I saw a Summicron M 90 (pre APO and ASPH) in a Leica dealer today. The question is, can we still buy new Summicron M 90 lens? I heard its production has been stopped long time ago.

Thanks

Su Yang

-- Su Yang (suyang63@hotmail.com), January 15, 2002

Answers

Su,

According to various books the Summicron 90mm f/2, third version (11136 & 11137) was discontinued in 1998. And superseded by the APO/ASPH version (11884)

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), January 15, 2002.

A cleaning mark is usually residue that is left over by lens cleaner. Sometimes they can be very stubborn to get off. That's why I never use lens cleaning solution on my lenses. If you're going to use lens cleaning solution make sure its 100% volatile (like purified methanol). We use that on the crystal condenser of our $110 000 Coultier Elite FACS so if its good enough for Beckmann it should be good enough for Leitz.

Regards,

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 15, 2002.

Whoops, wrong thread!

Many apologettes

-- John. (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 15, 2002.

The lens was probably NOS or new old stock. It is not uncommon to find new Leica equipment that was discontinued years ago. It gets buried in the stock room or just ignored for one reason or another. When the Visoflex system was discontinued, my dealer was stuck with several 65/3.5 Elmars. After years of discounting them, I believe they finally sold for under a $100CAN each. One person told the story of finding a black paint 50/1.4 sitting on a dealer's shelf in Australia in the late seventies.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), January 15, 2002.

The 'new' 21 pre-ASPH I traded for in 2001 has a 1989(!) serial number. 4-5 years on the shelf for Leica products - esp. pricey low-volume ones - is not unlikely, and even more so once they get superceded by a 'better' model.

The dealer ends up 'upside-down' on the lens - even selling it at his/ her cost to get it off the shelf, the price is higher than an equivalent condition used lens, so it can't compete.

I proabbly took a bath on the 21 - $2000 value for a lens selling (9 months later) used for about $1100. But since it was a cash-free trade, and I got pretty good prices on the body and other lenses - AND I love the 21 focal length - I didn't do too badly overall. Plus I got my one and only Passport warranty!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 15, 2002.

John C is right. In some cases, recently discontinuous but unsold lenses, cameras, accessories can be found for a short time new in the box on dealers shelves. This was certainly true of the 28/2.8 Elmarit-M third version, shortly after Leica introduced the fourth version of this lens in 1994 or so. Many dealers were offering the older lens in new condition at significantly reduced prices after the current lens was introduced. Sometimes you find new in box versions of much older Leica items that have just been sitting around for many years. Good news for collectors, at least.

NOS (new old stock)? I thought it stood for "not otherwise specified". Too many abbreviations. I can't keep up with them all.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 15, 2002.

ITA, too many abrev. IMO. FWIW it's a bane of the modern age. Typewriters forced one to work deliberately, use good grammer and spelling (I used to be a spelling champ, then started working as an expatriot and encountered Canadian and British "mis-spellings". Now, I can't spell worth beans), or start from the beginning. In this e- mail age many of us don't even use greetings or salutations anymore.

The M5 sat on shelves for years too. Frankly, I can't understand why they're fetching the prices that they are. The Rube Goldberg swinging meter cell is bound to mechanically/electrically fail because of the physical speed at which it must move. It makes as much noise and produces as much vibration as an SLR's mirror. I had a CL, and boy, did that baby go thwick-thwick.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 16, 2002.

"ITA, too many abrev. IMO. FWIW it's a bane of the modern age. Typewriters forced one to work deliberately, use good grammer and spelling (I used to be a spelling champ, then started working as an expatriot and encountered Canadian and British "mis-spellings". Now, I can't spell worth beans), or start from the beginning. In this e- mail age many of us don't even use greetings or salutations anymore."

Dear Chris,

Would that I did not need to spick a spelling nit with you - after all, such disputes are the usual domain of the internet hoi polloi, you were doing so well up until the point in contention. However, I must take issue with your description of yourself as an "expatriot". I surmise that your intended self-appellation was to have read "expatriate". Now, far be it from me to question another's national loyalties, so if you actually meant to describe yourself as written, please accept my most humble apologies.

Yr obt svt, Paul Chefurka :-) :-) :-)

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), January 16, 2002.