FPjohn
Well-known
Hello Raid:
I find that a glance at the MTF plots in the Hove Pocket Book (7ed) occasionally inhibits GAS. If one wishes to yield however, it is best not to look.
yours
FPJ
I find that a glance at the MTF plots in the Hove Pocket Book (7ed) occasionally inhibits GAS. If one wishes to yield however, it is best not to look.
yours
FPJ
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
FPJohn: It is better to give us the link and let us enjoy GAS. Is there a link to such MTF curves?
FPjohn
Well-known
Hello Raid:
By all means enjoy GAS! No link, the Hove Photo Book is hard copy.
yours
FPJ
http://www.amazon.com/Leica-Pocket-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260037436&sr=1-1
Follow the Links at Leica for MTF of current lenses
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/
By all means enjoy GAS! No link, the Hove Photo Book is hard copy.
yours
FPJ
http://www.amazon.com/Leica-Pocket-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260037436&sr=1-1
Follow the Links at Leica for MTF of current lenses
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
FPJ: Tell us how the MTF curves looked like for the Summicron.
FPjohn
Well-known
Like a f2.8 Summaron
Like a f2.8 Summaron
Hello Raid:
The 8 element Summicron MTFs (f5.6 and respective max apertures) look rather like those of the f2.8 Summaron. It was designed to perform like one.
yours
FPJ
Like a f2.8 Summaron
Hello Raid:
The 8 element Summicron MTFs (f5.6 and respective max apertures) look rather like those of the f2.8 Summaron. It was designed to perform like one.
yours
FPJ
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
My 35/2 was made in Wetzlar, so it may be more collectible than the lens made in Canada. I wonder how many 35/2 with goggles were made in Wetzlar. Maybe all?
FPjohn
Well-known
Hello Raid:
Hove Pocket Book says most f2/35mm(1) lenses made in Midland. Yours may be quite rare.
M2/M3 11355/9557
yours
FPJ
Hove Pocket Book says most f2/35mm(1) lenses made in Midland. Yours may be quite rare.
M2/M3 11355/9557
yours
FPJ
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Do they distinguish M3 and M2 versions?
I once commented to Dan about the possible extra value of my Cron, and he told me that his comment [in his price list] really refers to the M2 version.
I have a mintish 35/2 since over twenty years, and it will be stay in the family.
I need to figure out how many 35/2 were made in Wetzlar.
I once commented to Dan about the possible extra value of my Cron, and he told me that his comment [in his price list] really refers to the M2 version.
I have a mintish 35/2 since over twenty years, and it will be stay in the family.
I need to figure out how many 35/2 were made in Wetzlar.
raid
Dad Photographer
In the extensive 35mm-40mm lens comparisons that I did with Roland's help, the Summaron 35/2.8 was one of the top performers. Some people now view this lens to be a better lens than the Summicron of its time.
FPjohn
Well-known
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
This may be a a good research topic for people here. What were the production numbers of the Wetzlar lenses before they moved production over to Canada.
raid
Dad Photographer
Roland,
So all 35/2 with goggles were made in Wetzlar then. Is this correct?
So all 35/2 with goggles were made in Wetzlar then. Is this correct?
chris00nj
Young Luddite
fbf
Well-known
chris00nj
Young Luddite
fbf
Well-known
The ltm 35/2 cron will only focus down to 1m (3 feet). Please take a look at the pictures in your link.
The lens was converted "professionally" from a M3 type M mount 35/2 cron (goggled).
bob338
Well-known
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I see them in black paint presumably to hide the scars.
Meleica
Well-known
from
http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/008t4V
"
Eliot Rosen , Jul 20, 2004; 03:38 p.m.
