sebas_ Posted March 22 Share #1 Posted March 22 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have just acquired a used Leica Summarit-M 2,5/90mm used with original box. On the box the MPU 11646 is printed, which is the correct one. The lens is marked with the orange 90mm markings, but on the back the MPU 11645 is engraved, which I suppose, belongs to the Summarit 75mm. Just curious what that would mean? I have currently no digital M to check, what the 6bit coding says. But will get my M11-P back from Wetzlar probably next week. Do you think this would this affect the resale value? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 22 Posted March 22 Hi sebas_, Take a look here Wrong MPU engraved on Summarit-M 90?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Stuart Richardson Posted March 22 Share #2 Posted March 22 If the six bit code reads correctly, I can't imagine that many normal users would even notice, let alone care. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebas_ Posted March 22 Author Share #3 Posted March 22 (edited) Attached are the pictures of the lens. Thanks you! 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 22 by sebas_ Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/419973-wrong-mpu-engraved-on-summarit-m-90/?do=findComment&comment=5775399'>More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted March 22 Share #4 Posted March 22 It's the correct code. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebas_ Posted March 22 Author Share #5 Posted March 22 Gerade eben schrieb 3D-Kraft.com: It's the correct code. Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 22 Share #6 Posted March 22 1 hour ago, sebas_ said: Do you think this would this affect the resale value? Depends on the buyer. I would not be happy if the seller doesn't disclose the wrong marking personally. I own a 90/2.4 already so chances i sue you are negligible 😉 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted March 22 Share #7 Posted March 22 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think you should disclose it, I just don't think most would care. Some might even desire it, as it is a mistake...some collectors like those. I don't think people are collecting the 90mm summarit, however. Overall I would suspect this has little to no influence on resale. I think the lenses use the same body shell, so it is clearly just a mistake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebas_ Posted March 22 Author Share #8 Posted March 22 Yes, of course would it need disclosure. I think I will have a chat with the shop I've bought it from, to possibly return it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 22 Share #9 Posted March 22 (edited) 3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said: ... Some might even desire it, as it is a mistake...some collectors like those. that's true...small errors in writings are often considered a collateral plus on old items ... I have a M Elmar 90 chrome, with the code of the black version. and an adapter ring with last digit of the code missing... I was happy of those errors, and did not discuss the fact with the seller (who maybe even didn't notice them... 😁) If the shop does propose you an exchange I am not sure it's worth , if your item is in really good conditions and works fine: the value of it does not suffer of the error, and who knows if another used is as good as your one ? Edited March 22 by luigi bertolotti 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobW0 Posted March 22 Share #10 Posted March 22 I don't think I would have even noticed it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted March 23 Share #11 Posted March 23 (edited) 12 hours ago, sebas_ said: Yes, of course would it need disclosure. I think I will have a chat with the shop I've bought it from, to possibly return it. I’d shoot with it, check how centred it is at near infinity, check whether range finder and lens are in perfect sync, check the accuracy of the distance marks, check the focus barrel’s resistance and so on. Why? Because used lenses (and new), even those that are cosmetically in great shape, have annoying issues more often than not and need a CLA. If your copy does all that to your full satisfaction, keep it. Chances are not low that the next copy will be worse notwithstanding a legit MPU. BTW, I never looked at the “MPU”. Didn't even know what it is, and, frankly, can't care enough about it because it doesn't influence my pictures whatsoever. YMMV. Edited March 23 by hansvons 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 24 Share #12 Posted March 24 On 3/23/2025 at 8:43 AM, hansvons said: BTW, I never looked at the “MPU”. Didn't even know what it is, ... In user's perspective that's logic, but Leica passionates do have a real cult towards product codes ...😄 a part of Leica history ! Some of us have been scandalized to see that in recent years they have REUSED 5 digits codes dismissed 50 years ago or so...😁 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted March 24 Share #13 Posted March 24 The 75 & 90 Summarit designs share many of the mechanical parts (as do the 35 & 50) and it looks like that part of the mount is identical except for the engraving. Since that engraving on the underside doesn't match the "90" engraved on the other side, these engravings may be made in different setups in production. The parts otherwise look identical, even the DOF markings on both models match, as the different scales are engraved on the focus ring. So if the 75 & 90 parts got intermixed during production that small engraving could easily not be noticed. Not to excuse the error, just can see how it could happen. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFW2-SCUSA Posted March 25 Share #14 Posted March 25 (edited) I have a 21mm F2.8 Elmar... But you say "that can't be, the 2.8 is an Elmarit!" I say, "indeed, but mine is marked "ELMAR -M". It seems the engraver went to lunch and forgot the "it". I suspect such an anomaly is worth at least $1.25. But it's sort of fun. Leica isn't know for making mistakes. Edited March 25 by GFW2-SCUSA Error 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 25 Share #15 Posted March 25 On 3/22/2025 at 12:09 PM, lct said: I would not be happy if the seller doesn't disclose the wrong marking personally. Obviously you never collected stamps. Some of the most valuable ones are the "misprints. 🤪 https://www.paulfrasercollectibles.com/blogs/most-recent/the-world-s-most-expensive-error-stamps 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 25 Share #16 Posted March 25 Here are three 135mm f4.0 Jupiter-11 lenses. Or are they?... 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! 😸 Philip. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 😸 Philip. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/419973-wrong-mpu-engraved-on-summarit-m-90/?do=findComment&comment=5776777'>More sharing options...
Ecar Posted March 25 Share #17 Posted March 25 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! 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/419973-wrong-mpu-engraved-on-summarit-m-90/?do=findComment&comment=5776793'>More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 28 Share #18 Posted March 28 (edited) On 3/25/2025 at 2:46 AM, GFW2-SCUSA said: I have a 21mm F2.8 Elmar... But you say "that can't be, the 2.8 is an Elmarit!" I say, "indeed, but mine is marked "ELMAR -M". It seems the engraver went to lunch and forgot the "it". I suspect such an anomaly is worth at least $1.25. But it's sort of fun. Leica isn't know for making mistakes. WOW ! A picture, please ...😀 Edited March 28 by luigi bertolotti Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFW2-SCUSA Posted March 29 Share #19 Posted March 29 Here is a picture of my mismarked Elmarit 21mm. The excitment of Leica World is never ending!! IMG_3682.HEIC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted March 29 Share #20 Posted March 29 vor 9 Stunden schrieb GFW2-SCUSA: Here is a picture of my mismarked Elmarit 21mm. The excitment of Leica World is never ending!! IMG_3682.HEICUnavailable Unavailable. Can you please provide a JPEG? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now