When did Leica switch over to glued-on nameplates for their lenses?

[weatherproof]

I was watching a video of the dissasembly of a Summarit 50/2.4, and in order to remove the nameplate from the front, the technician needed to pry it off versus unscrewing it. It's at the 10m30s mark here:



When did Leica make this change instead of using a rubber thing to unscrew the plate?

Thank you

 

[Freakscene]

The f2.5 and f2.4 Summarit lenses were constructed like this to cut costs. They are also discontinued. So the short answer is they started in 2008 when the f2.5 Summarits were introduced. But a great majority of other Leica lenses I have seen pulled apart, including the current generation lenses, have threaded rings or no front nameplate ring (the wide lenses are mostly designed without space for a nameplate ring). So it is not consistent.

There is also a lot of plastic and glue inside late 1970s and early 1980s Leica lenses, many with great reputations, such as the 35mm Summicron version 4 and the 75 Summilux.

 

[MNS]

Both version 5 28mm and 35mm Summicron's have this I think. My 35mm Summicron V5 filter ring is lose and I've noticed the name ring moves as well. From what I've found out, it seems the front filter ring assembly is glued and holds the name ring in place.

 

[weatherproof]

The f2.5 and f2.4 Summarit lenses were constructed like this to cut costs. They are also discontinued. So the short answer is they started in 2008 when the f2.5 Summarits were introduced. But a great majority of other Leica lenses I have seen pulled apart, including the current generation lenses, have threaded rings or no front nameplate ring (the wide lenses are mostly designed without space for a nameplate ring). So it is not consistent.

Thanks, I suspected it was a cost-cutting measure for the Summarits.

I also noticed a nameplate change on the Summicron 50mm v4 where the earlier ones had slots for a spanner to no slots. My casual observation is that this occurred with 50 Summicrons with 360xxxx serials (roughly mid-1992). But I suspect these still have threaded nameplates.

 

[santino]

Whenever they did, it is a disappointing drop in qaulity.

 

[Freakscene]

Thanks, I suspected it was a cost-cutting measure for the Summarits.

I also noticed a nameplate change on the Summicron 50mm v4 where the earlier ones had slots for a spanner to no slots. My casual observation is that this occurred with 50 Summicrons with 360xxxx serials (roughly mid-1992). But I suspect these still have threaded nameplates.

Aren’t these nameplates held in place between the lens barrel and the components behind them? So if there is any glue it is just to stop them from rotating? At least that’s what I recall. That’s very different to glued on to me.

 

[rulnacco]

There is also a lot of plastic and glue inside late 1970s and early 1980s Leica lenses, many with great reputations, such as the 35mm Summicron version 4 and the 75 Summilux.

Ooooh, yes. I don't know about the 75 Summilux, I've never seen one, but one reason I've never wanted a 35 Summicron V4 (despite its overegged reputation as the KoB™) is because the lens tube was actually made of plastic. My dealer had a lens - its parts, really - stuck in a box, the result of an incident where the owner had dropped it and broken the plastic tube, and Leica apparently no longer had the parts to replace it. I think the dealer was hanging on to it for the customer in the event either of them ever located a replacement tube.

My understanding, although I'm not 100% sure about this, is that Leica eventually switched to metal for the lens tube. I've read other horror stories on the internet about that plastic bit of crucial innards, but the example above I saw with my own eyes. Who'd pay that kind of money for a lens built that crappily?

 

[Freakscene]

Ooooh, yes. I don't know about the 75 Summilux, I've never seen one, but one reason I've never wanted a 35 Summicron V4 (despite its overegged reputation as the KoB™) is because the lens tube was actually made of plastic. My dealer had a lens - its parts, really - stuck in a box, the result of an incident where the owner had dropped it and broken the plastic tube, and Leica apparently no longer had the parts to replace it. I think the dealer was hanging on to it for the customer in the event either of them ever located a replacement tube.

My understanding, although I'm not 100% sure about this, is that Leica eventually switched to metal for the lens tube. I've read other horror stories on the internet about that plastic bit of crucial innards, but the example above I saw with my own eyes. Who'd pay that kind of money for a lens built that crappily?

Me. But I am very careful with it.

The 75 Summilux has a plastic integral aperture unit that is glued in place. If it breaks, the lens is toast.

 

[Photar]

The f2.5 and f2.4 Summarit lenses were constructed like this to cut costs.

Unfortunately, my only experience with the modern Summarit lenses is in line with such cost-cutting measures. I once bought a new 75mm f2.4. It was dead on arrival (aperture did not close). Optically, it was amazing at full aperture. I returned it and stayed away from the series afterwards.

 

[brusby]

I'm pretty sure the German version 35mm Summicron v4 uses metal, not plastic. Unless my info is incorrect, and I don't think it is, it's only the Canadian version that uses the plastic parts. I've seen photos of the different materials employed in the two versions. The only thing I'm not sure of is whether all of the internal plastic parts of the Canadian version are replaced with metal in the German issue or just most.

 

[Halftrack]

Several years ago I sent my 35mm Summicron V4 to Youxin Yee for a CLA and asked him to lubricate the stiff aperture ring. He performed the CLA but said he couldn't loosen the ring because the internal parts are plastic, so nothing could be done about it. He said this lens is optically excellent but mechanically fragile, so be careful with it.

According to the serial number, Leica manufactured my lens in Canada in 1979, the first year for this V4 model. The focusing tab has milled ridges instead of a smooth crescent, another confirmation that this particular lens is a first-year model. It looks like any other Leica lens but indeed has internal plastic parts. Leica was experiencing hard times in that period and was economizing in ways that would have been unacceptable before.

I bought this lens second-hand in 1988 when it was nearly 10 years old and have been using it for almost 40 years. Although the aperture ring is stiffer than most others, it's perfectly workable, and I needn't worry about it changing accidentally as I handle the camera. I treat this lens the same as all my lenses -- carefully but not obsessively. Despite its internal plastic construction, it must be relatively durable to have lasted so long. It still works like new. Today it's worth more than five times what I paid for it.

 

[Dguebey]

I had some vicissitude (lost ring but happy end) with my Summarit-M 50/2.5, related here: Leica M lens quality problem