Summicron 50mm Rigid and Dual Range construction and weight differences

bluesun267

Well-known
Local time
11:57 PM
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
515
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
Just thought I'd share some info since I recently had in my possession 3 Summicron Rigid and Dual Range lenses of differing ages and was able to finally satisfy a nagging curiosity about them.

I'd always felt the Dual Range, despite its greatness, somehow made the M3 feel too heavy--or perhaps it is just the way it moved the center of gravity of the camera, being a short yet heavy lens. Strangely, other lenses that are as heavy (or heavier) don't seem to bother me as much as the DR. (It turns out the later version is lighter than the early, although I originally noticed this when I owned a later one, so go figure).

It turns out there are some fairly substantial weight/material differences in the V2 Summicron across its 12 years of production.

Here are my numbers. (And feel free to reply with your own if you want 😉)


Summicron DR #151xxxx (1957) (looks like brass lens fixture)

TOTAL: 340g
Head only: 163g
Helicoid only: 177g


Summicron DR #209xxxx (1965) (aluminum lens fixture?)

TOTAL: 307g
Head only: 138g
Helicoid only: 169g


Summicron Rigid #192xxxx (1962) (aluminum lens fixture?)

TOTAL: 251g
Head only: 134g
Helicoid only: 117g


All measurements taken without front or rear caps or filters!

Below are two images of the above measured Rigid #192xxxx and DR #151xxxx so you can see the most obvious difference is to be seen in the material of the lens fixture itself. Of course there is also the well-known change in focusing ring construction that occurred for both Rigid and DR versions somewhere around 170xxxx.


Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_3453.jpg Views:	0 Size:	265.7 KB ID:	4794537 Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_3454.jpg Views:	0 Size:	268.7 KB ID:	4794538
 
Interesting comparison, especially the rather large difference between the early and late DR. I have a similar question: I saw that on many early rigid Summicrons the focus ring has a distinctly different color compared to the rest of the lens. It looks like the focus ring is aluminium, which ages differently. I have not seen this effect with the later rigid Summicrons such as the one shown here. Maybe someone with an early rigid can post the weight of theirs...
 
I have an early rigid, Nr. 1567891. Weight: 284 g.

The focusing ring of these lenses is painted aluminium, but after all these years this part often looks worn out. The paint can be removed with spittle; the ring then looks much better. Later rigids have an aluminium focusing ring that is not painted, but polished. These have a better shaped grip.

These lenses often suffer from haze, but good repairmen can remove this. Mine was cleaned too but is still, after all those years, extremely good.

Erik.
 
I have an early rigid, Nr. 1567891. Weight: 284 g.

The focusing ring of these lenses is painted aluminium, but after all these years this part often looks worn out. The paint can be removed with ... spittle; the ring then looks much better. Later rigids have an aluminium focusing ring that is not painted, but polished. These have a better shaped grip.

These lenses often suffer from haze, but the good repairmen can remove this. Mine was cleaned too and is still, after all those years, extremely good.

Erik.

That squares with the difference between the early and late DR, exactly 33g!
 
I don't have a DR Summicron yet but I've been looking. I got to play with one that looks great superficially to the "flashlight test" but I'm curious whether its rendering of light sources as soft fuzzy balls is just how they are, or if it shows a problem I overlooked. Anyone have an opinion?
drsummicron-test.jpg
 
The DR Summicron with the "fat" focusing grips is what I suppose making it heavier than the DR Summicron with the look of the 192##### - this is the one I have with thinner grip focusing ring.
Except for the "Rigid" which would have an aluminium focusing assembly - the brass are made for REAL photographers who don't care how much they carry in their bag choker full of other heavy gear, they just don't complain - it makes them feel better about themselves actually. 😎
 
I don't have a DR Summicron yet but I've been looking. I got to play with one that looks great superficially to the "flashlight test" but I'm curious whether its rendering of light sources as soft fuzzy balls is just how they are, or if it shows a problem I overlooked. Anyone have an opinion?
filedata/fetch?id=4795955&d=1659399505

The halo effect seems somewhat excessively rendered in your sample, for a copy of this lens without issues. However it doesn't scream 'major problem' either.

The internal coatings on these lenses are incredibly fragile. If it has ever been serviced by a less-than-gentle tech, the coating on one or more internal surfaces could be gone, or partially removed, which is sometimes hard to see from the outside, even with flashlight. However even when I've encountered such basket cases of Rigid/DR lenses they have usually been capable of great resolution. The only sample that I ever encountered that behaved poorly was one which had supposedly been re-coated by a well known expert in the field (this was over 20 years ago). I suspect this tech either polished too much and changed the curvature of one or more elements, or simply reassembled the whole lens incorrectly, it was that obvious.

I do think that wide-open 'glow' is one of the beautiful aspects of the DR/Rigid. Not to be confused with lack of sharpness however. The center of the image is radically sharp wide-open, as can be seen from this infinity example (actually taken with the above lens #192xxxx on Ferrania P30 film):
Click image for larger version  Name:	drsummicron-test.jpg Views:	40 Size:	54.3 KB ID:	4795955


Compare virtually the same view at f8:
Click image for larger version  Name:	drsummicron-test.jpg Views:	40 Size:	54.3 KB ID:	4795955
 
I don't have a DR Summicron yet but I've been looking. I got to play with one that looks great superficially to the "flashlight test" but I'm curious whether its rendering of light sources as soft fuzzy balls is just how they are, or if it shows a problem I overlooked. Anyone have an opinion?

Funny you mention this. Back in the later 60's and early 70's when I was a young PJ working my way through school and just getting into Leica, Leica had reps that traveled a circuit to their assigned region and visited the retail stores and some of the news papers in that area. They demonstrated new equipment and even had reps that were factory trained repair techs. Our rep, Hans Kippert had been a factory trained tech in Wetzlar prior to being promoted to a field tech. Hans brought his took case and would often do repairs in the field at no cost. These guys were more than salesmen, they were experts in their field and often very good photographers.

Demos were part of the reps duties. When the new v3 Summicron (all black made in Germany) came out and the Noctilux f1.2 was introduced he showed three images of a street scene at night. The Rigid Summicron he made the first image with had the exact ball of fuzz around it that your image shows. The second identical image was made with the "New" v3 and the image had distinctly less fuzz around the light source. The third image was made with the Noctilux 1.2 and had almost no fuzz around the light sources.

The point of the demo was that the v3 had vastly improved flare characteristics vs the Rigid Summicron especially around bright light sources. The Noctilux was almost perfect and handling flare and light sources the best which was a major asset for a photo journalist. So yes the fuzz around light sources is just a part of the early Summicrons.
 
The coatings on these changed over time. I had several, and a very late DR, a '69, 500 or so from the end of the production, had noticeably more contrast than the early 60's/late 50's ones I also shot. No longer have any of them now though. Good lenses with nice resolution. Individual condition of glass relevant here too (eg, haze, fog).
 
Back
Top Bottom