50mm Summilux-R 48mm filter size?

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently bought a seven-lens, two-body kit from an estate.  The lenses are all two-cam, and I'm figuring out the filter sizes... most are Series VI, VII, or VIII,  but the 50mm is a Summilux-R has thrown me a curve.  Looking at the L-Cam Wiki here it indicates that the serial range for this lens (24715xx) puts it right in the middle of the 1971 production run, three-cam lenses (although I see that it lists that there are two-cam variants) that apparently take an E55 filter.    As I said previously, it is a two cam lens and came with a 48mm UV haze filter on it.   Series VII is too big, and Series VI is too small, so it was obviously not set up for a Series filter...  and none of the Series filters are 48mm.

Can anyone shed light on what I have here?   Is it a unicorn?  Are there just gaps in the L-Cam wiki's data?  Anyone else have one of these?

Thanks! 

Edited March 9, 2022 by hepcat

[Ornello]

This lens (as well as the first 35mm Summicron-R, the second 35mm Elmarit-R, and first 28mm Elmarit-R) have pins on the side of the front flange that hold the lens hoods on. These hoods hold series 7 filters. The E48 filters screw in, and allow the hoods to be 'bayonetted' on. Essentially, E48 filters are the same outer diameter as series 7. The hoods have a little wheel on one side that allow you to spin series 7 polarizers. The 35mm lenses mentioned and the 28mm lens share the same lens hood. They all take the same cap, too.

https://picclick.fr/Leica-R-Elmarit-28mm-F28-11204-Boxed-Shp-233780321756.html#&gid=1&pid=1

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!

The 50mm allows the hood to be reversed, but only with no filter in place.

https://www.keh.com/shop/50-f1-4-summilux-3-cam-safari-ser-7-lens-1.html

Which lenses did you get?

Edited March 9, 2022 by Ornello

[wizard]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb Ornello:

This lens (as well as the first 35mm Summicron-R, the second 35mm Elmarit-R, and first 28mm Elmarit-R) have pins on the side of the front flange that hold the lens hoods on. ... The hoods have a little wheel on one side that allow you to spin series 7 polarizers.

My Elmarit-R 24mm is the same (pins on the lens and a little wheel on the hood).

[Ornello]

1 minute ago, wizard said:

My Elmarit-R 24mm is the same (pins on the lens and a little wheel on the hood).

But it's not the same size as the ones I mentioned. The 21mm has the pins too.

[wizard]

vor 20 Minuten schrieb Ornello:

But it's not the same size as the ones I mentioned.

+1. Just thought I mention it, as there are even more lenses with this type of construction. I believe the first version of the Macro-Elmarit-R 60 mm had those pins, too. Not sure about the filter size though.

[Ornello]

2 minutes ago, wizard said:

+1. Just thought I mention it, as there are even more lenses with this type of construction. I believe the first version of the Macro-Elmarit-R 60 mm had those pins, too. Not sure about the filter size though.

Si! The lenses I was discussing all take E48 screw-in or series 7 held in place by the hood, not retaining rings, as was the case with the first-generation lenses.

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

44 minutes ago, Ornello said:

This lens (as well as the first 35mm Summicron-R, the second 35mm Elmarit-R, and first 28mm Elmarit-R) have pins on the side of the front flange that hold the lens hoods on. These hoods hold series 7 filters. The E48 filters screw in, and allow the hoods to be 'bayonetted' on. Essentially, E48 filters are the same outer diameter as series 7. The hoods have a little wheel on one side that allow you to spin series 7 polarizers. The 35mm lenses mentioned and the 28mm lens share the same lens hood. They all take the same cap, too

 

The 50mm allows the hood to be reversed, but only with no filter in place.

Which lenses did you get?

Thank you SO much!  What I'm seeing now makes sense.   I appreciate your insight! 

I got an Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 with the pins (48mm) and a rectangular hood,  an Elmarit 35mm f/2.8 with hood (S VI), the aforementioned Summilux-R, an Emarit 90mm f/2.9, an Emarit 135 f/2.8 and an Elmarit 180mm f/2.8, all two-cam lenses.  The 28's barrel shows some bag wear.  The others look pretty much like new.  I bought them from the grandson of the original owner who bought them all new.  The kit also came  with Leicaflex SL and Leicaflex Standard bodies.  The SL is going to my repair guy this afternoon for an overhaul.  When It's done I'll exchange it for the Standard and let him do his thing with that as well.  I think I scored, all in all.  