Rob. Thanks for your post. Throw away your Hove, it is wrong more often than it is right. There were indeed four versions of the lens before the introduction of the 35/2 ASPH. The years were (approximately, to my memory). They are described in detail in Lager's volume on lenses. There is also information on Gandy's camerquest.com website (see Leica lens user's guide), although not as much detail as in Lager.
v1 1958-1969 (chrome and some rare black paint/anodized, both M2 and M3 (bug-eyes) versions) - 8-elements - infinity lock. Made in Canada and Wetzlar.
v2 1969-1973 black anodized only, made in Canada and Wetzlar, mostly M2, but I believe there were a small number of this variety also made with the bug-eyes for use on M3. 6-elements. No infinity lock.
v3 1973-1979 black anodized only, Canada only, also six elements. This lens was similar to v2 (hence the confusion). Although Leitz did not publish differences in the optical formula (the factory didn't always do this in the past), it was still 6-elements bu clearly different, the exit pupil was noticeably larger. See Lager's book on this point.
v4. 1979-1995 or so. The immediate "pre-ASPH" version. Seven elements, different barrel. Earlier lenses engraved Leitz Canada. Later lenses engraved Leica and Germany (after move to Solms). Earlier lenses black only, later Leica offered black and chrome versions.
v5. 1995-current 35/2 Summicron-M ASPH. seven elements with one aspherical surface. Different barrel design, larger volume and weight. Originally in black anodized, but the lens has also been offered in (I believe) chrome, titanium, black paint, and hammertone paint. How's that for choices. All of these were made in Solms and engraved "Leica" and "Germany".
I'll check my references again later, but that's it to the best of my recollection. Unofrtunately Hove misses and misstates a lot. This is not the first time mistakes from Hove have surfaced. My source authority is Lager. His books have been very carefully researched and I have not [yet] come across any mistakes of fact."
Dan
http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/008t4V
"
Eliot Rosen , Jul 20, 2004; 03:38 p.m.
Rob. Thanks for your post. Throw away your Hove, it is wrong more often than it is right. There were indeed four versions of the lens before the introduction of the 35/2 ASPH. The years were (approximately, to my memory). They are described in detail in Lager's volume on lenses. There is also information on Gandy's camerquest.com website (see Leica lens user's guide), although not as much detail as in Lager.
v1 1958-1969 (chrome and some rare black paint/anodized, both M2 and M3 (bug-eyes) versions) - 8-elements - infinity lock. Made in Canada and Wetzlar.
v2 1969-1973 black anodized only, made in Canada and Wetzlar, mostly M2, but I believe there were a small number of this variety also made with the bug-eyes for use on M3. 6-elements. No infinity lock.
v3 1973-1979 black anodized only, Canada only, also six elements. This lens was similar to v2 (hence the confusion). Although Leitz did not publish differences in the optical formula (the factory didn't always do this in the past), it was still 6-elements bu clearly different, the exit pupil was noticeably larger. See Lager's book on this point.
v4. 1979-1995 or so. The immediate "pre-ASPH" version. Seven elements, different barrel. Earlier lenses engraved Leitz Canada. Later lenses engraved Leica and Germany (after move to Solms). Earlier lenses black only, later Leica offered black and chrome versions.
v5. 1995-current 35/2 Summicron-M ASPH. seven elements with one aspherical surface. Different barrel design, larger volume and weight. Originally in black anodized, but the lens has also been offered in (I believe) chrome, titanium, black paint, and hammertone paint. How's that for choices. All of these were made in Solms and engraved "Leica" and "Germany".
I'll check my references again later, but that's it to the best of my recollection. Unofrtunately Hove misses and misstates a lot. This is not the first time mistakes from Hove have surfaced. My source authority is Lager. His books have been very carefully researched and I have not [yet] come across any mistakes of fact."
