[Leica] Re: Summaron: a very long post about a small lens.

[lrzeitlin at optonline.net (Lawrence Zeitlin)]

OK guys, don't shoot the messenger.

I simply quoted Emil Keller's book. He was there. None of use were.  
He specifically mentions the lens as an f3.5 Summaron although he  
does err in stating that the diaphragm modification added a full stop  
instead of half a stop. I was told a similar story of the birth of  
the f2.8 Summaron by Marty Forscher, an old family friend, in the mid  
60s. Second, the Hove catalog states the date of production of the  
f3.5 Summaron from 1949 to 1958. Hence it was probably the lens that  
Eisenstaedt was using. The f2.8 Summaron was introduced late in 1958.  
Third, I have both the f3.5 3.5cm Summaron and the f3.5 3.5cm  Elmar.  
There is no practical way that the diaphragm of the f3.5 Elmar can be  
enlarged to provide an additional half stop. Virtually the full  
expanse of glass is used to get f3.5. I have never seen, or heard of,  
an f2.8 3.5cm Elmar and do not know if one really exists. Fourth,  
during the early to mid 50s as the M series cameras were being  
introduced, Leica refitted a number of lenses for the LTM series with  
the new mounts. In 1954 I bought both a first edition M3 and a last  
edition IIIf with several lenses at a PX in Germany for absurdly low  
prices. Both the M3 and the IIIf were equipped with collapsible 5cm  
Summicrons, identical in every way but the mount. My f3.5 Summaron  
with goggles is from the same era. I do concur with Marc that post  
WW2 Leitz often bent the rules to stay alive. I was told by a Leitz  
production engineer that Leica often made mechanical changes in their  
lens mounts to meet market demands without changing the optical  
capsule. It was simply good business. Fifth, I will not write about  
the Summaron again. Too much bandwidth is being wasted on an  
inconsequential topic. Mea culpa.

Larry Z

- - - - - - - - - - -

I wrote, in answer to Len's question:

You might try looking for an f3.5 Summaron. As I understand it, the
F2.8 Summaron is identical to the F3.5 model with the diaphragm
adjusted to open half a stop wider.


Seth answered:

Larry, I'm afraid this is just wrong. The only similarities between  
the 2,8
and 3,5 Summarons is that both have six glasses (elements) and both were
produced by Leitz.  :-)   The contrast difference is very  
significant. Put
their images side-by-side and there is no comparison. The degree of
improvement lessens slightly as the lenses are stopped down.


-----

I based my original statement on a dimly remembered story that a well  
known photographer in the 50s asked if Leitz had any 35 mm lens with  
a faster speed than f3.5. The people at Leitz - New York responded by  
adjusting his Summaron so that the diaphragm could open wider,  
gaining half a stop.

At last I found the definitive reference. Emil Keller, a long time  
Leitz employee and a manager of Leitz - New York, wrote the  
following, re the Summaron, in his authoritative book "Today's 35 mm  
Photography: The Leica Years 1945 to 1980". (ISBN 09622612-1-1)

"Alfred Eisenstaedt had a problem trying to photograph a world class  
chess tournament for Life Magazine under available light with the  
wide angle Summaron f3.5 lens. Picture a cloth shade cover over a low  
profile desk lamp illuminating the chess board, the player's faces  
lighted by the illumination off the table - that was all the  
illumination allowed. What to do to get more light on the film? After  
a telephone conversation with the factory, we were given permission  
to open the diaphragm of the lens by one stop. We now had a Summaron  
f2.8 and, because Leitz's lens settings were all on the conservative  
side, the suggestion to open the diaphragm resulted in negligible  
fall off at the corners and Eisenstaedt finished his assignment  
without difficulties."

And so the Summaron f2.8 was born. That's not to say that the design  
wasn't eventually altered as newer glasses became available, but I'll  
bet some of the older f2.8s are simply the f3.5s with factory altered  
wider diaphragms.

Larry Z

On Dec 12, 2008, at 10:31 PM, lug-request@leica-users.org wrote:

> At 03:13 PM 12/12/2008, Seth Rosner wrote:
>> Interesting story, Larry. What lengths we go to for an image! Of  
>> course it
>> is a half-stop difference twixt 2,8 and 3,5. But I'll take your  
>> bet on the
>> older 2,8s being really 3,5s. That's not the way E.Leitz worked  
>> then or
>> Leica Camera works now. The 2,8 was introduced in 1958  
>> simultaneously with
>> the first 8-glass 35/2 Summicron and the 90/2 Summicron and Leitz was
>> justifiably proud of these three ground-breaking lenses. There  
>> would have
>> been no sense in introducing a warmed-over, inferior performing
>> stretched-diaphragm lens with a brand-new 35mm 2,8 lens in the  
>> offing.  Take
>> a look at the lenses physically and you'll see the differences.  
>> And while
>> both are six-glass Gauss formulas, their cross-sections are visibly
>> different.
>
> Seth
>
> With all respect, at the time, E Leitz Wetzlar
> was only beginning to recover from the economic
> horrors caused by the Second World War and by the
> extraordinary cost to develop and produce the M
> film cameras which so many of the LUG, so they
> would do anything at all to stay afloat.  But I
> do believe that you are correct and none of my
> literature suggests otherwise than that you have
> set out the true story with regard to the 3.5cm (NOT 35mm, mind  
> you!) Summaron.
>
> I believe that Larry confused this lens with the
> 3.5/5cm and 2.8/5cm Elmars.  Apocrypha has it
> that ELNY technicians attended a  major chess
> championship match in your burg around 1950 (I
> can dredge the details:  while I play the games,
> I follow neither championship Bridge nor
> Chess.)  The tale has it that the lighting was
> dim and that Eisie told the technicians that he
> was having problems getting images suitable for
> publication, and that the technicians then told
> him that the lens would work well at f/2.8 and
> opened it up one-third of a stop (not half a
> stop, Larry) by adjusting the f-stop
> detents.  They reported this to Wetzlar, who
> followed up by opening the Elmar to f/2.8 in production.
>
> There has been a lot of ink spilt on this
> matter.  Is the tale true?  Eisie said so but
> others have dissented.  I discussed it once with
> Jim Lager who said that we will probably never
> know.  Bob Schwalberg told me that the story must
> be true, as Eisie never inflated any of the
> accounts of his life.  Ed Meyers has backed this
> up.  I do not know but the optical design of the
> f/3.5 and f/2.8 versions of the 5cm Elmar appear
> identical, so it might well be.
>
> I acknowledge that Leitz/Leica has always been a
> company with a dedication to the utmost
> quality.  At the same time, it is a commercial
> concern and simply has to make money to ensure
> that its creditors are paid and that its
> employees got their paychecks.  The fat days were
> between 1958 and 1968, when the Leitz family
> earned a hefty income from the success of the M
> cameras, monies which they lost in the 1970's as
> they tried to keep the firm afloat.  If there are
> memorials in heaven for moral and committed
> capitalists, the Leitz family certainly deserves
> a plaque, right alongside those for Heinz
> K?ppenbender and both Franke and Heidecke.
>
> Post-War Germany was POOR and the "Economic
> Miracle" was a decade away.  We in the US cannot
> understand this.  Take one example.  Following VE
> Day, the management of the KdF-Wagen plant in
> Wolfsburg (now, VW) were most uncertain of their
> fate.  Senior management had fled as most were on
> the War Crimes List.  The Allies had indicated
> that the plant was to be seized and its machinery
> turned over to the Soviets.  There was no money
> coming in.  There were bills to pay.  There was
> no money in the bank.  VW sirvoved through some
> sagacious decisions by the remaining
> management.  The plant had been bombed and they
> worked a deal iout with the British Army,
> Wolfsburg then being in the British Zone, for
> some tentage, which they used to block the holes
> it the roof.  The swap was for maintenance of
> British trucks.  Industrial machinery is not
> easily damaged by bombing:  aerial recon shots of
> Tokyo show this well, with a drill-press or lathe
> appearing in every fourth house, the houses being
> burned to the ground.  Then they began swapping
> steel and the like in return for KdF-wagens for
> the British Army of the Rhine, as it came to be
> called.  That kept the company afloat in terms of
> income and outgo but what about the
> workers?  Management went to the extent of going
> to the local banks and guaranteeing the debts of
> its employees.  For four years, the employees
> were paid in British Army rations together with a
> statement of the monies owned them.  In 1947, VW
> exported three cars to the US.  By 1948, VW was
> making enough to allow it to pay off all that
> promised money to the banks and to begin
> investing in a new roof for its principal factory.  The rest is  
> history.
>
> E Leitz and Franke und Heidecoe received a pass
> from the Allies due to their Warttime resistance
> to the use of slave labor, as did the Carl Zeiss
> Foundation folks -- their head, Heinz
> K?ppenbender, both was charged by the Nazis as
> being delinquent in sending folks to the death
> camps -and by the Allies as a war criminal, all
> chres being dismissed -- ,  Lesson Two will
> involve the imact of the friendly deal with the PX system.
>
> Marc
>
>
> msmall@aya.yale.edu
> Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!