I just purchased an very early version of the 90 Summicron-M (introduced 1980). I wanted to report on it because it has some interesting anomalies, and I've never seen a description that really explained how much it differs from the later mount of the same optics.

Most importantly, it throws that beautiful "Mandler" image wide-open and gets even sharper stopped down, clearly the 90mm sister to the pre-ASPH 35 Summicron. Despite (and partly BECAUSE OF) its oddities, it has completely banished my desire for a 75 'cron. A definite keeper.

Here are pictures alongside the popular Elmarit-M: .

.

Oddity No. 1: When retracted, the lens hood covers the aperture ring. I was concerned that this would be inconvenient, but in practice it's basically a non-issue. The lens takes a slip-on (63mm) rubber cap, and when you take the cap off, friction pulls the lens hood out right along with it. In a weird way (if you use lens caps) it's almost MORE convenient than the more modern design, because it takes only one motion, instead of two, to remove the cap and extend the hood.

Oddity No. 2: The aperture ring, once exposed, has a gripping surface about twice as wide as the later mount, the 90 APO or the Elmarit-M (about 7mm vs 3mm). IMHO a plus.

Oddity No. 3: The late versions of this lens, and also the 90 APO, take 55mm filters. This lens takes 49mm filters. The difference is because in this lens, as in some earlier -R lenses, the lettering around the front element is OUTSIDE the filter threads. This is an odd filter size by Leica's current standards, but does match my 28 Elmarit-M from the same era.

Oddity No. 4: The lens barrel is noticeably smaller and easier to hold between the lens mount and the focusing ring knurling. In the posted pictures you can see that the 'ledge' on the barrel just in front of the mount and behind the red mounting dot is about 1mm, whereas in the Elmarit-M and later 'crons this ledge is about 2mm. This makes the 'gripping' circumference over 6mm smaller.

Conversely, the textured part of the focusing ring steps up substantially in size, which gets it back to the diameter (roughly) of the later barrel design. In this regard it looks and feels a lot like a slimmed-down 75 'lux.

Overall the lens is essentially the same size as the later mount (and the APO), but in use it 'feels' a little thinner and longer, if that makes any sense.

Oddity No. 5: This 'cron still uses a sliding 'pusher' to connect to the rangefinder (visible in the left-hand view). The later mount has a full-circular ring-cam, like the Elmarit-M.

Oddity No. 6: The lens hood has a substantial 'fat lip' at the front. I assume this was to make it compatable with the 63mm slip-on cap, which looks like it also fits some of the short -R telephotos from that era.

Oddity No. 7: (already explained by John Collier on another forum) The serial no. 281xxxx was issued THREE YEARS before the lens design was even introduced. Clearly, 90mm 'cron production for the M during Leica's years in the "Canadian wilderness" was extremely low.

I weighed the sucker - it is just under 16 oz. without caps, essentially identical to the weight of the later mount (475g). For the record, there is NO 90 Summicron that I can identify for the M that weighs 410g, despite the fact that Laney (and some reference web sites) list that weight. The Elmarit-M weighs 410g in black mount - someone must have transposed figures somewhere.

90 APO (black) - 500g (per Leica). Original 'big' 90 'cron - 680g (Laney).

There it is.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 19, 2001

Answers

All the differences you have noted are common to the first series of the compact 90/2. Serial numbers were allocated in 1977 but the lens was not introduced until 1980. User's complained about the aperture scale being covered by the collapsed hood so the lens mount was completely redesigned in 1982 (the last E49 version was 3 177 210). See Lager and Sartorius for specifics.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), November 19, 2001.

Very interesting observations Andy, I own a later version of the same ´cron, and I´m quite happy with it, is not a lens that I use a lot, but I like the posibilities it has over the Elmarit, and the cost conveniences over the asph. Weigth and size doesn´t seem to be a diference with Elmarit eather. And owning Leica lenses is important to keep up with the good sides of each lens one ownes, other wise improving can cost thousens.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 19, 2001.

John: You're right. This is not an 'unknown' lens.

I've thumbed through some of the Leica guide books (never seen Sartorius, though). They tend to have fairly dry physical descriptions of lenses, with their years of manufacture, serial number runs, weights, etc. These are suited to people more interested in collectible objects than in artistic tools (IMHO). At least I've never before seen a mention of this lens that says "it's actually a very comfortable, compact version of the Summicron to shoot with, takes great pictures, and the unusual design of the lens hood is not necessarily an impediment in actual use use."

To draw an analogy with birders' field guides: it is good to have a detailed description of the habitat and markings and distinguishing features of the mockingbird, but what I really want to know is: "how beautiful is its song?, and will I love it if I take it home with me?"

So I was trying to give a broader interpretation of what these "oddities" mean, in terms of how they affect the handling of the lens as a means of making photographic imagery.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 20, 2001.