Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1995/02/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I was interested in the comments about the rigid vs. the collapsable Summicron f:2 lenses. I have both and used them extensively. To help settle the question about quality or design I asked Arthur Kramer, who is one of the world's top guys with Leicas. I append his reply and that of another very knowledgeable individual who was kind enough to comment. Bill ---------------- #: 577731 S3/35mm Cameras 12-Feb-95 16:36:36 Sb: #577622-Summicrons Fm: Arthur Kramer 71140,3240 To: Bill Daniel 73557,237 Bill, The Summicrons remained virtually unchanged until the mid seventies when the formula was upgraded with new glass and curvature changes, and the result was improved performance. This is reflected in the Summicrons that were made in Canada as well as Wetzlar. The collapsable Summicrons were good performers, although not quite up to the rigid models. But this was as a result of machining tolerences and backfocus errors rather than optical performance. Arthur ----------- #: 577991 S3/35mm Cameras 13-Feb-95 07:18:43 Sb: #577622-Summicrons Fm: Don Hinds [Point & Shoot 76004,612 To: Bill Daniel 73557,237 According to several atricles, though Leica claimed diffently, they were different fomulas. If you put both lenses on the table, the front element will not be the same distance on both. If formulas were the same, the distance would be the same... Don