50mm Summicron v3

This is an example with an early rigid.

gelatin silver print (summicron 50mm f2, serial number 15XXXXX) leica m3

P.M.,1980

1715672429212.png


I made this picture in 1980. I loved it because of the skin tones. The lens was very nice for portraits. But not much later, a fog began to form in the lens, which got worse and worse. A professional Leitz trained repairman removed the fog, but the lens never got this quality back. The lens works fine and is sharp, but in the images something is missing.
 
Last edited:
Rob-F said:
I don't know why you say that all DRS versions are not 51.6mm. I'm pretty sure all DRS are identical in focal length, and fairly sure about that dimension. There was a reason for doing it that way. Yes, the tolerances in focal length were/are accommodated in most others by mating them to a focusing mount of matching length and thread pitch. But not the DRS. It's in my reference material someplace. I'll try to find the time to look for it. The production lens cells of the required focal length were reserved for the DRS, while the remaining ones were available for the rigid.
Click to expand...

I’m not trying to get into an argument but that makes no sense. The mount is built for each lens per the exact FL and the focusing cam is cut specifically for that lens and mount. The only thing I could think of that might be influenced is the goggles but the focusing cam would offset any issue there.

The FL of a lens at that time was a purely random event. To my knowledge Goerz optical was the only company I’m aware of that matched elements to each other and built a custom mount for each. That was for the Apo Red Dot Artar process lens and even then each were different FL’s.

The FL being random might mean only one in 500 or 1000 lenses or more would be exactly 51.6mm.
 
Rob-F said:
I don't know why you say that all DRS versions are not 51.6mm. I'm pretty sure all DRS are identical in focal length, and fairly sure about that dimension. There was a reason for doing it that way. Yes, the tolerances in focal length were/are accommodated in most others by mating them to a focusing mount of matching length and thread pitch. But not the DRS. It's in my reference material someplace. I'll try to find the time to look for it. The production lens cells of the required focal length were reserved for the DRS, while the remaining ones were available for the rigid.
Click to expand...
www.l-camera-forum.com

Dual Range Summicron

There are claims that the DR Summicron is optically better than its Rigid contemporary although some also state that the two have identical glass, so they must have the same performance Which is right?
www.l-camera-forum.com www.l-camera-forum.com

This might be where you got your info. Look at the second post.

I don’t know who the author is or if his information is reliable but states the DR cells fall in a range of FL’s, not just one single FL and mounts were made in 3 versions with the mid range version used with the DR cells within that FL range.

It sounds like the FL scratched in the cell mount corresponds to an average of focal lengths rather than one specific FL. And the mount used can be individually adjusted for the variation in cell focal lengths.

It’s a bit odd how they did this but I guess there was a reason.
 
V2 and V3 optical cells are interchangeable, as far as I know. This also would indicate 51.6 as being the standard.
 
Ororaro said:
V2 and V3 optical cells are interchangeable, as far as I know. This also would indicate 51.6 as being the standard.
Click to expand...
Edit:

Here’s a quote from the link above.

“ When the optical cell was assembled, there was inevitably some variation in the final focal length. So the actual focal lengths were measured and the cells were sorted into three groups centered on the values of 51.6, 51.9 or 52.2mm; these values were scratched on the mounting of the cell. The focusing mounts too were manufactured in three versions to take cells of these groups, and each had a code engraved on the back of the focusing lever: 7 or 18 for 51.6mm, 8 or 19 for 51.9mm, and A for 52.2mm. When you buy any rigid Summicron, it is a good idea to check these compatibility codes. Why they are so cryptic is anybody's guess.



Now the DR Summicron's mounts were for the middle group only, so the cell must always be engraved 51.9mm. But first, this is not an individual measure but only a group designation, and the group does probably comprise cells with focal lengths from 51.75 to 52.05mm approximately. Second, cells in this middle group are not inherently superior to the others. All have passed the acceptance tests, they are just different parts of the total variance spectrum. The outer groups are not 'faulty' in any respect.”

Who knows where the designations, codes came from but as you can see they ranged in FL from 51.75mm to 52.05.

