contemporary 35mm lens for the M2

ymc226

ymc226

Well-known
Local time
7:32 PM
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
320
What 35mm Leica lenses, preferably chrome but black is fine, were available for the M2?

Looking at the dealer sites, there are many 35mm and I am not sure which ones were available when the M2 was being manufactured.
 
Often, cameras survive time and wear well but lenses do not. There have been few improvements to the design of the M2 but many improvements in the area of photographic optics. Fidelity of the kind of which you speak would of course make sense in a feature film set in the 1950s or 1960s...
 
In 1967 when I bought my used M2, this model had just been replaced by the new M4. Along with the M2, I bought a brand-new 35mm Summicron, which at that time was still the 8-element "version 1" design, so that was contemporary. Chrome, Canada. Errr, BTW, $164.50 store retail for the lens. :)
 
35mm summilux pre-asph

35mm summilux pre-asph

according to the cameraquest site, the basic 35/1.4 Summilux was produced from 1961 to 1997, which makes it a contemporary of the M2 for several years. the one below is from 1970. if you search on this forum, you'll find several threads about its "special" look - different from today's ASPH lenses.

good luck with your quest

rick
 
Thanks for your replies. I am interested in the 35/2 Summicron or 35/1.4 Summilux versions contemporary to the M2.

My head is spinning regarding the different versions. Is there a pro or con with any particular version? I read in several descriptions of issues such as separation and fogging. Are these issues that can be fixed by a qualified tech and how much should they bring the value down? Are there other issues that one should be aware of when buying an old/used Cron or Lux?
 
For what it's worth, of the three '60s 35s that were contemporary with the M2, my fave by far is the 2.8 Summaron (and judging by the prices of late, I'm not alone in having that take). It's the only one of the three that, in terms of sharpness, distortion, contrast etc, even stands comparison with modern lenses (of course if you love the character of the early 'crons and 'luxes, well that's a whole other thing).

Oh, and the Summaron was chrome, and looks bite-the-back-of-your-hand beautiful mounted on an M2. Not that we care about that kind of thing though...
 
Last edited:
When it was launched the M2 was slightly cheaper than the M3, so I've always thought that conceptually a set of 'cheaper' lenses (in terms of original price) would suit an M2 very well. For 35mm a Summaron, for example, either 23.5 or the later 2.8 (which was available at the same time as the early Summicron 35), while for 50mm the Elmar rather than the Summicron. I suppose at 90mm the f4 Elmarit would be the relevant lens.
 
Thanks everyone. I had a hard time finding a chrome Cron or Lux and with Mr. Phillip and Tom uk's suggestion that I look into the Summaron 2.8. I found a as new specimen and hopefully it will be here by next week.

Did the Summaron 35/2.8 vintage 1966 have a hood and does anyone know the filter size?
 
Yes, the 1966 Summaron 35/2.8 had a hood that fitted both itself and the f3.5 version, and the filter - ideally an original Leitz silver one - is 39mm for both versions.
 
I found the IROOA/12571 hood. It is not cheap! How does it attach to the lens. Are there clips or are there tabs that have to be in functional condition?
 
Having been an M2 Gal
I LOVED the 'LOOK' in Photos and on the Camera
of my 1928 35 Elmar .... and my 1958 Summaron....

At present i am an M4 (1968) & a 1983 35 Summilux Gal :)
and playing with a Contax G1

Best to You- helen

edit; Did forget to mention a 1958 DR Cron was also Quite Fab on my 1962 /M2
 
Last edited:
I bought my M2 new around 1961, and along with it, a new 35mm Summaron. Eventually I bought the 8-element Summicron. Both are contemporaneous with the M2. I can recommend them both! The Summaron, however, is much less costly on the used market. If you don't need f/2, it is probably the way to go. The Summilux, dating from 1961, is also of the same time period as the M2. However, as a user, it is not very good wide open. The Summicron, even at f/2, is already just as good, and the Summaron at f/2.8 is just as good--maybe better. (I still have both the Summicron and Summilux, so I can make that comparison.)
 
Last edited:
How do the silver/chrome vintage filters differ from ones made today? Are there ribs on the older ones versus a smooth surface on the present ones?
 
ymc226 said:
I found the IROOA/12571 hood. It is not cheap! How does it attach to the lens. Are there clips or are there tabs that have to be in functional condition?
Click to expand...

There are little spring-clips inside the hood, the same as so many Leica hoods. They tend to hold up to use pretty well though.

The prices for IROOA hoods seems to be all over the place at the moment - I've seen them go for very reasonable money, but some folks seem to charge a fortune for them. I'm sure if you're patient you could find one for an ok price.

For what it's worth though, I'm not sure that this lens really needs the hood unless you're using filters. The front element's so deeply recessed into the body that the body itself does a pretty good job of shielding the glass. Course, if you've got a filter attached, then the hood becomes a necessity.

BTW, let us know how you get on with your Summaron when it arrives. Hopefully you'll be delighted with it.
 
ymc226 said:
I found the IROOA/12571 hood. It is not cheap! How does it attach to the lens. Are there clips or are there tabs that have to be in functional condition?
Click to expand...

It is possible to find a IROOA at a decent price, if you are persistant. Yes, it has spring-loaded clips, which are operated by the two silver tabs. The hood "clicks-on" (with typical Leitz precision) when it engages in the slot which runs around your lens front. Worth having.

They also made a special lenscap, so you can reverse the hood for storage, and the cap has cutouts in it to accomodate the tabs on the hood. Works very well and is very cool. Have this setup on my V1 Rigid Summicron, which takes the same items. Would also highly recommend the Leitz 39mm UVa chrome filter, it's a perfect match, designed for the lens. Again, if you are patient, you can find one for a reasonable price.
 
mabelsound said:
What 35 would I have gotten with an M2 in 1966? That's the year mine was made--I'm curious.
Click to expand...
Certainly the 35 Summicron v.1 for one possibility, as I bought one new in '67. FWIW the hood is a 12585H vented reverse-taper unit also suited to the Summaron and 50 Summicron. Then there's the Summilux and Summaron.

There appear to be two versions of the f/2.8 Summaron; one with the Elmar type of infinity lock and the other (presumably newer) with the same concave tab as my v.1 Summicron. And for the M3 versions of the Summaron, on the first and second types there's something different about the way the "goggles" attach to the lens.

YMC, congrats on your purchase of a Summaron! If it's from 1966 then I think it would be the later type that's almost a dead ringer for the v.1 Summicron. Does it have "eyes"?

I just bought a late Summaron f/2.8 on eBay this afternoon (goggled version). I intend this for my M2 to give an easier view of the framelines. So you and I are both now in wait mode anticipating goodies en route! :)
 
Last edited:
Doug,

Thanks and congrats to you as well. When I found out the Summaron 35/2.8 was as "new" with mint box and bubble case and made the year I was born (1966), I knew it was meant for me. I got a mint IROOA hood for a good price. This is a chrome/black combo that should look great. The 12571 hood is all black and there is a mint one for sale as well but I think the IROOA looks more my style. Now searching for a vintage 39 UV filter. Is there a difference in the style between the old and present generation filters?

As some have related regarding the great performance of the lens (I intend to use it outdoors), I can't wait to use it.

Just developed my first roll of Tri-X with D-76 using my new MP/Summilux 35/1.4 asph combo and the negatives look OK using the in camera meter. Will go to the darkroom this weekend to print and hopefully have good if not great results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom