Old 06-17-2017   #41
dreamsandart
Registered User
 
dreamsandart's Avatar
 
dreamsandart is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 516
35mm Summilux pre-ASPH (PA) v1 vs v2

Looking back after writing, this is long, sorry, I’m sure everyone will not agree, but it's my take till someone shows me differently. I’m been using a 35 Summilux pre-ASPH for going on 40 years. It is a very fun, versatile, creative and usable lens once you get to know it. (and I could qualify the 'it', with 'your example.')

I’ve had multiple examples of both versions (but not of its last ‘German’ years in production)

I had an earlier example of the v1 and later generation in the same serial number range as Erik's. Both are examples of one of the best made and most beautiful mounts Leitz ever made I feel. Optically both were flare prone, with that ‘Leica glow’ wide open. They were not the best optically (the later was better) till stopped down in the traditional classic way 2 stops and then some. The hood is much better than the v2, deeper and the squarish style helps.

I’ve had 3 examples of the v2. A couple early with the locking focus tab, and one from the early/mid-70s. The best of them optically was the earliest but used the later - my first one - for about 20 years as my ‘go-to’ 35mm lens before the ASPH came along. The v2 basic physical design was the same as the v1 with 2 differences; v1 chrome over brass mount was changed to the black anodized alloy metal (the very rare v1 in black was actually the same with alloy mount to accommodate the black anodizing). Leitz was moving in the mid/the late 60s to lighter and still very strong alloy lens mounts. The other difference was the front steel hood mount ring changed for the round clip-on hood for series filters, which Leitz was simplifying their filter catalog with for both R and M lenses at that time.

The v2 was always thought of (by every and anyone) as a slight upgrade in performance as far as my experience, up till the v1 became a ‘collector’s’ item in the 90s+. The extra ‘Leica-look’ (glow) collector’s seemed to value, along with the heavy brass mount, and out of production rarity, a justification for the higher price. The optical glass layout of both versions is the same, and Leitz always advertised both as having ‘exotic glass.’ Take them apart, except for the advancement in lens coatings, glass looks the same. As a Leica factory repressive told me in the early 70s, ‘ Leica did not have a policy of making optically inferior lenses with next versions. Optical changes were always for better optical quality.’ ('character' is another thing, some [like me] will always like their earlier versions)

The change in glass type from v1 and v2 seems to be one of those internet myths that took hold a few years ago. I would like to see some documentation on it, (respectfully) besides speculation, wishful thinking, and hearsay. The Leica technicians/history folks I trust have said no. If anything the advancements in lens coatings have improved the optical signature of the lens over its long production run.

The most important consideration that few folks talk about is the challenge and difficulty of assembling this lens imposed from the beginning. It has to be very exact, from paper to actual production. I remember Tom A. mentioning he had his v2 example factory (Midland) collimated to assure the best optical quality with this in mind. Having had as I said above a few examples of these lenses I can also say they were all generally good, but one v2 did stand out.

Optical performance variations in production examples are nothing new, even with Leitz/Leica. Some examples of the same lens are just better [or worse] than others on the test bench. In the mid-70s I was involved with a University research project that ‘hand selecting’ Leica (Leicaflex) lenses with the best optical quality of a production run (and they were then disassembled, collimated and sealed with nitrogen gas for as good as it could get). With the 35mm Summilux PA being one of the most difficult lenses to assemble for exactness, a challenging optical design to begin with, and the with the technology of the time, optical variations should not be any surprise, maybe more so than any other lens they made at the time (well maybe the original Noctilux is in that class, and shows the same degree of challenging designs). I've heard of the 35 Summilux described as 'a dog,' and 'all-bokeh,' shows there is an opposite side to the better examples too.