I have a LOT of Nikon (film and digital) equipment I've acquired over the past couple of years including a Df.  I'm considering selling it all off,  just using this glass and these bodies, and picking up a used Leica SL for digital.  Quite honestly, I'd love an SL2 (or SL2-S) for the IBIS but I'm just not going to spend that much. 

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 March 9, 2022 by hepcat

[Ornello]

5 minutes ago, hepcat said:

Thank you SO much!  What I'm seeing now makes sense.   I appreciate your insight! 

I got an Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 with the pins (48mm) and a rectangular hood,  an Elmarit 35mm f/2.8 with hood (S VI), the aforementioned Summilux-R, an Emarit 90mm f/2.9, an Emarit 135 f/2.8 and an Elmarit 180mm f/2.8, all two-cam lenses.  The 28's barrel shows some bag wear.  The others look pretty much like new.  I bought them from the grandson of the original owner who bought them all new.  The kit also came  with Leicaflex SL and Leicaflex Standard bodies.  The SL is going to my repair guy this afternoon for an overhaul.  When It's done I'll exchange it for the Standard and let him do his thing with that as well.  I think I scored, all in all.  

 

These are all first-release lenses (1964), except the 28 and 50, which were designed in 1969-1970. The 28 and 50 were long-lived, but were eventually replaced with new designs. The 135 may be the second design, from 1968. The 180 was redesigned around 1980, and the 35mm was redesigned around 1975. The 90 was redesigned around 1983, I think.

[hepcat]

11 minutes ago, Ornello said:

These are all first-release lenses (1964), except the 28 and 50, which were designed in 1969-1970. The 28 and 50 were long-lived, but were eventually replaced with new designs. The 135 may be the second design, from 1968. The 180 was redesigned around 1980, and the 35mm was redesigned around 1975. The 90 was redesigned around 1983, I think.

Great info.  Thank you!  I find I prefer the rendering of lenses from that era.  The new stuff is just too clinical to suit my taste.

[Ornello]

27 minutes ago, hepcat said:

Great info.  Thank you!  I find I prefer the rendering of lenses from that era.  The new stuff is just too clinical to suit my taste.

Well, I have owned several of those lenses. The 50mm Summilux (the best of this lot) was and remains a splendid lens; I have the new one now (1998), and it is even more spectacular. The first version has a bit of vignetting (darkening in the corners) that is reduced in the second version (which cannot be used on the older Leicaflexes anyway, except the SL2, after the mount has been modified; it came with the ROM mount originally). The 135, if it is the second version from 1968, remained unchanged thereafter. The weakest lenses of that group would be the 35mm and the 180mm. The second version of the 180 is much, much smaller and lighter, and the optics are much improved. I have owned both, and there is no contest. The 35mm dates from 1964 too, and it was replaced with a much better lens. Both the 35 and 180 can be replaced with much better lenses without spending a whole lot of money. The 90mm is also a splendid lens. I used to own one. I would dump the 180 and 35, to be honest. The second version of the 35, in addition to improved optics, has the same filter set-up as the 50 and 28, so that's a big advantage.

Info on the 135:

First version:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/135mm_f/2.8_Elmarit-R_I

Second version:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/135mm_f/2.8_Elmarit-R_II

More info:

https://mbphotox.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/elmarit135/

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Ornello

[hepcat]

19 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Well, I have owned several of those lenses. The 50mm Summilux (the best of this lot) was and remains a splendid lens; I have the new one now (1998), and it is even more spectacular. The first version has a bit of vignetting (darkening in the corners) that is reduced in the second version (which cannot be used on the older Leicaflexes anyway, except the SL2, after the mount has been modified; it came with the ROM mount originally). The 135, if it is the second version from 1968, remained unchanged thereafter. The weakest lenses of that group would be the 35mm and the 180mm. The second version of the 180 is much, much smaller and lighter, and the optics are much improved. I have owned both, and there is no contest. The 35mm dates from 1964 too, and it was replaced with a much better lens. Both the 35 and 180 can be replaced with much better lenses without spending a whole lot of money. The 90mm is also a splendid lens. I used to own one.

