Leica Summaron 1:3.5/35 with goggles, why removable?

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 2/1/2023 at 6:48 AM, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Everybody,

The 35mm f2.8 Summaron, 35mm f2 Summicron & 35mm f1.4 Summilux lenses with FIXED "goggles" have a differential cam system devised by the Wizards of Wetzlar so that: When the roller connected to the rangefinder inside the camera body is moving from the Infinity position to the 1 meter position: The mechanism inside the lens mount is moving the lens mount (And the optics of the lens itself.) from the Infinity position to the 65 centimeter position. This movement of the optical unit from Infinity to 65 centimeters is what is indicated on the lens barrel.

At the same time the frames for the various lenses & the rangefinder in the range/viewfinder are going from the top left to the bottom right. This measures from Infinity to 1 meter with the range/viewfinder of an M3.

Which was the only "M" camera that there was being made in 1954 when the original 35mm f3,5 Summaron lenses were first made for "M" cameras. 

The first 35mm f3.5 Summaron lenses use an add on viewfinder SBLOO/12010. Which arrived at the same time as the 35mm f3.5 Summaron: 1949. There are also earlier viewfinders made by Leitz that show the field of view of a 35mm lens.

Because the M3 has no 35mm frame: The early 35mm f3.5 Summaron lenses with NO "goggles" are designed to be used with the 50mm frame lines & with the SBLOO/12010 viewfinder in the accessory shoe. The accessory shoe can also, alternatively, hold a small flash.

In 1956 an "M" version of the 35mm f3.5 Summaron was made available that has removable "goggles" which expand the angle of view seen in the range/viewfinder 1.5X. The lens that comes with these "goggles" activates the 50mm frame lines.

When the M2 (1957) became available: The 35mmf3.5 Summaron without "goggles" was reconfigured (1958) to bring up the 35mm frame lines of the M2.

This lens was in regular production with a screw mount from 1949. Altho some were made before that in 1946. They were in regular production with a bayonet mount from 1954. And with "goggles" from 1956. All 3 types ended production in 1960.

Best Regards,

Michael

Thanks for this Michael. I understand it were confusing times. Leica seems to have under estimated the demand for 35mm lenses and camera bodies to use them. And so the M2 was probably developed in a hurry while Leica tried to patch the existing Summaron to work with the M3 as comfortable as possible. AFAIK Leica did not release any Summicron 35 or Summilux 35 with removable goggles. Why did they make the Summaron goggles removable and not the cron or lux ones? It seems to me that making them removable just makes them more expensive and prone to faulty behaviour. So I thought Leica must have had some reason for it. Can you think of any not already mentioned?

 

[luigi bertolotti]

There is another factor to be considered about removable gogglea... the DR Summicron : it was introduced in the same time of the goggled Summaron 3,5 (1956), and the mechanism to fit goggles is practically the same : it should be interesting to know which of the two "triggered" the design (probably the Summicron, a more "important" lens), but is at all natural they adopted the same system for both lenses, though the usefulness of dismount capability is questionable in the Summaron... so they abandoned the facility for the later 35s.

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by luigi bertolotti

[peterm1_Leica]

Just be clear about this. There is a version of the Summaron 35mm f3.5 which has the (kind of removable) goggles and a version of the same lens which was designed not to have or use goggles but instead to use an accessory mounted 35mm viewfinder. The latter type has no means of fitting goggles. (I have the latter type). But as I understand it, the version designed for goggles needs those goggles to be in place focus correctly (or so I have read - I have no personal experience of it.) As I also understand it the "goggles version" does indeed allow the goggles to come off, but this is not a simple matter of slip off and remove as it is with the 50mm DR Summicron lens.  It requires a screw to be removed. In other words, I do not believe the goggles were designed to be removed in use. But it just so happens that they were removable if the retaining screws were removed.

[dpitt]

On 2/2/2023 at 11:38 PM, luigi bertolotti said:

There is another factor to be considered about removable gogglea... the DR Summicron : it was introduced in the same time of the goggled Summaron 3,5 (1956), and the mechanism to fit goggles is practically the same : it should be interesting to know which of the two "triggered" the design (probably the Summicron, a more "important" lens), but is at all natural they adopted the same system for both lenses, though the usefulness of dismount capability is questionable in the Summaron... so they abandoned the facility for the later 35s.

 

Thanks Luigi, I did not realise the DR pre-dates the goggled Summaron and the latter pre-dates the later goggled 35mm lenses. An other illustration that they did not think through this design and re-used the DR mount for goggles even though it does not make as much sense as on the DR. They must have realised later that making them permanently fixed is cheaper and better.

4 hours ago, peterm1_Leica said:

Just be clear about this. There is a version of the Summaron 35mm f3.5 which has the (kind of removable) goggles and a version of the same lens which was designed not to have or use goggles but instead to use an accessory mounted 35mm viewfinder. The latter type has no means of fitting goggles. (I have the latter type). But as I understand it, the version designed for goggles needs those goggles to be in place focus correctly (or so I have read - I have no personal experience of it.) As I also understand it the "goggles version" does indeed allow the goggles to come off, but this is not a simple matter of slip off and remove as it is with the 50mm DR Summicron lens.  It requires a screw to be removed. In other words, I do not believe the goggles were designed to be removed in use. But it just so happens that they were removable if the retaining screws were removed.