Erik’s V1 photo examples I’ve seen here are very beautiful and shows a lens that is one of those best examples (and a very good photographer also). Maybe one of THE best examples of the v1, because I’ve seen other v1 examples that, yes, could be very poor optically. The v1 did not have a good reputation for many years among professional photographers, and there was a reason for this (Jim Marshell went with v2 because of this I know). And to just throw a bit more ‘controversy’ into this mix… ;-) I talked to a very well known Leica Technician that said he felt the last German examples were the best ('in general' I'll assume) because the assembly technique there was better [than Canada], ouch.

So, if you have a good example; German, Canada, v1, v2, chrome, black, titanium, or whatever... hold on to it. An 'entertaining' lens in every way!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2017   #42
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 307
As a Voigtlander 1.4/35mm Nokton Classic SC owner/user, the 35 Lux pre-ASPH remains on my list of lenses to own.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #43
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamsandart View Post
35mm Summilux pre-ASPH (PA) v1 vs v2


The change in glass type from v1 and v2 seems to be one of those internet myths that took hold a few years ago. I would like to see some documentation on it, (respectfully) besides speculation, wishful thinking, and hearsay. The Leica technicians/history folks I trust have said no. If anything the advancements in lens coatings have improved the optical signature of the lens over its long production run.
Agreed! ^^^ and an excellent summary dreamsandart.

Regards

Simon
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #44
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Can you screw out the lens head (the optical unit) out of this one?

Erik.
I have 21670XX from 1966, it seems to be a very early V2 with black paint on brass infinity lock and you can unscrew the lens head from the mount...

It's good at full aperture and excellent from f2.0 onwards but, the optics do need a clean, I can see some faint haze. I must get it off to Malcolm Taylor one day soon.

Regards

Simon
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #45
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 450
Leica M Monochrom, 1966 35mm Summilux at full aperture, haze and all...


Cousins, Frome 17/04/2017. by Flat Twin, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #46
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamsandart View Post
So, if you have a good example; German, Canada, v1, v2, chrome, black, titanium, or whatever... hold on to it. An 'entertaining' lens in every way!
Excellent summary dreamsandart!
That sums up my experience as well. I had a V1 that looked hardly used but was a dog in terms of flare and it didn't resolved well (relative to the version 2 I had) wide open. I recently compared a V2 Canadian (friends) with a V2 German assembled and the resolution difference was quite noticeable across the frame till f4. I suspect like you said, both time and luck with assembly play a role.

I've had similar experience with M bodies. Some that I've had (M4 and MP) I couldn't keep out of the repair shop. My M6 and an M3 I sold to Michael B. just keep on chugging. Once you find a good one...hold on to it like you said!

(P.S. Good luck to your Tigers who are still in the hunt, 4 games back)
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #47
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
I enjoy the write-up of Dreamsandart very much and I thank him for his praise for my photographs, but I cannot agree with him.

I have not one, but two v1 silver chrome Summilux 35mm lenses, no. 1777220 and no. 2060691. They perform absolutely equal. I also have an aluminium 35mm f/1.4 Summilux in black with an infinity lock, no. 2221365. This one performs completely different and inferior too: the focus plane is not flat, but curved and the images show at the larger f/stops a glow not unlike Simons picture above. The coatings and the construction of the lens are completely different from the earlier versions.

However, I have seen results from later 35mm f/1.4 lenses of the same model, but without infinity lock, that were better.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #48
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
I enjoy the write-up of Dreamsandart very much and I thank him for his praise for my photographs, but I cannot agree with him.

I have not one, but two v1 silver chrome Summilux 35mm lenses, no. 1777220 and no. 2060691. They perform absolutely equal. I also have a black aluminium 35mm f/1.4 Summilux in black with an infinity lock, no. 2221365. This one performs completely different and inferior too: the focus plane is not flat, but curved and the images show at the larger f/stops a glow not unlike Simons picture above. The coatings and the construction of the lens are completely different from the earlier versions.

However, I have seen results from later 35mm f/1.4 lenses of the same model, but without infinity lock, that were better.

