HuubL
hunter-gatherer
I got another two Summitars with my recently obtained Leica IIIb. That makes three now and I'm wondering which one to keep.
1. 1939, uncoated, matching the 1939 Leica IIIb
2. 1950, coated, circular diaphragm
3. 1951, coated, hexagonal diaphragm
The glass of all three lenses is of similar quality: hardly visible cleaning marks and #1 and #2 are clear as water (in fact they were CLAd by Leica in 2000). #3 was CLAd by me (most internal haze is easily cleaned from Summitars), but has some spots of internal dust.
Chrome of the post-war lenses is still beautiful, #1 has user marks and three little indents drilled in the front-most lens retainer ring, apparently for some kind of filter frame or generic hood.
Mechanically they are all excellent.
Is there any consensus about optical/mechanical quality differences between pre- and post-war lenses, between diaphragm shapes and between coating and non-coating?
1. 1939, uncoated, matching the 1939 Leica IIIb
2. 1950, coated, circular diaphragm
3. 1951, coated, hexagonal diaphragm
The glass of all three lenses is of similar quality: hardly visible cleaning marks and #1 and #2 are clear as water (in fact they were CLAd by Leica in 2000). #3 was CLAd by me (most internal haze is easily cleaned from Summitars), but has some spots of internal dust.
Chrome of the post-war lenses is still beautiful, #1 has user marks and three little indents drilled in the front-most lens retainer ring, apparently for some kind of filter frame or generic hood.
Mechanically they are all excellent.
Is there any consensus about optical/mechanical quality differences between pre- and post-war lenses, between diaphragm shapes and between coating and non-coating?
Last edited: