[Leica] Summicron DR Eyes

[csaganich at gmail.com (Chris Saganich)]

I haven't seen any above 2xxx having the old style body or eyes attached
which would be an obvious mismatch although theoretically useable.  I'm
interested in the phenomena that there seems to be 3 versions of the eyes
for the DR: Old logo for old body, new logo for old body (with larger ball
bearing acceptance), and new logo for new body for smaller ball bearing.  I
would like to know if this is in fact true and the only way really is to
measure the ball bearings and receptors for each case.

Chris

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Joseph Low <joelct at singnet.com.sg> wrote:

> My near mint specimen carriers S/N 2032652 which is not listed in your
> survey
>
> Joseph Low
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+joelct=singnet.com.sg at leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+joelct=singnet.com.sg at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
> Chris Saganich
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 January, 2012 7:25
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: [Leica] Summicron DR Eyes
>
> I noticed that according to Steve Gandy's lens guide the eyes of my DR
> shouldn't be compatible with the lens body.  The newer DR lenses have a
> dual scale in feet and meters, focus to 20in, and have ridges in the trough
> of the focus ring knurling.  The older DR bodies have a single scale, focus
> to 19in, have reproduction ratios, and have ridges on the peaks of the
> focus ring knurling.  The older bodies are supposed to have a larger ball
> bearing compared to the newer DR bodies making the newer eyes incompatible
> to the older DR bodies, but the older eyes will work on the newer DR
> bodies.  Older eyes have the "condenser" logo and newer eyes have the Leitz
> Wetzlar logo.  According to convention ( which I haven't confirmed) the
> newer eyes shouldn't be compatable on the older DR bodies due to the ball
> bearing size difference.  My DR has the new logo and the older body so I
> was curious if I could find any other examples of this anomaly.  I searched
> ebay and the internet for examples where the age of the lens and logo of
> eyes were identifiable.  Here is what I found:
>
> 1956- 125,594 lenses made
> 1402xxx Old Body Old Logo
> 1403731 Old Body Old Logo
> 1440268 Old Body New Logo
>
> 1957- 89,389 lenses made
> 1487412 Old Body New Logo
> 1513415 Old Body New Logo
> 15301xx Old Body New Logo
> 1534320 Old Body New Logo
> 1545576 Old Body New Logo
>
> 1958 -97,281 lenses made
> 1587819 Old Body Old Logo -From Cameraquest website
> 1592570 Old Body New Logo - My Lens
> 1623068 New Body New Logo
>
>
> The only exception is from Cameraquest where Steve probably used an old
> example of the eyes for the old body. Who but Steve would have lots of
> these hanging around?
>
> All this suggests that eyes with the newer logo were manufactured with the
> larger ball bearing receptor for the older DR bodies.
>
> The ball bearing size on my older DR body is 3 mm diameter and 1.8mm
> height. The receptor dimensions on my eyes with newer logo are 3.5 mm
> diameter  and 1 mm deep.
>
> It would be interesting if we could fill in these blanks regarding ball
> bearing measurements on the older and newer DR bodies and eyes:
>
> 1)  Older DR body: 3mm dia x 1.8mm height
> 2)  Eyes with older Logo: ???
> 3)  Eyes with new Logo on older body: 3.5mm dia x 1mm depth
> 4)  Newer DR body: ???
> 5)  Eyes with new Logo on New DR body:  ???
>
> The supposition is that the dimensions of1,  2 and 3 should be similar
> while 4 and 5 should be different and smaller.
>
> --
> Chris Saganich
> www.imagebrooklyn.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
Chris Saganich
www.imagebrooklyn.com