Meleica
Well-known
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Thanks for the work, Dan!
haagen_dazs
Well-known
thanks for sharing DAN!
ferider
Veteran
Thanks for this, Dan. Very useful.
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.
Best,
Roland.
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.
Best,
Roland.
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
Hi,
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.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
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.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
Meleica
Well-known
ferider said:Thanks for this, Dan. Very useful.
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.
Best,
Roland.
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
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Dan,
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?
Cheers,
Raid
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?
Cheers,
Raid
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
Dan,
First, thank you for doing this and your other work on the 50 'cron. Will you be adding images of the lenses?
First, thank you for doing this and your other work on the 50 'cron. Will you be adding images of the lenses?
Meleica
Well-known
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.
Ron-I am working on adding images.
Dan
Ron-I am working on adding images.
Dan
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you for the information, Dan.
Raid
Raid
doitashimash1te
Well-known
Thanks a lot, Dan! Very useful. I bookmarked.
Meleica
Well-known
Images of each version have been added - thanks to kevincameras who's permission I obtained
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/35summicron.htm
Dan
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/35summicron.htm
Dan
ferider
Veteran
Share:
-
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.