Buying a used summicron 50mm f2, some questions

[tomperson]

Ok, I'm buying my first M-mount system. My budget is tight (under 1k). The body is a Leica CL that comes with a Summicron 40mm f2, but since I'm more of a 50mm shooter, I guess i'd also get a 50 so that the experience is as comfortable as possible.

I have in sight a couple of used 50mm f2 Summicrons (1970s, fourth version it seems) in the 450 dollar range on a local auction site:

1) Supposedly in EX+ condition, rear cap, shade, filter. Clean glass and "minor oil appears on aperture blades", minor brassing. I wonder how this "minor oil" could affect lens performance? Any ideas?
2) Canada, 3 cam (listed as this, don't know what this means), missing red dot.

I wonder what's with those 1970s summicrons, are they worth it? Any remarks?

Thanks!

 

[Oscar Levant]

If they're talking about "3 cams", it's not a rangefinder lens, it's for the Leicaflex.

On the other one, a little oil on the blades is not serious and has nothing to do with the image. Shine an LED flashlight through the lens and look for haze.

 

[Oscar Levant]

PS: "Worth it" is subjective. You could get excellent results with a $10 Russian lens and an M-adapter.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Check all reputable dealers before placing final bid. Oft times dealers will have the same item for about the same price & with a no hassle quarantee. A little oil on the blades is not a problem as is minor dust. I would not get one with fog or haze. As far as the 50mm summicron is concerned there is probably not a bad version. Go to: http://www.antiquecameras.net/ There you can read up on different versions.

 

[chris00nj]

The type you are talking about is likely considered the "third version". (The rigid and DR Summicron are optically identical)

The write-up about 50mm summicrons on antiquecameras is quite good.

Make sure that it isn't a R mount.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

PS: "Worth it" is subjective. You could get excellent results with a $10 Russian lens and an M-adapter.

If a $10 Russian lens is excellent, I shudder to think what average might be. I've seen many photos taken with Russian stuff. It's plainly obvious that Russian lenses cannot even come close to a Summicron.

But perhaps you meant that even with the lowliest lens, if a shooter gets it all right -- composition, lighting, exposure, developing -- the results will be excellent. Granted. However, all things being equal, the shot taken with the Summicron will be better.

The OP wants a Summicron and wants to know how good the Summicron from the 70s is. I've shot with that lens and although Puts judges it inferior to the current version in terms of performance (i.e., not as well corrected in the field as the current version), what I've seen of that lens tells me that it can deliver beautiful results and is certainly worth $450 if in good working condition.

And, most importantly, it looks great with the large vented hood.

 

[Oscar Levant]

If a $10 Russian lens is excellent, I shudder to think what average might be. I've seen many photos taken with Russian stuff. It's plainly obvious that Russian lenses cannot even come close to a Summicron.

Absolutely untrue. A well-shimmed Jupiter-3 lens can be as good or better than a Summicron at f4 and above. Some are sharper than Summilux 50mm lenses wide open, ie f1.4 for Summilix vs f1.5 Jupiter.

Many Russian lenses are not only good, but EXCELLENT. You may have seen bad photos from old, maladjusted, fogged Russian lenses.

 

[Micky D]

And, most importantly, it looks great with the large vented hood.

Of course. That's the most important.