Erik.
Erik,

That is as may be but, and I am sorry, to go making statements that the V1 lens has more exotic glass is misleading and totally within the realms of internet hearsay as dreamsandart mentions in his post. You make nice pictures with your 35 Summilux but your comments on glass types are totally unsubstantiated. If the V1 lens had a different glass we all know that it would be all over the internet and public knowledge. Sorry...

Regards

Simon
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #49
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 450
I did try out a 35mm Summilux V1 earlier this year, I will try and find the pictures...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #50
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
Simon:

US Patent 2975673 filed 26. Aug. 1959
7 elements/ 5 groups made of 5 types high-refractive glass (1.70444-1.7899)


http://www.klassik-cameras.de/Canon_...les_Speed.html

This is very exotic glass indeed that was not used for the later lenses to make them cheaper.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #51
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 450
Sorry Erik but that is not proof of different glass for V1 Summilux! It's a page from a Canon RF magazine with a picture and a patent number filed in 1959 for the (then) upcoming 35 Summilux lenses. There is obviously no mention of a V2 lens or a different glass type with the document.

Regards

Simon
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #52
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Twin View Post
Sorry Erik but that is not proof of different glass for V1 Summilux!
I did not say that this is a proof, but if the v2 would use the same glasses the performance would be the same. But it isn't. Sorry Simon. (I am talking about my own lens of course, no. 2221365.)

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #53
enasniearth
Registered User
 
enasniearth is online now
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 422
Unfortunately the website is written by Fred m
He has published articles on what makes a wartime Zeiss sonnar 50 f1.5 in Leica mount genuine
The pictures he uses are not genuine wartime sonnars and the characteristics he lists to
Identify them are in error
I don't consider him a top notch source
Perhaps he's right on this one , but I have doubts

I think it has more to do with the brass mount ,
And precision machining of the early type
I had a type ii Canada 262xxxx that's was great back in the 1980's
Wide open it lacked contrast stopped down f2 it improved quite a bit
It was still sharp wide open at 1.4 the contrast made it seem not as sharp as stopped down

The f1.8 nikkor and canon lenses are only about a 1/4 or 1/3 stop faster than f2
The summilux is a full stop faster , tri x and the light is leaveing
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #54
dreamsandart
Registered User
 
dreamsandart's Avatar
 
dreamsandart is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 516
I hesitated about writing this up and hoped not to ruffle feathers, but I’m just seeing this ‘glass change’ reasoning too often and felt I needed to step in with a different perspective.

To summarize in two words: ‘’production variations’

I think I’ve laid it out fairly easy to understand as for how this happens with the 35 Summilux v1 and v2. It wasn’t uncommon for a professional photographer to check a few examples of any one type of lens to find the best example back in my day. Leica was usually pretty good about this (after all, you did pay ‘list price’ back then, there were no discounts). My original v2 was given to me by the Leica Rep. to try out (he thought I’d like it better for my work over the Summicron I’d planned to get), and I was told if I didn’t like it he’d get me another to test.

Good, and not so good, some excellent, maybe more variation in optical quality than any other Leica lens. This is not to say there are a lot of not so good examples, Leica did a quality bench test of their lenses out of production, a few may have been borderline that were sold, but most were good to very good I think.

Erik, if you have two v1 examples that are that good, count yourself very fortunate. That beautiful solid brass mount was more expensive to make, one of the reasons Leitz was going to lighter, just as strong (maybe more so) and less time consuming to machine alloy, the change in lens mount material definitely gives a different feel to the handling. I also would not discount that better v1 hood as a factor in over-all optical quality, the 35 Summilux big weakness with that large front element has always been flare, which the v2 hood is pathetic at preventing stray light.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #55
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 1,540
Don't forget as Tom A said, they were used, and used well, so one that left the factory in spec 40+ years ago might not still be.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #56
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 450
I think that the comments above from enasniearth, dreamsandart and michaelwj all make excellent points that we must bear in mind here. This kind of discussion also reminds me that we no longer have Tom A's reasoned and experienced input anymore and isn't that missed...

Erik, I enjoy seeing the pictures that you make with your 35 Summilux and TMY-2 combination, I just think that care needs to be taken with remarks that are made and cannot be proved, that is all. Lets put this glass discussion on the shelf until something more substantial comes along shall we?!

Kind regards,

Simon
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2017   #57
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
 
Flat Twin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 450
While it's still (vaguely) relevant, I found a few shots from the V1 steel rim lens that I tried earlier this year. What amazed me was that the lens went straight onto my Monochrom and focused perfectly. On inspection I could see no evidence of machining or alteration at the rear either...

This is at full aperture:-

Leica 35mm Summilux V1 (steel rim) full aperture by Flat Twin, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2017   #58
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
In this last shot from Simon I recognize a bit the same type of imaging that I know from my examples of the steel-rim. In my opinion this type of imaging differs quite a lot from the shot of the three boys above (great shot by the way).

Both examples of my steel rim lenses needed a correction of their roller curves, not for infinity, but for close-ups (1 meter and 65cm respectively), right in the middle of the picture. I think that many of these lenses needed this correction already when they left the factory and that the lenses were ment to be matched to specific bodies. This correction of the curve is a specialist job and is very time consuming. This necessary correction may count for the bad reputation of these lenses.

The lens that is used for the "Better Coffee" sign above seems to have a correct focusing curve. The Monochrome is very unforgiving in this respect.

Erik.

Correct focusing on coffee-cup of lens no. 1777220 @ full aperture (note the velvet bokeh in the background, completely absent in the shot of the boys above):

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2017   #59
cqing
Registered User
 
cqing is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Singapore
Posts: 19
Have you looked at this page: https://www.google.com/patents/US2975673
The lens formula in this patent does look a little bit different from the the later Summilux lens design you can find online.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2017   #60
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
Thank you, cging, for this very interesting addition.

I find this an interesting note: "it should be clearly understood that many variations and modifications may occur to the skilled in the art, particularly after benefiting from the present teaching, without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims"

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2017   #61
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
Leica M5, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v1, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2017   #62
cqing
Registered User
 
cqing is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Singapore
Posts: 19
My Summilux v1 will arrive tomorrow and I also have a late made-in-Germany Summilux. I'll do a side by side comparison and put the pictures here.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2017   #63
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqing View Post
My Summilux v1 will arrive tomorrow and I also have a late made-in-Germany Summilux. I'll do a side by side comparison and put the pictures here.
That is a very good idea. I look forward to these pictures. Will you do them on film or on digital? Fwiw, my shots above are all on film.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2017   #64
cqing
Registered User
 
cqing is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Singapore
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
That is a very good idea. I look forward to these pictures. Will you do them on film or on digital? Fwiw, my shots above are all on film.

Erik.

I will test on both film and digital Leica, but I don't think the result will make much sense due to "production variations"
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2017   #65
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamsandart View Post
I talked to a very well known Leica Technician that said he felt the last German examples were the best ('in general' I'll assume) because the assembly technique there was better [than Canada], ouch.
Makes sense, build quality control wise. The special titanium finish Summilux 35/1.4 series sold alongside with the M6 in the same finish and covered with that funky ostrich leather are generally considered very good (except at f/1.4 of course).
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2017   #66
JHutchins
Registered User
 
JHutchins's Avatar
 
JHutchins is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Juneau, Alaska
Posts: 262
I do not own both and can speak only from my experience with my lens (s/n 2290818 which is a Canadian aluminum mounted lens -- version 2 -- with an infinity lock ) and images I've seen in various places. I've not seen anything -- including the images posted in this thread -- to convince me that there is any systematic difference between versions 1 and 2. Erik refers to the "velvet bokeh" in the background of his image in post 58 as compared to the photo of the boys in post 45 but these are two different backgrounds -- one is complicated and contrasty -- sunlight coming through a tracery of tree branches -- the other simple and not contrasty. When I look at the blurred point sources of light in the image he's attached to post 26, I see bright outer rings that I would expect to produce precisely the same sort of bokeh as I see in the cousins photo from post 45 when the background is a tracery of trees.