It appears the three different mounts were for a range of FL’s. One for shorter, one mid range (the DR lenses) and the longer cells. So you can conclude any DR will be a FL from 51.75 to 52.05mm no matter what is engraved. To compensate for that variation the mount was adjusted for the specific inaccuracies of that set of cells then the focusing cam ground specifically for that lens.

The 51.9mm designation might indicate the mid point of cells that mount could be adjusted for.
 
Last edited:
I just looked at my 5cm rigid and it’s marked 51.9 so it’s somewhere in the mid range of cells and could have been selected as a DR group but was not. So I know my true FL of my lens falls somewhere between 51.75mm and 52.05mm.

Also I know it’s the correct set of cells because the SN is engraved inside the mount and it matches the SN of my lens cells.
 
Looks like the OP (in post #18) has a 51.9 as indicated by the "19" on the focusing barrel:

50mm Summicron v3

I'm in the market for a 50mm Summicron and theres a German version 3 that was just CLA'd for $700. This is $700-1000 cheaper than the other versions I've seen and close to the same price as a collapsible. Soooo why's it so cheap? The Ken Rockwell site says it has more contrast and lower...
rangefinderforum.com rangefinderforum.com
49671785231_45e20d17bc_h.jpg


We discussed these cryptic numbers here also:

What version lens is this?

I recently bought a LEICA SUMMICRON-M 50 f/2. Can you tell me what version this would be?
rangefinderforum.com rangefinderforum.com

And discussed here:
 
If that's the only defect other than some dust (expected), one scratch is not going to affect your images. Try it out after you inspect it for other defects in the glass. It's a shooter's lens, not for a collector judging from the images posted.
 
x-ray said:
Edit:

Here’s a quote from the link above.

“ When the optical cell was assembled, there was inevitably some variation in the final focal length. So the actual focal lengths were measured and the cells were sorted into three groups centered on the values of 51.6, 51.9 or 52.2mm; these values were scratched on the mounting of the cell. The focusing mounts too were manufactured in three versions to take cells of these groups, and each had a code engraved on the back of the focusing lever: 7 or 18 for 51.6mm, 8 or 19 for 51.9mm, and A for 52.2mm. When you buy any rigid Summicron, it is a good idea to check these compatibility codes. Why they are so cryptic is anybody's guess.



Now the DR Summicron's mounts were for the middle group only, so the cell must always be engraved 51.9mm. But first, this is not an individual measure but only a group designation, and the group does probably comprise cells with focal lengths from 51.75 to 52.05mm approximately. Second, cells in this middle group are not inherently superior to the others. All have passed the acceptance tests, they are just different parts of the total variance spectrum. The outer groups are not 'faulty' in any respect.”

Who knows where the designations, codes came from but as you can see they ranged in FL from 51.75mm to 52.05.

It appears the three different mounts were for a range of FL’s. One for shorter, one mid range (the DR lenses) and the longer cells. So you can conclude any DR will be a FL from 51.75 to 52.05mm no matter what is engraved. To compensate for that variation the mount was adjusted for the specific inaccuracies of that set of cells then the focusing cam ground specifically for that lens.

The 51.9mm designation might indicate the mid point of cells that mount could be adjusted for.
Click to expand...
So it would appear I mis-remembered by 0.3mm. "Missed it by that much!" Remember that program? "Get Smart?"
 
Rob-F said:
So it would appear I mis-remembered by 0.3mm. "Missed it by that much!" Remember that program? "Get Smart?"
Click to expand...
I think you said they were ALL 51.6mm in FL. I said no they aren’t all 51.6mm. Per the info DR lenses range between 51.75mm to 52.05mm. Yes that’s .30 which is significant when you’re talking lenses. That .30 represents 30 possible different FL lenses within that range. Point is they’re not all one FL.
 
x-ray said:
I think you said they were ALL 51.6mm in FL. I said no they aren’t all 51.6mm. Per the info DR lenses range between 51.75mm to 52.05mm. Yes that’s .30 which is significant when you’re talking lenses. That .30 represents 30 possible different FL lenses within that range. Point is they’re not all one FL.
Click to expand...
Easy does it, X-ray. Remember, I said I was trusting to memory. It's only a hobby. Go take some pictures, OK? I'm done.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top