Dan
Meleica
Well-known
And a post from Tom A. about Leica's move to Canada
"From: TTAbrahams@aol.com
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:46:11 EDT
The Ernst Leitz Canada facility was built in 1953 and part of the reasoning was to have a modern facility designed to cater to the North-American market. It was a scant 8 years after the end of World War II and also the beginning of the Cold War. From a point of view of producing photographic equipment for the burgeoning US market it made sense and the possibility of tapping in to the lucrative military market in US probably played a part. Over the years I have heard several reasons why the Canadian site was chosen over a US site. One was the requirement for moving highly skilled German technicians to the new plant and the US government showed remarkable resistance in allowing the "former enemy" to settle in USA. Be as it may be, we could have had a truly Made In USA Leica if this had not happened (ELUSA instead of ELCAN!). The choice of Midland was made because of its proximity to Toronto and its location on a fairly stable part of the Canadian Shield, an area not too prone to earthquakes. This makes sense if you do very sensitive Optical Bench testing. The other reason was evidently a fairly selfish one, the Leica importer in Canada at the time was Carveth Inc. and Mr. Carveth had a fishing cottage at the lake in Midland and having the facility there would allow him ample opportunity to go to Midland for high level consultations and fishing, and the whole thing would have been a tax-deductible expense. It appears that Mr. Carveth lobbied the factory in Germany for the establishment of an optical plant in North America early on and he could very well have helped in acquiring the site too. This information is very much hearsay and should be taken as such. However I doubt that the Canadian Military was involved in the project, but I am sure that the US Navy and Air Force was pushing for it. The production of cameras and optics started almost instantly. Today you can find 3F's and 3G's with Ernst Leitz Midland, Canada engraving (if you are willing to pay the high prices they demand) and very early on the production of the M-camera was split between Germany and Canada. In most cases there were no engravings that differentiated the cameras, only in the serial number listing would it appear as an ELC suffix. Midland's greatest achievement was its optical design team. The lenses produced and designed are among the best optics built. Dr Mandler, who still lives in Midland, created optics like the 50/1 Noctilux, the 75/1,4 Summilux, the 35/1,4 (early version - and in 1959 this was a remarkable lens), 21/2,8, the 90/2 early version and the subsequent ones, all the way up to the current 90/2 APO-Asph. For a long time the only M-lens made in Wetzlar was the 50/1,4 (the 21/3,4 was a Schneider design). If this is not remarkable enough add, the 180/3,4 Apo, the 100/2,8 Apo-Macro for the R-system and a large body of custom lenses for the US Military, lenses like the f1/90, the 28'/f4, the strange 12" set up with four matched lenses, covering a 10"x10" plate (each lens covering a 5"x5" part of the neg., one lens is an APO-lens, one is UV-sensitive, one has a resaue plate in it for doing measurements from the neg. and the fourth one is a reference lens. There is also a strange ELCAN lens, 12 or 15' focal length with one lens element deep red for Infrared photography as well as all of the strange stuff made for the military M-cameras, 66mm/f2, 75/2,4 APO, 50/2 ELCAN etc. A lot of the optics we are using on our Leicas has originated in that little town, a couple of hours from Toronto. In a lot of cases, the "Made in Germany" labels were stuck on lens assemblies shipped from Midland. It should also be noted that the M-camera of today, owes most of its existence to Midland. The President of Leica Canada, Walther Gluck saw an opportunity and managed to convince Wetzlar that the failing M5 should be replaced with a remade M4 and got the M4-2 on the road. We should probably give thanks to his foresight and, although the M6 TTL is not loved by us all, it could have been worse, it could have been a M5 TTL! It is my understanding that Leica Solms has severed the connections with the Midlands facility, the last pieces that came out of there were the optical system for the first 90/2 APO-Asph and some of the elements for the Noctilux. Unfortunately I suspect there is very little interest at Midland to provide us with any information regarding what they did. Any time I have tried to ask they just say "its classified" - great way of not having to answer questions. Leica Midland is also well known for its manufacturing of high quality binoculars, sold under the name ELCAN. As for which is better, Canadian or German, I never seen much of a difference. My biggest problem was 4-5 years ago, when some of the more common lenses were assembled in Germany and I found the focussing mounts very stiff compared to the Canadian made ones. It would be very interesting to find out more about the Midland Years, there are probably reams of information available, but at the moment they are not allowing any of it to be published. Pity!Tom ATom AbrahamssonVancouver, BCCANADA" Dan