The screw you mention is made for turning with your fingers, sort of a safety lock to prevent accidental removal. It takes seconds to loosen it and then remove the goggles. (see pictures of Luigi above, it is the thumb wheel on top of the goggles frame)

Edited February 4, 2023 by dpitt

[luigi bertolotti]

1 hour ago, dpitt said:

 

The screw you mention is made for turning with your fingers, sort of a safety lock to prevent accidental removal. It takes seconds to loosen it and then remove the goggles. (see pictures of Luigi above, it is the thumb wheel on top of the goggles frame)

Exactly, and infact this is the only mechanical difference between the fitting of goggles in DR Summicron and Summaron : the Summicron does not need a safety lock because there is another action to perform on the lens body itself (exctracting the front to set the short distances range) and this gave the opportunity to have a lock in different way (blocking the small locking sphere) 

[Michael Geschlecht]

On 2/2/2023 at 5:00 PM, dpitt said:

Thanks for this Michael. I understand it were confusing times. Leica seems to have under estimated the demand for 35mm lenses and camera bodies to use them. And so the M2 was probably developed in a hurry while Leica tried to patch the existing Summaron to work with the M3 as comfortable as possible. AFAIK Leica did not release any Summicron 35 or Summilux 35 with removable goggles. Why did they make the Summaron goggles removable and not the cron or lux ones? It seems to me that making them removable just makes them more expensive and prone to faulty behaviour. So I thought Leica must have had some reason for it. Can you think of any not already mentioned?

 

Hello Dirk,

1 of the reasons for the development of the M2 was the cost of the M3 range/viewfinder. The majority of the difference in the sales price between the M3 & the M2 was the difference in the cost of their respective range/viewfinders. Perhaps Jean Claude or/& Luigi can tell us the respective sales prices of the 2 camera bodies when the M2 was released in 1957. Or, 1 or both of them, might have a later pair of prices.

Originally, when the M3 was first envisioned in the late 1930's. & later when it began production in 1954: The M3 with lenses & accessories was seen as an equivalent camera system to the other 35mm camera systems then available. This included single lens reflex camera systems. This is because, at that time: There were not as many high quality wide angle lenses available. & manufactures concentrated on focal lengths of 50mm, or so, and longer.  For which the M3 is clearly better than the M2. In the middle to late 1950's: New glass formulas & computer aided lens design allowed the creation of wider angled lenses of a higher quality.

There had been wide angle lenses available earlier, which had been used in filming movies such as: "Frankenstein" starring Boris Karloff as "The Monster". Bela Lugosi as "Igor". And Colin Clive as "Doctor Frankenstein". "Frankenstein" is 1 of the first major movies filmed using, then available, wide angle lenses. But, for the most part: Wide angle lenses were not generally available in the manner that they became available after more different optical glasses were available, along with computers, to help with lens design. This began in the middle to late 1950's.

The wider angle lenses did not require the easier & more precise measuring capacity that normal focal length & longer focal length lenses benefitted from. So, when using lenses that were shorter than 50mm lenses: The M2's 0.72X magnification, as opposed to the M3's 0.91X magnification, was not as much of an issue: As it would be with lenses of 90mm or 135mm.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Michael Geschlecht

[Pyrogallol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wallace Heaton blue book prices 1960/61. Foreign cameras were not available in the UK earlier due to import restrictions.

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!

[luigi bertolotti]

In USA (only, afaik) they even made the price difference M2-M3 even broader, listing a M2 without the selftimer :

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!

[dpitt]

Thanks @Michael Geschlecht @Pyrogallol @luigi bertolotti Price difference of 20% to 30% between M2 and M3. It is funny that the M2 is now catching up on the M3. It seems more popular than the M3 to me. And price difference is 10%-20%. 

@Michael Geschlecht explained that most of the difference is in the RF of the M3. Of course there is also the 'automatic' frame counter on the M3. And the self timer that was not there on the early M2's. I never disassembled either body, so I wonder why it is more expensive to make the M3 rangefinder. Both have 3 frames, main difference is the magnification factor, no?

 

[Michael Geschlecht]

4 hours ago, dpitt said:

Thanks @Michael Geschlecht @Pyrogallol @luigi bertolotti Price difference of 20% to 30% between M2 and M3. It is funny that the M2 is now catching up on the M3. It seems more popular than the M3 to me. And price difference is 10%-20%. 

@Michael Geschlecht explained that most of the difference is in the RF of the M3. Of course there is also the 'automatic' frame counter on the M3. And the self timer that was not there on the early M2's. I never disassembled either body, so I wonder why it is more expensive to make the M3 rangefinder. Both have 3 frames, main difference is the magnification factor, no?

 

Hello Dirk,

It is more than just magnification. The M3 range/viewfinder (Which had a number of variations.) is a different type of mechanism than the M2 range/viewfinder. The M2 range/viewfinder is also the basis of the M4, M5 & subsequent "M" model range/viewfinders. These M2, etc. types also have a number of variations. Both film & digital. The M3 range/viewfinder(s). are more expensive to build & are able to focus more precisely.

There are examples of the design of both M3 & M2 types of range/viewfinders available in the computer. If I were better with computers I would "pop" an example of each up here for you to see. Perhaps someone better with computers would be kind enough to do so.

Best Regards,

Michael

[dpitt]

Michael, thank you for pointing me in the right direction.
I found this source which explains it in detail:

https://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page10.html

Quote

The M3 Rangefinder is a totally different design to the M2 or M4/M6 telemeter. Apart from the obvious differences in magnification , the frame lines ( mask ) is parallel to the camera body , in the other M cameras the mask is at an angle. The M3 has a ground glass diffuser to allow illumination of the mask . The other M cameras have a perspex , fluted diffuser and an internal reflector which , although does the same job , some degree of flare can result in the viewfinder which can 'white-out' the RF secondary image . The original M3 rangefinder was expensive to produce , the viewfinder assembly alone had 2 optics and 2 prisms cemented together , which makes re-silvering more difficult , as these 4 elements have to be aligned and re-cemented exactly after ....