I've assumed it's version III, but I'd like to check it out. I have Sn. 3276xxx. It's marked "Elmarit-M" and "Leitz." It's rather long, enough to block the lower right finder area substantially.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 21, 2002

Answers

Bob,

The serial number you listed is strange in that my Hove book has a break in the sequence from 3249xxx to 3294xxx, which is right at 1983 and 1984. Anyhow, it would be safe to assume that your lens is post 1979, which is the start date for 2nd version of the M mount 28mm lens, which has the narrative has ELMARIT-M, rather than simply ELMARIT (without the "M") of the first version. The third version was launched after 1993, which would be later than your serial number. I would say you have the second version.

One thing noticable about the second version, compared to the third version, is the increase of the lens tube diameter from the aperture ring to the front of the lens, relative to the rest of the body. The third version has a more traditional lens tube look, mostly the same size tube, front to back.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 21, 2002.

Lens serial number 3276xxx dates to 1984. 28mm Elmarit'Third version'produced 1979-1993.

-- David Seaman (david@leicam.freeserve.co.uk), January 21, 2002.

Bob,

I saw David’s reply and looked at a couple of my other books, and David is correct the 3rd version starts from 1979. My Hove pocket book (which I used as my first reference) lists the first version from 1965-1979, but two other books have the first version from 1965- 1972, the second version from 1972-1979 and the third version from 1979-1993.

My narrative about the body style is still true. From the fourth version, the body adopted a more typical style with a consistent diameter...which carries over to the ASPH summicron.

Sorry for any confusion... I'll double reference anything from now on.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 21, 2002.

The lens barrel on mine is pretty much a plain cylinder, with nearly the same diameter throughout. It's Canadian. Filter size is 49mm. It doesn't look like the pictures of the first, third, or fourth version in my Hove book. And there's no picture of version II. I assume they have the pictures identified correctly. But what Hove shows as version III has the increased diameter in front, like Al described. Eastland says that the first two versions look similar and that version III is "less fussy in appearance". Based on that, I'll bet Hove have the picture mis-identified. This seems to be what has been confusing me. Also: According to Hove, and Eastland, version II ended and version III commenced in 1979. That would seem to indicate that mine is a III. Again, it was the pictures in Hove that was confusing me. Many thanks.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 21, 2002.

From the serial# you have a second version. Are you *sure* about the filter size? The second version has an E48, the third an E49. Very easy to confuse them if all you do is measure, not actually attach a filter. Look at the DOF scales. On the 3rd version they are parallel to the lens axis. On the second version they are on a 45- degree bevel. Also, the 3rd version has 2 silver nubs 180-degrees apart on the front barrell for attaching the bayonet-type hood. The 2nd version has no nubs as the hood was of the 2-button clip-on type, the same hood as the 1st version and also the 21/3.4 S/A-M. Maybe this will help clarify.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

Jay, it's a 49mm B+W for sure. The DOF markings are transverse to the lens axis, i.e., on the circumference, pretty much like my other Leica lenses. And it does have the two silver pins to engage the hood. So it matches your description of version III. But you seem to note a serial # discrepancy. As Al pointed out, mine falls into a gap in the Hove serial# listing, but is between 1983 and 1984. Version III as I understand it starded in 1979. I'm not sure how you cross-referenced it to version II.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 21, 2002.

Because I'm mathematically dislexic ;>) 1979 is *before* 1983--I'll repeat that to myself until it sinks in. According to Erwin's compendium 3,276,xxx is 1983 (3,249,101-3,294,900)that would make it a v.3 for certain. Great lens BTW, I had one before the v.4 and other than size I couldn't tell any difference. One tip: don't grab the shade to mount/dismount the lens, I had the whole front end unthread and fall onto the carpet along with all the diaphragm blades. A trip to Leica, a long wait and some money thrown at it and it was back in business but the lesson was learned.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

I had a quick look at mine. It is serial-Nr. 3168548, and I can confirm it is a version III, with the 12536 sunshade. Certainly the same lens Bob has. I agree with Bob that there is a difference in lens barrel to the version III illustrated in Hove Pocketbook (1984 Edition). I have no explanation for it. But maybe there might have been some parts sharing with the 21 mm Elmarit of the same vintage: the focusing ring looks remarkably similar. Great lens anyway.

-- Sebastien Simon (sebastien.simon@alumni.ethz.ch), January 21, 2002.

Thanks for all the help, everybody! Version III it is.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 21, 2002.

Bob. Just to spread the blame equally, you are all wrong :-) (although understandibly so), since the issue of which version is which has been misstated in many Leica references. The correct information (courtesy of Lager's definitive refernce on Leica lens (vol II):

28 mm Elmarit BM rangefinder lens: First version (9-element): 1965-1969 (NOT 1972, the last SN of version 1 lenses is 231xxxx, which dates to 1969, books are wrong on this.) In addition, these lenses were mostly issued by Leitz Canada, with only a few by Wetzlar. This lens was not a sole product of leitz Wetzlar as some references state or imply.

Second version (8-element with highly curved front element): 1969-1979 produced only by Leitz Canada

Third Version (8-element, significantly improved optics): 1979-1993. MOST of these are engraved Leitz Canada, the last lenses may lack the Leitz engraving and may say Germany, consistent with the change in the corporate name and the movement of production facilities to Germany.

Fourth version (8-element, flat (plano) front element): 1993-still in production. As far as I know, all made in Germany.

The change in designation of lenses from Elmarit to Elmarit-M was true of ALL Leica lenses, as the suffix M was attached to distinguish these lenses from their R counterparts. It occurred (? I believe) in the 1980s, and has nothing to do with which version is which. Just as the addition of the focal length on the outside of the barrel was applied to ALL Leica lenses, when Leica decided it would be easier for the user to see at a glance the focal length of the lens.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 21, 2002.

All the v.III 28s I've seen, including the one I own (324xxxx - 1982), have a very distinctive 'bull-nose' - the front 1/3rd of the barrel is a heavy, constant-diameter, unmarked cylinder with two "Boris Karloff neck bolts" protruding from the sides for attaching the hood. Units built late in the cycle may have disposed of the 'bolts' in favor of a lens-hood bayonet - that's what happened on the 21 f/2.8.

As I recall, v. I and v. II had slightly hour-glass shapes. V.1 looked like a stretched 21 f/3.4 - very wide flat area for lettering around the front element.

Here are some additional reference images of the various 28s (and the other wide- angles.

It happens that KEH has a sample each of the v2 and v3 lenses. Here are links that should work for a while.

v. 3

v.2

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 22, 2002.

Ooops - the 'bolts' protrude top and bottom, not from the sides.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 22, 2002.

POST SCRIPT: Should add, There is a printing error in the Hove Pocket Book (6th edition) for lens numbers. Year 1983 should read 3249101 - 3294900

-- David Seaman (Lincolnshire,England) (david@leicam.freeserve.co.uk), January 22, 2002.

Andy, thank you, that really cinches it. Mine looks exactly like the V. III picture. Hove simply put the wrong picture in the spot where a picture of V. III should have gone.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 22, 2002.