"From: TTAbrahams@aol.com
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:46:11 EDT
The Ernst Leitz Canada facility was built in 1953 and part of the reasoning was to have a modern facility designed to cater to the North-American market. It was a scant 8 years after the end of World War II and also the beginning of the Cold War. From a point of view of producing photographic equipment for the burgeoning US market it made sense and the possibility of tapping in to the lucrative military market in US probably played a part. Over the years I have heard several reasons why the Canadian site was chosen over a US site. One was the requirement for moving highly skilled German technicians to the new plant and the US government showed remarkable resistance in allowing the "former enemy" to settle in USA. Be as it may be, we could have had a truly Made In USA Leica if this had not happened (ELUSA instead of ELCAN!). The choice of Midland was made because of its proximity to Toronto and its location on a fairly stable part of the Canadian Shield, an area not too prone to earthquakes. This makes sense if you do very sensitive Optical Bench testing. The other reason was evidently a fairly selfish one, the Leica importer in Canada at the time was Carveth Inc. and Mr. Carveth had a fishing cottage at the lake in Midland and having the facility there would allow him ample opportunity to go to Midland for high level consultations and fishing, and the whole thing would have been a tax-deductible expense. It appears that Mr. Carveth lobbied the factory in Germany for the establishment of an optical plant in North America early on and he could very well have helped in acquiring the site too. This information is very much hearsay and should be taken as such. However I doubt that the Canadian Military was involved in the project, but I am sure that the US Navy and Air Force was pushing for it. The production of cameras and optics started almost instantly. Today you can find 3F's and 3G's with Ernst Leitz Midland, Canada engraving (if you are willing to pay the high prices they demand) and very early on the production of the M-camera was split between Germany and Canada. In most cases there were no engravings that differentiated the cameras, only in the serial number listing would it appear as an ELC suffix. Midland's greatest achievement was its optical design team. The lenses produced and designed are among the best optics built. Dr Mandler, who still lives in Midland, created optics like the 50/1 Noctilux, the 75/1,4 Summilux, the 35/1,4 (early version - and in 1959 this was a remarkable lens), 21/2,8, the 90/2 early version and the subsequent ones, all the way up to the current 90/2 APO-Asph. For a long time the only M-lens made in Wetzlar was the 50/1,4 (the 21/3,4 was a Schneider design). If this is not remarkable enough add, the 180/3,4 Apo, the 100/2,8 Apo-Macro for the R-system and a large body of custom lenses for the US Military, lenses like the f1/90, the 28'/f4, the strange 12" set up with four matched lenses, covering a 10"x10" plate (each lens covering a 5"x5" part of the neg., one lens is an APO-lens, one is UV-sensitive, one has a resaue plate in it for doing measurements from the neg. and the fourth one is a reference lens. There is also a strange ELCAN lens, 12 or 15' focal length with one lens element deep red for Infrared photography as well as all of the strange stuff made for the military M-cameras, 66mm/f2, 75/2,4 APO, 50/2 ELCAN etc. A lot of the optics we are using on our Leicas has originated in that little town, a couple of hours from Toronto. In a lot of cases, the "Made in Germany" labels were stuck on lens assemblies shipped from Midland. It should also be noted that the M-camera of today, owes most of its existence to Midland. The President of Leica Canada, Walther Gluck saw an opportunity and managed to convince Wetzlar that the failing M5 should be replaced with a remade M4 and got the M4-2 on the road. We should probably give thanks to his foresight and, although the M6 TTL is not loved by us all, it could have been worse, it could have been a M5 TTL! It is my understanding that Leica Solms has severed the connections with the Midlands facility, the last pieces that came out of there were the optical system for the first 90/2 APO-Asph and some of the elements for the Noctilux. Unfortunately I suspect there is very little interest at Midland to provide us with any information regarding what they did. Any time I have tried to ask they just say "its classified" - great way of not having to answer questions. Leica Midland is also well known for its manufacturing of high quality binoculars, sold under the name ELCAN. As for which is better, Canadian or German, I never seen much of a difference. My biggest problem was 4-5 years ago, when some of the more common lenses were assembled in Germany and I found the focussing mounts very stiff compared to the Canadian made ones. It would be very interesting to find out more about the Midland Years, there are probably reams of information available, but at the moment they are not allowing any of it to be published. Pity!Tom ATom AbrahamssonVancouver, BCCANADA" Dan