Thanks for the tips!  This is all great info to have.  I appreciate you sharing it with me. 

I've been a working pro off and on since 1974.   What I've found over the years is that the benchmarks used for grading performance of a lens really doesn't make much of difference when examining or enjoying a post-processed (wet or digital) print.  There are SO many other factors that influence whether an image is 'good', 'mediocre', or 'spectacular' that in the long run, as long as the lens it competent to make the image, the lens itself is almost irrelevant.  Lens speed and focal length are, of course, important...  and you want quality glass to resolve well, but past that... there are so many variables that no one can tell what camera/lens combination made any particular image.  It's almost like the old adage:  "measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, and cut with an axe."   And sometimes the "flaws" in lens design contribute greatly to an image's character.  I love the rendering of the old CJZ P-6 lenses, for example.   I guess my point is that over these  many long years,  I've found most good quality lenses are more competent than I am.  

So I'll likely just soldier on with this set and not worry too much about finding the "improved" glass.  I'm looking forward to seeing how these lenses do for me.   😁

Edited March 9, 2022 by hepcat

[Ornello]

38 minutes ago, hepcat said:

Thanks for the tips!  This is all great info to have.  I appreciate you sharing it with me. 

I've been a working pro off and on since 1974.   What I've found over the years is that the benchmarks used for grading performance of a lens really doesn't make much of difference when examining or enjoying a post-processed (wet or digital) print.  There are SO many other factors that influence whether an image is 'good', 'mediocre', or 'spectacular' that in the long run, as long as the lens it competent to make the image, the lens itself is almost irrelevant.  Lens speed and focal length are, of course, important...  and you want quality glass to resolve well, but past that... there are so many variables that no one can tell what camera/lens combination made any particular image.  It's almost like the old adage:  "measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, and cut with an axe."   And sometimes the "flaws" in lens design contribute greatly to an image's character.  I love the rendering of the old CJZ P-6 lenses, for example.  So I'll likely just soldier on with this set and not worry too much about finding the "improved" glass.  I'm looking forward to seeing how these lenses do for me.   😁

Well, as I said, the 180 is just so big and heavy that I would strongly recommend getting the second version. It weighs 1/3 of the first version! (450 vs 1325 gr). You can find them for about $600-$1000, depending on condition.

https://usedphotopro.com/leica-180mm-f28-elmarit-r-3-cam-late-verii-lens-ulr-06-5820-4-3249637-c8b51173?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsN79pb259gIVhsDICh2qXw2ZEAQYBCABEgJm1PD_BwE

Look at these, taken with the second 180:

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 March 9, 2022 by Ornello

[hepcat]

Just now, Ornello said:

Well, as I said, the 180 is just so big and heavy that I would strongly recommend getting the second version. It weighs 1/3 of the first version! (450 vs 1325 gr). You can find them for about $600-$1000, depending on condition.

Thanks!   Coming from the CZJ P6 mount 180mm f/2.8,  I thought this one was svelte!  But I'll take a look and see what the newer ones are.  

[davidmknoble]

Interesting thread.  I have the 28mm v1 and had the same thought process in the beginning.  I got a BW 48mm UV filter and haven’t looked back.  I know the 28mm v2 is better on the MTF graph, but I love the ‘tiny’ 28 of the first version.

@hepcat, nice find!

[hepcat]

20 hours ago, Ornello said:

Well, as I said, the 180 is just so big and heavy that I would strongly recommend getting the second version. It weighs 1/3 of the first version! (450 vs 1325 gr). You can find them for about $600-$1000, depending on condition.

https://usedphotopro.com/leica-180mm-f28-elmarit-r-3-cam-late-verii-lens-ulr-06-5820-4-3249637-c8b51173?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsN79pb259gIVhsDICh2qXw2ZEAQYBCABEgJm1PD_BwE

Look at these, taken with the second 180:

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!

 

 

Gorgeous images! No denying that second version 180mm is a winner. Thanks for sharing them!