I agree generally with dreamsandart and would add that the 35 Summilux is an odd, quirky lens. It is quite sharp -- it's actually pretty sharp even wide open. But wide open it has a variety of flaws that can contribute to a feeling of unsharpneess and that yield idiosyncratic results. It is very flare prone so that a lens that in low contrast situations seems quite sharp can seem very soft in high contrast situations as the flare bends around and hides fine detail. It also, wide open, suffers from a combination of coma and astigmatism that can throw a sort of diffuse glow around bright areas and fine detail wide open and the character of the glow changes as you move off axis. This is all part of what makes it fun. Except in really tough lighting it's a pretty well behaved lens at f/4 or even f/2.8. And it's sharp wide open when your image is a concerto in grey. But when there is contrasty light, point sources of light, bright lights just outside the field of view, or patches of bright white in the image then weird things are going to happen. Sometimes they're weird and wonderful.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2017   #67
JHutchins
Registered User
 
JHutchins's Avatar
 
JHutchins is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Juneau, Alaska
Posts: 262
As an example of what I'm claiming above, here's a photo shot wide open with my 35 Summilux:



It's a photo of my daughter that I took, handheld, soon after I got to play with the lens. It's pretty low lighting and not super contrasty so the lens isn't kicking up too much but if you look at the areas of high contrast here you see flaws. At the top of her left sock you can see a glow around it that's bleeding out the difference between it and the table and the lighted keys of her keyboard are starting to take on the characteristic bird shape of a combination of astigmatism and coma. But looking at a 100% crop of her face:



You can see that it is capable of rendering fine detail even wide open. Her eyelashes are well defined hairlines and as good as you can really expect them to look in a photo taken with the typ240 at ISO 1600 handheld. So it isn't really a notably soft lens wide open, it's just a weird lens wide open.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2017   #68
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
Thank you, JHutchins for your clear story and this very nice picture. I totally agree that the v2 is a weird lens wide open. I can add however that my version of the v2, no. 2221365, is not only weird wide open, but weird until f/5.6.

The v1 is also weird wide open, but in a different way. This is true for all fast pre asph wide angle lenses. Without aspherical lenses it is impossible to make a completely correct fast wide angle lens. That is why aspherical lenses are made.

The v1 is not only a very fine available light lens, but also extremely good for architecure. Very sharp indeed and without any distortion.

Leica M3, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v1, Tmax400, full aperture (pictures from 2001).

Erik.



@ f/5.6:

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2017   #69
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamsandart View Post
35mm Summilux pre-ASPH (PA) v1 vs v2

Looking back after writing, this is long, sorry, I’m sure everyone will not agree, but it's my take till someone shows me differently. I’m been using a 35 Summilux pre-ASPH for going on 40 years. It is a very fun, versatile, creative and usable lens once you get to know it. (and I could qualify the 'it', with 'your example.')

I’ve had multiple examples of both versions (but not of its last ‘German’ years in production)

I had an earlier example of the v1 and later generation in the same serial number range as Erik's. Both are examples of one of the best made and most beautiful mounts Leitz ever made I feel. Optically both were flare prone, with that ‘Leica glow’ wide open. They were not the best optically (the later was better) till stopped down in the traditional classic way 2 stops and then some. The hood is much better than the v2, deeper and the squarish style helps.

I’ve had 3 examples of the v2. A couple early with the locking focus tab, and one from the early/mid-70s. The best of them optically was the earliest but used the later - my first one - for about 20 years as my ‘go-to’ 35mm lens before the ASPH came along. The v2 basic physical design was the same as the v1 with 2 differences; v1 chrome over brass mount was changed to the black anodized alloy metal (the very rare v1 in black was actually the same with alloy mount to accommodate the black anodizing). Leitz was moving in the mid/the late 60s to lighter and still very strong alloy lens mounts. The other difference was the front steel hood mount ring changed for the round clip-on hood for series filters, which Leitz was simplifying their filter catalog with for both R and M lenses at that time.

