens without the focus mount (ohne Stutzen)?

What is your take on the notation for 593 024?

Hopefully Wilson will post the other delivery page I sent him, which includes the facing page, going to 593 100. There are some other interesting things to be seen there.

[wizard]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb derleicaman:

What is your take on the notation for 593 024?

I tried to decipher that one even before you asked, but am unable to do so. It seems to be written in the old German script, which is hard to read for me (I was taught to read old German script only in my very first school year, and from then on the old German script was no longer taught in school).

[derleicaman]

4 minutes ago, wizard said:

I tried to decipher that one even before you asked, but am unable to do so. It seems to be written in the old German script, which is hard to read for me (I was taught to read old German script only in my very first school year, and from then on the old German script was no longer taught in school).

Alte Schrift gibt so viel schwierigkeit!

[wlaidlaw]

Here is the delivery page that Bill sent me. It arrived via email somewhat corrupted and as an enormous file with pages and pages of random numbers attached to it. I have run it through correction software and two different anti virus programs before I dared post it here. 

Wilson

 

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!

[derleicaman]

2 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

Here is the delivery page that Bill sent me. It arrived via email somewhat corrupted and as an enormous file with pages and pages of random numbers attached to it. I have run it through correction software and two different anti virus programs before I dared post it here. 

Wilson

 

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!

Thank you Wilson, I have no idea what might have happened to this file. Thanks for sorting that out! It's interesting to note some of the deliveries on page 2 here, some being delivered after the end of the war. In particular 593 072, which went to Leitz New York in 1949. I am working on getting better images of these first two pages to share here.

[wlaidlaw]

The Summarex head without mount for the Reichs Post Office could have been for use with a television camera. Cameras at that time moved the whole front panel to focus on the Vidicon type tube, so a focusing mount would not have been needed. However, a lens with the size of image circle of the Summarex would be overkill for the 17mm size of the head on the 405 line Vidicons in use at that time. 

Wilson

Edited April 8, 2021 by wlaidlaw

[UliWer]

I'd like to go back to the "Betriebsmitteilung Nr. 255" which quotes the letter from Berlin.

The letter from October 1942 made clear that the Summarex was needed for the "dark season" and therefore urged Wetzlar to get around quickly with the production of the lens - Winter was ahead. From the delivery register we learn that the first deliveries happened in July 1943 - so Wetzlar missed the aim by more than half a year.

Whilst the letter mentions No. 29841 as "unsere (our) Photo-Nr." the delivery register has No. 29777 in the column for "Autrag" (order) for all deliveries to Berlin. It may be that they used a byzantine system to number their orders for certain items and the 29777 did  mean the same as "Photo-Nr. 29841" but prima facie it looks as if the delivery fulfilled another order. 

After quoting the letter from Berlin, the "Betriebsmitteilung 255" asks for a careful examination of the matter and to give dates for delivery accordingly. So it would be interesting to find a document which answered this request. If such a document with an answer exists one should expect that it explains the reasons for the delay and perhaps also sheds some light on changes for the lens in the early stage of production. 

 

[willeica]

53 minutes ago, UliWer said:

I'd like to go back to the "Betriebsmitteilung Nr. 255" which quotes the letter from Berlin.

The letter from October 1942 made clear that the Summarex was needed for the "dark season" and therefore urged Wetzlar to get around quickly with the production of the lens - Winter was ahead. From the delivery register we learn that the first deliveries happened in July 1943 - so Wetzlar missed the aim by more than half a year.

Whilst the letter mentions No. 29841 as "unsere (our) Photo-Nr." the delivery register has No. 29777 in the column for "Autrag" (order) for all deliveries to Berlin. It may be that they used a byzantine system to number their orders for certain items and the 29777 did  mean the same as "Photo-Nr. 29841" but prima facie it looks as if the delivery fulfilled another order. 

After quoting the letter from Berlin, the "Betriebsmitteilung 255" asks for a careful examination of the matter and to give dates for delivery accordingly. So it would be interesting to find a document which answered this request. If such a document with an answer exists one should expect that it explains the reasons for the delay and perhaps also sheds some light on changes for the lens in the early stage of production. 

 

A file of papers from either side of the conversation would be useful, but such is unlikely to emerge at this stage. The delivery was 9 months after the letter, so it would not be surprising if the Order No changed.  It is clear that lenses designated as 9cm f 1.5 Summar/Summarex did exist. The remaining interesting question is whether the Military got any such lenses and tested them and if the results of the tests caused any design or designation changes by the Leitz team in Wetzlar. Therefore, any delivery details about 541000, 541056 and 540058, the Muster lenses, would be most useful in the absence of fuller details from contemporary sources.

William

[willeica]

Received from Lars Netopil overnight. I have added some notes of my own below

"First prototypes seem to have been 9 cm and Summar, the 9 cm Summarex (like in the 1943 brochure) and then 8,5 cm Summarex. 

 

The 541.056 one in the Lager book as well as in the french magazine is the only one I know that is marked Summar. I know Summarex 9 cm No. 541.021. 

 

The lens in the 1943 brochure is rather a drawing than a photograph, at least a strong retouche (as usual in those days). The serial number can not clearly be read, becoause part of it is covered by the front element itself. So this could be 541.000, or also 541.0xx and „x“ could stand for any number that has a closed round on its bottomside, like 0, 3, 5, 6, or 8 - see the scan in Jims Vol. II (lenses) on page 71. 

 

The Wilhelm Albert diary „Geburtstage…“ dates the first sample of a Summar(ex) lens with October 04th 1940. At that stage, I am sure there was no coating. Also not experimentally. But 1943 sure!"

 

1. Summarex 9cm 541021 is not in Thiele's book, but Lars must be aware of it being in a private collection. He is very precise about such details.

2. The picture of the Summarex 9 cm (and this description is printed underneath) in the Leitz 1943 brochure is clearly a retouched photo.

3. I have shown an example here before where a photo of a Summitar was retouched as a Summicron in a later Leica manual, without even changing the serial number!

4. Lars is clear and unambiguous about the coating issue which was the original subject of this thread.

5. I asked Lars about what was in the Museum, but he did not add to what is already in his book 'Museum Leica' which I mentioned yesterday.

6.Lars did not mention the actual focal length issue, but appears to accept the marked figures in his response above.

7. I have not heard from Jim Lager, but I know that Bill Rosauer will be talking to him, particularly about what is on page 71 of his book which shows photos of the 9cm Summar.

8. We need to add 541021 to 541000, 541056 and 541058 in the list of lenses for which delivery details are required.

 

We have certainly added to the amount of knowledge about these lenses by putting our heads together here, but definitive answers on some of the points lie still in the mists of time.  Hopefully something will turn up to clear those mists. 

 

William

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by willeica

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wizard]

William,

Thank you very much for sharing this information. One of the questions that still remain unanswered is whether the 9cm prototypes marked as 'Summar' and 'Summarex', respectively, had a different focal length than the later Summarex 8.5cm lenses. The answer to that question is important, as it would likely answer the question whether there was a change in the optical formula from the 9cm prototype lenses to the later 8.5cm lenses, which resulted in the different focal length. On the other hand, if the focal length of the 9cm marked lenses and the later 8.5cm lenses were identical, this would allow to draw the conclusion that the optical fomula was not altered (which, of course, would then give rise to the question why the early prototype lenses were marked 9cm, when in fact they had the same focal length as the later lenses). A definitive answer may only be reached by someone having access to one of the 9cm marked prototype lenses as well as, for comparison purposes, to a regular Summarex lens.

Best,

Andy