dreamsandart
Well-known
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!
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!