The v2 was always thought of (by every and anyone) as a slight upgrade in performance as far as my experience, up till the v1 became a ‘collector’s’ item in the 90s+. The extra ‘Leica-look’ (glow) collector’s seemed to value, along with the heavy brass mount, and out of production rarity, a justification for the higher price. The optical glass layout of both versions is the same, and Leitz always advertised both as having ‘exotic glass.’ Take them apart, except for the advancement in lens coatings, glass looks the same. As a Leica factory repressive told me in the early 70s, ‘ Leica did not have a policy of making optically inferior lenses with next versions. Optical changes were always for better optical quality.’ ('character' is another thing, some [like me] will always like their earlier versions)

The change in glass type from v1 and v2 seems to be one of those internet myths that took hold a few years ago. I would like to see some documentation on it, (respectfully) besides speculation, wishful thinking, and hearsay. The Leica technicians/history folks I trust have said no. If anything the advancements in lens coatings have improved the optical signature of the lens over its long production run.

The most important consideration that few folks talk about is the challenge and difficulty of assembling this lens imposed from the beginning. It has to be very exact, from paper to actual production. I remember Tom A. mentioning he had his v2 example factory (Midland) collimated to assure the best optical quality with this in mind. Having had as I said above a few examples of these lenses I can also say they were all generally good, but one v2 did stand out.

Optical performance variations in production examples are nothing new, even with Leitz/Leica. Some examples of the same lens are just better [or worse] than others on the test bench. In the mid-70s I was involved with a University research project that ‘hand selecting’ Leica (Leicaflex) lenses with the best optical quality of a production run (and they were then disassembled, collimated and sealed with nitrogen gas for as good as it could get). With the 35mm Summilux PA being one of the most difficult lenses to assemble for exactness, a challenging optical design to begin with, and the with the technology of the time, optical variations should not be any surprise, maybe more so than any other lens they made at the time (well maybe the original Noctilux is in that class, and shows the same degree of challenging designs). I've heard of the 35 Summilux described as 'a dog,' and 'all-bokeh,' shows there is an opposite side to the better examples too.

Erik’s V1 photo examples I’ve seen here are very beautiful and shows a lens that is one of those best examples (and a very good photographer also). Maybe one of THE best examples of the v1, because I’ve seen other v1 examples that, yes, could be very poor optically. The v1 did not have a good reputation for many years among professional photographers, and there was a reason for this (Jim Marshell went with v2 because of this I know). And to just throw a bit more ‘controversy’ into this mix… ;-) I talked to a very well known Leica Technician that said he felt the last German examples were the best ('in general' I'll assume) because the assembly technique there was better [than Canada], ouch.

So, if you have a good example; German, Canada, v1, v2, chrome, black, titanium, or whatever... hold on to it. An 'entertaining' lens in every way!
In 1968 I was working as a photojournalist and bought a new 35 summilux with infinity lock ($333 new). My brother owned a mint steel rim version. I had several occasions to shoot both lenses on assignments. There was absolutely no difference in the performance of the two, none. Overall they were really good FOR THE TIME but wide open in an environment where there were bright point sources of light in or near the edge of the frame would render the image totally unusable from flare and coma. The thing was this was as good as it got at that time for a f1.4 35.

Ive not used any of the later versions and really don't desire one after my experiences.

In the 70's I purchased a Noctilux 1.2 . Again it was as good as it got in that era for flare control. Shooting at night on a street with street lights in the frame it handled them quite well even At 1.2. The Leica rep, Hans Kippert, showed me images shot at night with a light source in the frame against black. The V3 Summicron was a marked improvement over the V2 and the f1.2 was far better than both the others. Shooting a light source against black would produce a fuzzy ball of light around the source. The Noctilux had almost no fuzz around it.

