There is a mismatch in the numbering when compared to Stephen's
summary in http://www.cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm
for the v2->v3 transition. Not sure which one is correct.
Nice and informative page. like all your other pages are too.
There is however a small mistake. The first version for the M3 can actually be used on other M's too. It just pops up the 50 frame and reduces that to a 35 view. You should not take the eyes of though. Then it doesn't focus correct any more. It doesn't make much sense but it can be used.
There is a mismatch in the numbering when compared to Stephen's
summary in http://www.cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm
for the v2->v3 transition. Not sure which one is correct.
My data regarding serial #'s and transitions comes from the "Leica Pocket Book" 7th edition by Dennis Laney.
S. Gandy writes 264xxxx for the 3rd version - Laney writes 246xxxx, I think someone has a typo ....
I have noticed MANY subtle date & serial # differences on the internet - but my source is stated, so use at your own discretion. And since version II and III are basically the same lens with identical performance & price, not much of an issue. One item I would like to verify is that Gandy says some version III's had series 7 filter and some E39. My source states all versions III had E39...can anyone verify ?
Dan
PS - Michiel Fokkema, I have added your comment - THANKS
This is an excellent contribution!
In your write-up on the first version Summicron, you have "Most of the Type 1 lenses were made and marked in CANADA. Some were made and marked Wetzlar. Wetzlar lenses bring a premium."
My lens is a mintish Wetzlar lens for the M3. What would be its market value?
Raid - the M3 chrome in Wetzlar would only run $ 100-200 more than a chrome Canada M3. However, M2 Wetzlar's can get $ 300-400+ more than Canada versions.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.