Early Leica F1 V4 Noctilux E60

[sebben]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have noticed that my Noctilux has two different fonts on the lens. The front and the aperture ring has the same one as all the latest Leica lenses but the body has the previous typeface. The lens has a serial number that one would be normally associate it with a V3 but according to Leica the serial numbers on the wiki are not entirely accurate.

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!

This is what Leica can tell me about the lens.

Quote

I looked at the serial number and the lens. One could assume that this should be a late E58 but it is an E60 V4. It can often happen that the serial numbers in some books don't match exactly. But the lens looks normal, the aperture ring looked like this at the time.

Through all my Leica years I haven't seen another lens like this so I am curious to know if anyone else has an Early V4 with the same layout.

[Advertisement]

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

[egrossman]

Looks the same as mine. Serial number 37377xx.

Erik

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!

[Herr Barnack]

Same as mine.  Nothing to lose sleep over.

[pippy]

6 hours ago, egrossman said:

Looks the same as mine. Serial number 37377xx.....

No; it isn't.

The font used on your lens is of one style - the current 'square' ('LG 1050') typeface - on both aperture ring and focussing scale. There are two different fonts used on the one in the OP;  The 'LG 1050' form used for the aperture scale but the older 'rounded' typeface used for the distance scale.

Philip.

Edited November 29, 2022 by pippy

[grahamc]

Different lens but I have a 1993 50:2 v4 (#363xxxx) that uses the older rounded font on the aperture ring, but the newer block font on the distance scale (and all other markings).  I think the E60 v4 started production from 1993 also, so perhaps not uncommon and in this period Leica were transitioning from old to new fonts?
 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by grahamc

[Jul]

I'd say old lens (around 1982 from serial) repaired with new parts.

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 5 Stunden schrieb grahamc:

... so perhaps not uncommon and in this period Leica were transitioning from old to new fonts

To me, this is the most likely answer. Parts were pre-produced, and Leica would not have thrown away certain parts just because the fonts do not quite match. As this thread has shown, some people do not even realize that there are two different fonts being used on the OP's lens, so why should Leica have bothered?

[grahamc]

27 minutes ago, wizard said:

To me, this is the most likely answer. Parts were pre-produced, and Leica would not have thrown away certain parts just because the fonts do not quite match. As this thread has shown, some people do not even realize that there are two different fonts being used on the OP's lens, so why should Leica have bothered?

Embarrassingly, I was mildly disappointed when I realised mine weren't consistent.  I got over it pretty quick, however

[grahamc]

The upper part of the later (E60) version surely wouldn't fit the lower (focussing hellacoid and mount) part of the E58, would it ?   Even if it did, in this instance the explanation that new upper has been added in repair would make more sense if it was the lower part that carried the serial number relating to 1983, not the upper.   Although if Leica had carried out the themselves using v4 upper parts they may have carried over the serial number to the now 'new' v4 version of the lens.  Perhaps seems unlikely they'd go to all those efforts rather than offering a replacement ?  And one would hope that if that was the case it would've been a factory job i.e. they would have told @sebbenthis when he inquired.

Does the lower part of the barrel have E60 stamped in it ?  If it does then the mix-match is probably due simply to 'transition of fonts'.

How the  lens ended up with a very out of date Serial number though (by approximately 10 years) is odd.  By chance / mistake / typo ? 

Edited November 29, 2022 by grahamc

[wizard]

vor 20 Minuten schrieb grahamc:

How the  lens ended up with a very out of date Serial number though (by approximately 10 years) is odd.  

At Leica, serial numbers are preassigned in batches, and since the Noctilux 50mm was never sold in large quantities, it may well have taken 10 years until the preassigned serial numbers had all been used.

I own a 2.8/24mm Elmarit-M lens, which I bought new at the time. I positively know that the lens was produced only recently before I bought it. Still, the serial number assigned to that lens would place the lens some years earlier, which seems to prove the point I made above regarding the Noctilux 50.

[grahamc]

12 minutes ago, wizard said:

At Leica, serial numbers are preassigned in batches, and since the Noctilux 50mm was never sold in large quantities, it may well have taken 10 years until the preassigned serial numbers had all been used.

I own a 2.8/24mm Elmarit-M lens, which I bought new at the time. I positively know that the lens was produced only recently before I bought it. Still, the serial number assigned to that lens would place the lens some years earlier, which seems to prove the point I made above regarding the Noctilux 50.

Interesting, thanks.   All points to a transition of fonts happening at the time of this lens being produced in the early-mid 90s then.  

My 35:2 v4 was produced in the same year as my “mismatched fonts” 50:2v4 (1993) but has only the modem fonts.   They share the same serial starting digits 353 xxxx .