Help to identify Summicron 35 version (v4 or not?)

[VasiliK]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently came across a decent Summicron 35mm lens that looks very much like Germany-made Summicron 35 V4, but the serial number range does not add up. So I'm looking for the community help confirming the exact version.

Serial number of the item in question: 3456850

Serial number ranges from public sources (kenrockwell, reddotcamera) are close, but not quite:
3453071  -  3454070    Summicron-M 3.5 cm 1:2 (black.ELW)    1987    
3456871  -  3457370    Summicron-M 3.5 cm 1:2 (black)    1988    

Reddotcamera Serial Number lookup tool identifies this one as Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8, build in the year 1988, which is really weird.

 

Any advice will be very helpful!

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Welcome!

Please post a photograph of the lens.

[VasiliK]

The look of the lens really is of V4. Have taken only one photo, here it is

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!

[lct]

Serial number 3456850 is an Elmarit-M 21/2.8 from 1988 according to Erwin Puts, Leica Lists, 2010, page 105 (excerpt below) but your lens looks indeed like a Summicron-M 35/2 v4 with an unknown hood.

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!

[VasiliK]

Thank you for the confirmation!

Can there be plausible reasons for such serial number mismatch? After all, the numbers from the lens and from the supposed batch are close.

I know there is a list of 'reported stolen' serials, but this one is not listed.

Edited August 22, 2022 by VasiliK

[lct]

There are thousands of serial numbers in those lists so aside from human error i have no idea. 

[VasiliK]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Planning to have another go at solving this lens, want to double-check aperture blades count and other exterior characteristics. Maybe even weight it... 😁

The condition is good and the price is quite reasonable for this kind of lens.

[lct]

If you plan to buy it i would ask what is this unknown hood on it. When this hood is removed you should see the filter thread of the lens normally. BTW regular hood is this one (12524). 12526 hood fits too.

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!

[a.noctilux]

Having had a dozen of those 35mm Summicron-M version IV, from different periods I can confirm your lens is version IV.

You can of course weight it, 135g Canadian, or 155g Wetzlar.

...

LCT, I see E39 on the front ring of this lens.

Filter is screwed on it.

Edited August 22, 2022 by a.noctilux

[VasiliK]

Thank you @lct and @a.noctilux for your valuable input! 

 

After additional research on the forum I came across several topics on 'orphaned' serials for lenses and cameras due to pre-assignment nature of serial number batches (linked them below).

Although the lens is quite popular these days, quality fake for a niche 40-year-old piece just doesn't make sense.

 

[VasiliK]

I have been to the store again, confirmed from exterior and weight that it is a German-made Summicron V4.

Unfortunately the lens has dust/fungus elements inside, as well as minor focus mechanism issues, so the purchase was a no-go. Notably, the Leica Store Warsaw staff was particularly uninterested in discussing the lens serial number and condition issues with me, suggesting I write them an email to request lens details from Leica archives.

Did not photograph the hood, but it did look like a clip-on 12524 from the example above.

 

Again, thanks so much for your help.

[nitroplait]

42 minutes ago, VasiliK said:

Notably, the Leica Store Warsaw staff was particularly uninterested in discussing the lens serial number and condition issues with me, suggesting I write them an email to request lens details from Leica archives.

In all fairness, discussing the subject of the serial number would be purely speculative. You will find more knowledge in this forum - and ultimately only get a definite answer directly from the Leica archives (if they even have it).

All those v. 4 I have handled feelt distinctively below the build quality I associate with a Leica lens. Some say the German made versions were better made, but it doesn’t sound like this one was.

I would personally look for v. 3, also a Mandler design. Much better build, beautiful rendition but not as hyped, thus cheaper.

[luigi bertolotti]

Mismatching of serial numbers is an all but rare event, expecially for lenses made both in Germany and Canada. Don't worry too much about and concentrate on the real conditions of the v4... It is someway a delicate item in this respect

 

[derleicaman]

The Summicron 35/2 M v4 is an unusual lens to begin with. Designed in Midland, where the initial production began, the v4 had incorporated polycarbonate parts in its construction. No one knows why the lens had these components as part of the design. Some say it was to cut costs, but who knows. Back in those days, using "advance" materials like polycarbonatet was seen as an advancement. As many of us know, this polycarbonate material became problematic over time. The most typical issue was from overtorquing the lens cell in the lens mount while mounting and dismounting the lens. The hood would then sit cockeyed on the mounted lens relative to the camera. In extreme cases, the lens could shear in two.

At some point, the lens component mount was re-designed incorporating traditional metallic materials instead of the polycarbonate. Production was also moved to Wetzlar. I had a Canadian version of this lens, which I had originally sold to a customer of my store back in the early 80's. I bought it back a few years ago, and last year traded it for a Wetzlar made version. The Canadian lens had a mild case of the optical group rotation. Was it fatal, no. Was it annoying, yes. Hence, I jumped at the chance to trade for the better built Wetzlar version.

Optically, both the Canadian and Wetzlar versions are identical, but mechanically they are not. I am a little surprised that the Wetzlar made lenses were not made a new version designation. Perhaps, the Wetzlar lenses were seen as a stop gap measure to fill demand while anticipating the ASPH version of the 35/2 Summicron.

As far as the serial number not matching those in one of the on-line lists, I would not worry to much. The on-line lists are not totally reliable. Leitz would assign a block of serial numbers years in advance, and occassionally this is where the discrepancy lies. One would have to access the records in Wetzlar to see the true serial numbers allocation. This is also seen with the serial number lists for cameras, such as the transition between models like the M4-2 and M4-P with overlapping serial number assignements.

[sandro]

Interesting information, Bill, I wasn't aware of this part of the history of this lens. I had a v.4 made in Canada that had lens separation, which I never noticed in my photos. I sold it (of course informing the buyer) and received another one as a gift from a family member who had no uise for it. Also made in Canada, but because it had not been used for ages it had some fungus which could be removed. I likew this lens a lot, but I do agree that it has a kind of a cheaper feel to it than most other Leitz/Leica lenses I am familiar with.

Lex