The thing about my Noctilux was it peaked in performance around f4. When I no longer needed the flare control and speed I sold it and bought a V3 Summicron.

As to versions of the 35 Summilux, I read a statement that Leica put out a few years ago that all versions were optically the same including glass. I seem to remember reading it was Lanthinum earth glass.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2017   #70
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
The weirdest sharp/unsharp field I've ever seen.

Leica MP, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 no. 2221365, Tmax400.

v2:




v1, same f/stop:

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2017   #71
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
I had several occasions to shoot both lenses on assignments. There was absolutely no difference in the performance of the two, none.
Well this is very interesting and surprising. Do you still have those photographs? I absolutely would like to see them.

I've never heard anything about "Lanthinum earth glass". Lanthanum rare earth glass is what you mean.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2017   #72
cqing
Registered User
 
cqing is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Singapore
Posts: 19




Both shot with my M8, tripod and shutter release cable. One with late German made(34670xx) and one with late steel rim with goggles(21666xx). Both with pristine glass. Can you tell the difference?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2017   #73
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Well this is very interesting and surprising. Do you still have those photographs? I absolutely would like to see them.

I've never heard anything about "Lanthinum earth glass". Lanthanum rare earth glass is what you mean.

Erik.
I might have the negs but I have on the order of 100,000 negs in my archive. It's been 48 years or so.

It was a typo.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2017   #74
JHutchins
Registered User
 
JHutchins's Avatar
 
JHutchins is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Juneau, Alaska
Posts: 262
I'd say the focus on the second is a little forward of the focus on the first and since the focus on the first is dead on the Despicable Me frame, which has sharply defined letters so that crisp is easily differentiated from soft, but it's not so easy to make such judgments about the part of the tablecloth that's hanging down. But the first does seem to have a crisper Despicable Me frame and the second seems to have a bit more texture in the hanging part of the tablecloth. Also there's a tiny bit of lint on the edge of the table which looks crisper in the shot with the softer frame so I'm pretty confident there is a slight focus difference which makes it hard for me to say, really, which one is sharper if either is. And maybe the first is contrastier? Maybe?

On the whole, I think that I probably think it's impressive that two lenses made so many years apart are so similar.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-20-2017   #75
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqing View Post
Both shot with my M8, tripod and shutter release cable. One with late German made(34670xx) and one with late steel rim with goggles(21666xx). Both with pristine glass. Can you tell the difference?
Thank you, cqing, for making this test.

Apart from the sharpness of the target I don't see any difference. Great! Congratulations with these lenses! Maybe my 2221365 is just a dog.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-21-2017   #76
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,444
This on the same subject from `09.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=76480
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-21-2017   #77
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
I will make a comparable comparison as cqing did. As I work only on film, it will take some time.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-21-2017   #78
astro8
Registered User
 
astro8's Avatar
 
astro8 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 547
Erik, your v2 may need adjustment.
My v2 was almost unusable, the 'dog' I had read about all over the internet.
I had DAG adjust it.
It came back a different lens, the improvement was like night and day.
__________________
-Greg

My RFF Gallery

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-21-2017   #79
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro8 View Post
Erik, your v2 may need adjustment.
Thank you, Astro, for this tip. I will take this possibility into consideration.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-21-2017   #80
astro8
Registered User
 
astro8's Avatar
 
astro8 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Twin View Post
I have 21670XX from 1966, it seems to be a very early V2 with black paint on brass infinity lock and you can unscrew the lens head from the mount...

Regards

Simon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Can you screw out the lens head (the optical unit) out of this one?

Erik.
I took another look at mine and yes, it does appear to unscrew as you asked.. I moved it a good half inch but felt a little tight so I didn't push it any further for fear of doing something I might regret.
__________________
-Greg

My RFF Gallery

  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:31.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.