The many secret guises of the Summilux 35mm f1.4 preasph.

[fixbones]

Hi there,

I am going to purchase a M2 and just recently started shooting B & W film again and favours the Vintage/classic look.
I have the opportunity to buy a mint Leica 35mm summilux preasph Ser 32xxxxx for USD 1400 and i can afford it..... but should i?

My other alternative is the nokton classic 35mm f1.4. I know it has some barrel and some might not like its bokeh but i am not too bothered but it.

I am just after that vintage look.........

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Rich

Thanks Rich

This is good info.

Can't speak for the early solid-brass version (same barrel - with or without eyes) as I've heard no reports on it being used on an M8.

The version 2 aluminium-bodied lens has a shroud that, at best, just clears the M8 lens throat, so I think whether a particular lens fouls the lens throat or not is pure chance...

My lens misfocused and also fouled my M8, so I did a bit of measuring and drew the sketch above and sent it off to the repairer. The repairer, who specialises in Leica stuff, didn't throw up his hand in horror, and happily machined and repainted the shroud, and the returned lens works perfectly now.

 

[Ricko of Fla]

I ordered a pre ASPH #3.1xxx on Sat ,will get it this week. I will have to fine a better hood and figure out the filter thing on a M8.
Anyone know where a hood is?

 

[Ricko of Fla]

Received the lens yesterday, Now I need a filter(What size filter will fit) I think a hood is located 12524 $70. Looks like a 39mm will fit.
RICH C said a 37mm What is every one using if you have a M8

 

[RichC]

39mm won't fit - too large, hence 37mm. Note that there isn't a filter thread, so the 37mm is held in only by friction, and not too tight at that (it will fall out sooner or later!).

You need a bit of ingenuity to get the filter to stay. Examples:

• Blue Tack (OK, it works, but not very elegant!)

• Wrap a single layer of plumbers' self-amalgamating rubber tape around the filter thread

• Glue something inside the lens hood to act as a retainer for the filter.

 

[ampguy]

I'm following Rich's idea and have a 12526 coming (Adorama has them). I'm planning to keep the 12504 with a UV/IR for color on M8, and use the 12526 for all else.

BTW, I emailed DAG about fixing the 12504's loose tension, and he is not aware of any way to fix or rebuild them once loose, but mentioned tape in the groove might keep rattling and rotating to a minimum. I found a thin rubber band that is doing the job for my looser 12504.

 

[thomasw_]

Hey RichC, was the size of the old filter ring you glued inside the 12526 hood a 37mm filter ring or something else? Thanks, Thomas.

 

[tbarker13]

I just put a 49mm UV/IR filter inside the 12504 lens hood, with the filter threads facing outward. It's not a perfect fit (there is a slight bit of play) but it is quite secure.

 

[ferider]

In absence of a Series VII filter, a slim 49mm filter fits the 12504 hood very well.

Roland.

 

[RichC]

Using epoxy, I glued a couple of small black plastic rectangles to the inside of the hood, to retain the filter ring. I filed a curve on one edge to match the hood, then painted them matt black when the epoxy had set.

Anything will do that stops the filter from falling out. A filter ring would work (not sure what size).

 

[Ricko of Fla]

I received My 12524 from Koh's camera today, went to hardware store and purchased a 1 3/4 rubber o-ring and now using epoxy glue. Gluing in the ring at 4 points in the hood, just a drop on each point. Waiting for glue to dry as I write this. 5 minute epoxy. Using a 39mm filter, fits perfect in the lens front element and not touching the glass, which is a no no.

 

[ampguy]

found a great tape for lens front. While waiting for my rect. hood, I found some mil spec ptfe tape that I was able to tie around the lens front hood groove, and keeps the old 12504 hood tight, and also prevents the metal from scraping the lens. This tape is not sticky, so no tape residue either.

Previously I was using a 1/16th rubber band that sort of helped, but with the tape, there is no tension on the aperture ring.

 

[Alex Krasotkin]

I love the 35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH too. Mine is the latest Canadian version, but I love the signature and often use it with my M7 and BW film.

 

[maddoc]

Could you post a quick shot of how the modified hood looks like ?

Cheers,

Gabor

I received My 12524 from Koh's camera today, went to hardware store and purchased a 1 3/4 rubber o-ring and now using epoxy glue. Gluing in the ring at 4 points in the hood, just a drop on each point. Waiting for glue to dry as I write this. 5 minute epoxy. Using a 39mm filter, fits perfect in the lens front element and not touching the glass, which is a no no.

 

[Ricko of Fla]

Not a good picture,but you can see the o-ring and I have under the o-ring a chrome 39mm filter, which you can see.
Hope this helps

 

[maddoc]

Thanks for the photo !! That helps a lot ! 🙂

Cheers,

Gabor

 

[thomasw_]

Not a good picture,but you can see the o-ring and I have under the o-ring a chrome 39mm filter, which you can see.
Hope this helps

Hmm, Ricko, have you shot that design with film without vignetting? I can see that being no problem on a less than full-frame sensor. That shows problem-solving skill.

 

[Ricko of Fla]

Picture shot w/wife canon G9

 

[Ricko of Fla]

Thanks RICH C. without your info, I would not have know how to proceed to add a different hood and install the filter.
Thanks Again

 

[thompsonks]

IMO the vintage probably matters a lot among ver. 2 pre-a Summiluxes, re: flare.

I've been using #319xxxx for a while on M9 & can't get it to flare the way I was warned it would! I've been using the old round hood with no filter, & can include a pretty strong light source in the edge of the frame with only a bit of flare.

I read somewhere that while the optical formula remained the same throughout the long production of the 2d version, nevertheless the glass quality & coatings changed, which may account for reduction in flare by the time mine was made (1982).

I'll add, however, that my copy not exactly impressive in resolution, even after 2 trips to NJ. My favorite 35 lens is a Summicron ver. 1 (1964), & it's noticeably the sharper when both are set for f2. I had previously been using a 35 Nokton 1.2 for low-light work & wide-open it resolves more than the Summilux, though its CA doesn't look good in color. At f2, my 40 mm Summilux-C is actually the best of these four from the standpoint of resolution.

My tentative conclusion is that the pre-a Lux is a world-class film lens, but its moderate resolution is more obvious that I'd like in digital. The famous 'glow' looks especially good when the film grain is in fine focus (for example when printing with a Focomat). The film grain creates an illusion of sharpness & the image glows with coma behind that.

The same thing is true of the 1.5 Sonnar that Robert Frank used. Critical folks have said he couldn't focus, but that's usually wrong if you look at his prints: the critical point is usually 'right on,' & he was simply working at the outer limits of resolution for these old lenses.

In criticizing pre-a 35 Lux resolution for digital, I'm talking about making fairly large prints (14x21" image area). On the web & in book reproduction, I get the glow without the telling detail of enlargement.

Kirk