Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/09/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Sorry for the type, I meant f/1.4 of course, refering to the 50mm f/1.4 > Summilux. > > While I understand that the third version (if such is the case) is optically > similar to the 1962 second version, isn't the fact that the 1995 version is > cosmetically different, has a different filter diameter, weight, and close > focus distance enough to qualify it as a new version? Yes true, the third version consisted of new lens coating, closer focusing and built in lens hood which made for the different filter diameter but optically the formula is still supposed to be the same. > > Frankly, it matters little, but other books (such as Satorius' "Indentifying > Leica Lenses" lists it as a third version yet Puts doesn't. Puts' book really did not deal with the minutia as he had bigger fish to fry, the optics. sl > > Just curious. > > Michael > www.luminous-landscape.com >