lars_bergquist Posted March 4, 2008 Share #1 Posted March 4, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) At the March 16 auction of LP Foto in Stockholm, a seemingly impossible Summicron-M 2/90mm will be offered. This is a first version mount lens (long, stepped hood, 49mm filter thread) and in good shape, though internal cleanup and a re-setting of the helical are indicated. So far, so good – an early, slightly uncommon v. II 90mm Summicron. According to all my sources this lens was introduced in 1980, first serial no. 3,163,071 (according to St. Puts). BUT – though I cannot verify this in the catalog photo – the number is said to be 2,814,XXX, which is from 1977! The front ring says: LEITZ LENS MADE IN CANADA SUMMICRON-M 1:2/90 (no serial no., no filter size) I do not know where the catalog editors found the serial number. The box? But the lens silhouette on the outside is of the lens in question. Can anybody enlighten me? This sort of thing could happen during the 1930's and 1930's, but in the modern M age? And the number does not suggest an escaped prototype either. The old man from the Age of the 3.5 Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Hi lars_bergquist, Take a look here Impossible Summicron?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted March 4, 2008 Share #2 Posted March 4, 2008 It's an interesting item... the numbering of 1977 is strange (official announcement of the new Summicron M - code 11136 - was at Photokina 1980) but it's a known issue... Lager displays item n. 2814107 which is of the kind you speak of (the variant with the stepped hood that COVERS the aperture scale when retracted... annoying detail for which the lens was modified in 1982). Probably there were "batches" of s/n assigned but not really manufactured... Anyway, 2.814.xxx is surely one of the very first: Lager displays also the rather near 2813554, also 1977, that is of the old previous 6 elem. design (code 11123). The absence of the s/n engraved is very strange... but not impossible if is a lens of the very first production run and, as said before, there was some uncertainess about the "available numbers" to use... (Wetzlar and Ontario had to keep in phase their numberings) ; I do not know if it may be present somewhere on the lens... the 11136 has no more the removable head of the 11123, so it cannot be found any more scratched by hand on the inner lens barrel, as sometime happens with the 11123... the box is the most probable location (it was a simple paper label "typewrited" and attached). As a collector, I'd like VERY MUCH to have this lens... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted March 4, 2008 Share #3 Posted March 4, 2008 Confusing: The 7th ed of Leica Pocket Book has the E48 version as two different optical cells. One in use from 1957-1959, second from 1959-1979. The 1980 one is described as the "third version". A bit confusing as the heading uses the roman numeral "II". In Puts' Lens compendium there are these relevant headings: 2.0/90 Summicron (I) from 1953 and 1957 2.0/90 Summicron (II), 1963 2.0/90 Summicron-M (III) 1980 The 1963 version is a Midland design so that works with the lens markings. Serial number could be on the barrel, frequently is on Canadian lenses. Edit: I had a look at the catalogue, it certainly looks like the 1980 version. - Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share #4 Posted March 5, 2008 The catalog says that the box is original, which must mean that the serial number on the box agrees with the one on the lens – so there must be one on the lens! There is also a guaranty card in the box. So the lens was clearly sold commercially. The people at Midland did a lot of experimentation with the lens, especially the mount, for years before it was at last launched. So there may have existed a pre-production batch which was identical to the first commercial run, and could have been sold. But a time lapse of three years seems strange. But numbers could have been alotted in the expectation of a batch which did not happen, and used later, in 1979 or 1980. The first showing of the auction goods is on Thursday 13th and I intend to be there. Meanwhile, the catalog is available on http://www.lpfoto.se. The old man from the Age of the 9cm Elmar P.S. It is a pity that they changed the hood – the present one is close to useless. L.B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted March 5, 2008 Share #5 Posted March 5, 2008 Lars, you've peeked my curiosity, please report what you find when you've taken a look. - Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share #6 Posted March 5, 2008 I will, God willing and weather permitting. The old man from the Age of 35mm Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted March 9, 2008 Share #7 Posted March 9, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) That is one of the very early Pre-Asph 90mm 2.0 . I saw that as a sample and when mine came it was already at 55mm filters where it remaind to the end of production when the Apo came out. I paid $450 US dollars middle 1980`s. Still have it and the red box. I ordered when it first came available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2008 Share #8 Posted March 9, 2008 According to "Handbuch des Leica Systems", published several years, the Summicron 2.0/90 from 2,813,801 to 2,813,900 and 2,997,001 to 3,177,200 has 49mm filter size. Erlier Summicron has 48mm, later 55mm. The most of them seem to be the first version, according to Laney, Leica Pocket Book the second version begins with 3,163,007 in 1980. The serial number of Canada Summicrons may be found on the barrel. str. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share #9 Posted March 9, 2008 Confusing: The 7th ed of Leica Pocket Book has the E48 version as two different optical cells. One in use from 1957-1959, second from 1959-1979. The 1980 one is described as the "third version". A bit confusing as the heading uses the roman numeral "II". Yes, the situation is a bit confused. Many compilers of information have missed the fact that the lens was recomputed, with a distinct improvement in performance, between the SOOZI, with the sculptural detacheable hood, and the later SEEOF/SEEOM/11123 with the built-in collapsible hood, counting both as one version. Others count them as two. Both used E48 filters. But I am of course speaking about the 11136, officially launched in 1980 and discontinued in 1998. The first model mount, described in my first posting, took 49mm filters, the second model (from no.3177201) uses E55. I agree that this should be counted as v. III, but v. II seems to be more common. It is of course all a matter of what counts as a version. Is it the mount or the optics, or both? If it is the optics, how much of a change is required? Lenses with a long production run are often quietly recomputed because a glass is no longer available, or in order to ease production. In my modest opinion, a recomputation should be counted as a new version if it materially affects performance. Not an exact and mechanically applicable definition, to be sure! But the SOOZY-SEEOF change should qualify: The basic double Gaussian layout was not changed, but both general definition and close range performance were much improved. The old man from the Age of the 3.5 Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2008 Share #10 Posted March 9, 2008 The optical cells of the first Summicron differ not mutch. Is it possible that the second cell of the first Summicron was intoduced with the change in the slowest aperture from 16 to 22? Above I counted from the first to the second version with the change from Gauss type to the later type. str. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted March 10, 2008 Author Share #11 Posted March 10, 2008 The recomputation was no less important than that which changed the collapsible 50mm Summicron into the rigid type, and these are counted as two different version. Both were of course modified seven element double Gaussian types and their lens diagrams do look superficially very similar. Both the early 90mm Summicrons are six element classical double Gaussian designs (1–2 : 2–1) and such lenses have been thick on the ground during the entire twentieth century. There is more to lens design than a simple lens layout diagram. The old man from the Age of the 3.5 Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2008 Share #12 Posted March 10, 2008 You are right, the first 2.0/90 Summicrons, are two different designs and the differences are as important as from the first to the second 2.0/50 Summicron. (I used all these four lenses and saw it looking at the pictures - sometimes.) But in most collector's guides these two first 2.0/90 Summicrons are counted as the first one. I suppose, that the design changed with the change in the slowest aperture from f. 16 to f. 22 and the slightly changed barrel. The young man with the age near the Summitar. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 10, 2008 Share #13 Posted March 10, 2008 The young man with the age near the Summitar. Stefan ...2,5 ?... compliments... very good knowledge and writing style for a 6 months old baby... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted March 10, 2008 Author Share #14 Posted March 10, 2008 Luigi, he means Grampa Summitar, not the newborn kids ... Grampa Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 10, 2008 Share #15 Posted March 10, 2008 Luigi, he means Grampa Summitar, not the newborn kids ... Grampa Elmar ... btw, the newborn kids are SummARITs... my joke was not only a little stupid, but even mistaken by foundation... The young man of the age of Thambar (oh, damn, why not to join this club ? ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2008 Share #16 Posted March 10, 2008 ...2,5 ?... compliments... very good knowledge and writing style for a 6 months old baby... Summitar 2.0/50. So I am a young old man or an old young man. Regards Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share #17 Posted March 13, 2008 I have just returned from the first day's showing and I have observed the corpus delicti. It is as described, in very decent condition and clearly legit. The serial number is engraved, not on the lens barrel but on the aperture ring. I am not going to bid on it (I am not a collector, only a Leica user, albeit slightly obsessive) but it will be interesting to see if there will be any bidding by phone. Sorry, you cannot do that because that presumes that a letter stating your intent has arrived by snail mail at the latest tomorrow Friday - which I would not count on even if I sent it today, considering the speed of the local snails. The old man from the Age of the Pony Express Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted March 16, 2008 Author Share #18 Posted March 16, 2008 The auction is over. The lens went for a very decent price. I won't tell you how much, because I bought it on behalf of a member of this forum. The old man from the Age of you Know What Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted March 17, 2008 Author Share #19 Posted March 17, 2008 The highlight of the auction at LPphoto was a (by the serial number) perfectly legit black paint M3 959416, from the first black batch of 500, state B+ ("very god condition +"). I sat close to a badly jet-lagged Japanese gentleman who slept soundly through the auction until some kind of retainer woke him up just in time for this item, and after the club fell at SEK 61,000 (6524 euro and 6 cents) he left abruptly ... This is a game I am not into! Below is a picture of the corpus delicti. Leica M8, Summilux-M 1:1.4/50, ISO 1250. I could not take any photos during the bidding for the Impossible Summicron of course ... The old man from the Age of Tri-X 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! 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/47007-impossible-summicron/?do=findComment&comment=513066'>More sharing options...
elgenper Posted March 17, 2008 Share #20 Posted March 17, 2008 The auction is over. The lens went for a very decent price. I won't tell you how much, because I bought it on behalf of a member of this forum. The old man from the Age of you Know What Come, come, Lars: why the secrecy? Final prices are official on LP-Foto´s web page by now: Untitled Document A decent price, indeed: just a little more than a similar-condition Tele Elmarit (Can) went for. Per (age of the short mount Elmar, to keep on... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.