RdEoSg
Well-known
I've got a strange lens here at the moment. It's a Summitar 5cm f2 LTM, but the aperture ring on it is from a Summar I think. It reads 2 2,2 3,2 4,5 6,3 9 12,5.
This make any sense to anyone? I'm assuming it was repaired sometime in the past and a different aperture ring was swapped for some reason.
Now that I look closely though, the rear zone focus scale also has the numbers, so would that mean possibly it isn't a Summitar, it's a Summar with the wrong front lettering piece? So odd.
This make any sense to anyone? I'm assuming it was repaired sometime in the past and a different aperture ring was swapped for some reason.
Now that I look closely though, the rear zone focus scale also has the numbers, so would that mean possibly it isn't a Summitar, it's a Summar with the wrong front lettering piece? So odd.
Ronald M
Veteran
Maybe you have a Summar with wrong name plate
Summitar filter threads are recessed and tapered and go right next to the glass.
Regardless there is a mixed breed there somewhere.
Summitar filter threads are recessed and tapered and go right next to the glass.
Regardless there is a mixed breed there somewhere.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I can't see how, given that the diameters of the two are so different. The Summitar's being much bigger...
What makes you think it is wrong?
Regards, David
I can't see how, given that the diameters of the two are so different. The Summitar's being much bigger...
What makes you think it is wrong?
Regards, David
ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
You may have an early copy:
http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/leica-summitar-50-12-ernst-leitz-wetzlar/
http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/leica-summitar-50-12-ernst-leitz-wetzlar/
RdEoSg
Well-known
AH, maybe it is just an early copy. I tried to find photos or info and found nothing about there being two versions. It must be an early. Is there a value difference?
David Hughes
David Hughes
That's what I thought but I'm in Socratic mode...
Regards, David
Regards, David
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Let us have the serial number and it can be dated.
Value depends on a lot of very variable variables; after all it might be nearly 80 years old and the condition can vary a lot depending on the previous owners, time of year etc.
Regards, David
ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
All other things being equal, I would pay less for a lens with old aperture values.
RdEoSg
Well-known
no worries, thanks, David et all!
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hmmm, but some would pay more to get an authentic outfit with the Summitar on a IIIa or IIIb, perhaps.
Regards, David
MikeMGB
Well-known
If I was looking for a Summitar to go on my IIIa I would probably be willing to pay more for an early one with the correct aperture markings.
My coated 1951 Summitar has regular f-stops, the 1940 uncoated has 2 2,2 3,2 4,5 6,3 9 12,5.
PAN F
Established
David Hughes
David Hughes
Just out of interest...
Just out of interest...
Hi,
The earliest advertisements I have seen for the Summitar appeared in photo magazines in September 1939; about the worst date a German firm could chose to export something to Britain...
Not the best way of copying them but the magazine's binding and my laziness can be blamed.
The first advert is by R G Lewis and the second by Wallace Heaton, both firms in London.
If you did manage to buy one new, you'd be made to feel very unpatriotic during the war.
And the second-hand price of them went through the roof, so much so that a law was passed to limit camera prices based on the price on 3rd September 1939. If you look long enough you may find a copy of the book and papers issued by the PDA to explain the laws and list all the 1939 prices. I'll wish you luck bidding.
Regards, David
Just out of interest...
Hi,
The earliest advertisements I have seen for the Summitar appeared in photo magazines in September 1939; about the worst date a German firm could chose to export something to Britain...
Not the best way of copying them but the magazine's binding and my laziness can be blamed.
The first advert is by R G Lewis and the second by Wallace Heaton, both firms in London.
If you did manage to buy one new, you'd be made to feel very unpatriotic during the war.
And the second-hand price of them went through the roof, so much so that a law was passed to limit camera prices based on the price on 3rd September 1939. If you look long enough you may find a copy of the book and papers issued by the PDA to explain the laws and list all the 1939 prices. I'll wish you luck bidding.
Regards, David
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
Originally, the early lens lacks coating, while the aperture has many blades, making it circular and producing nicer highlights in the boké. Together these effects make the famous Leiva glow! I would not pay less for the early version.
Hatchetman
Well-known
Just an early version. Honestly never in my life have I yearned to have f16 on mine.
burninfilm
Well-known
I once had a beautiful 1942 coated Summitar with the earlier f-stop numbering. It was an awesome lens.
I would suspect the early/late production dates don't have too much impact on value. Some may want an earlier lens with the round aperture, some may want a later coated lens with proper f-stops. With all of the emphasis on "bokeh" we see in the lens market today, the earlier round aperture Summitars may actually be a bit more desirable.
I would suspect the early/late production dates don't have too much impact on value. Some may want an earlier lens with the round aperture, some may want a later coated lens with proper f-stops. With all of the emphasis on "bokeh" we see in the lens market today, the earlier round aperture Summitars may actually be a bit more desirable.