sirius
Well-known
Hi,
Can you give me your advice? I recently bought an old Summitar screw-mount lens. I love it. There is something special about the Leica glass compared to my Canon screw-mounts. The Summitar does have some fogging on the inside which is common for this lens. It's like a film around the edges of an internal element. I think this results in a lot of edge softness and flare.
I would like to invest in an M-mount camera and I'm trying to decide whether to buy older glass---from the 60's or just get something newer. I just want a simple kit 35/f2. I was thinking about an M2.
The thing is, I would like to avoid a lens that has haze or fogging. I love what Leica glass does and how fun they are to use, but I would like to buy one that is performing properly. Is there quality concerns with glass from the 60's? I'm not sure if I'm asking this question properly.
thanks
Can you give me your advice? I recently bought an old Summitar screw-mount lens. I love it. There is something special about the Leica glass compared to my Canon screw-mounts. The Summitar does have some fogging on the inside which is common for this lens. It's like a film around the edges of an internal element. I think this results in a lot of edge softness and flare.
I would like to invest in an M-mount camera and I'm trying to decide whether to buy older glass---from the 60's or just get something newer. I just want a simple kit 35/f2. I was thinking about an M2.
The thing is, I would like to avoid a lens that has haze or fogging. I love what Leica glass does and how fun they are to use, but I would like to buy one that is performing properly. Is there quality concerns with glass from the 60's? I'm not sure if I'm asking this question properly.
thanks
Xmas
Veteran
Lots of the 60 lenses have fogging or fungus problems, if you buy from e-bay you may be buying at risk.
If you but from a good dealer you can send it back, but you will be paying more.
Leitz used soft anti reflection coating (until mid 60s) and glass material that was physically soft and subject to decay, you have to look through the lens and inspect carefully. Many of the lenses will still be like new if they have been looked after.
Noel
If you but from a good dealer you can send it back, but you will be paying more.
Leitz used soft anti reflection coating (until mid 60s) and glass material that was physically soft and subject to decay, you have to look through the lens and inspect carefully. Many of the lenses will still be like new if they have been looked after.
Noel
OldNick
Well-known
I had my Summitar CLA'd and it is a very good lens. I would avoid the early Leica 35mm lenses. An inexpensive alternative is a late model Jupiter 12, though it is only f/2.8. I bought a 1987 black J-12 from Yuri at Fedka, and it is an excellent lens.
Jim N.
Jim N.
venchka
Veteran
35mm? Reasonable cost? Great optical quality? You ya gonna call?
Voigtlander! Either flavor, 1.7 or 1.2.
Voigtlander! Either flavor, 1.7 or 1.2.
peter_n
Veteran
I bought a rigid Summicron on eBay that was stated to have haze on internal elements. It went cheap and I sent it to DAG for a full CLA that cost $125. It is now like new. I think if the haze or fogging isn't too bad you can do well sometimes.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Before getting newer glass ask DAG how much a CLA would be on the Summitar. You already like what it produces so a CLA and a proper M adaptor might be a good way to go. I use my Summitar on my M4 that way.
Bob
Bob
sirius
Well-known
Thanks for your responses.
I have the opportunity to invest in a bunch of old Leica lenses, late 50's to early 70's. They look well taken care of, but I'm debating whether I should just buy new(er) to avoid the risk of fogging/haze. I'm not attached to the look of the Summitar, it is fairly soft and flares (though attractively sometimes). I didn't know when Lieca improved their coatings. According to Xmas, it sounds like the 60's lenses can still have problems.
I'm well aware of Voigtlander. They make excellent lenses, no complaints, but they've their own character. I'm looking for a simple kit that delivers a feel that I enjoy. I've seen enough Leica pictures to know that I like the results. I like the look of the Zeiss ZM lenses too.
I have the opportunity to invest in a bunch of old Leica lenses, late 50's to early 70's. They look well taken care of, but I'm debating whether I should just buy new(er) to avoid the risk of fogging/haze. I'm not attached to the look of the Summitar, it is fairly soft and flares (though attractively sometimes). I didn't know when Lieca improved their coatings. According to Xmas, it sounds like the 60's lenses can still have problems.
I'm well aware of Voigtlander. They make excellent lenses, no complaints, but they've their own character. I'm looking for a simple kit that delivers a feel that I enjoy. I've seen enough Leica pictures to know that I like the results. I like the look of the Zeiss ZM lenses too.
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
My 1961 50mm DR Summicron & 1965 90mm Elmarit are clean as a whistle. I agree with you. 60s and 70s lenses are nice.
sirius
Well-known
Thanks venchka, that's the sort of advice that I was looking for...
peter_n
Veteran
I have a mix of old and new lenses; I like the look of both. However I would warn you that modern Leica lenses are not as well made as the older ones were. I have four modern ASPH lenses, three of them bought new, and the only one that was perfect is the used one; a 35/1.4 ASPH. My 90, 75 and 24 ASPH lenses have all required attention. Don't assume that buying new will be trouble free.
thomasw_
Well-known
i agree with the chap above who recommends the VC 35/1.2 if you want that low light shooting capability; and price-wise you get creamy bokeh for a lot less than with a summilux 35/1.4.
OTOH, my most frequently used 35 is my elmar 35/3.5. it was made way, way back in 1937
I love its signature, and the unit I own is in superb condition......and it is the smallest of the small lenses, looking so compact on a M2 or barnack body. i know a lot of folks do not care for it, but i find it quite capable of a very fine vintage look.
OTOH, my most frequently used 35 is my elmar 35/3.5. it was made way, way back in 1937
I love its signature, and the unit I own is in superb condition......and it is the smallest of the small lenses, looking so compact on a M2 or barnack body. i know a lot of folks do not care for it, but i find it quite capable of a very fine vintage look.
Last edited:
John Elder
Well-known
If your ar looking for a focal length of 35mm, look for a 35mm summaron 2.8. Very good lens
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
The only lens I've got that has ever fogged was (is) a 1969 or so DR Summicron (2,357,xxx). It has dones this several times over the years. It seems to do it for no reason I can identify, since other lenses stored with it don't.
I agree with Peter. The much-sought version IV 35/2 is pretty well known for mechanical problems with the mount. I have a 90 AA that was basically un-focusable from the factory; DAG fixed it. However, I have a recent 50/1.4 (E46) that's beautiful and a 35/2 ASPH that rivals anything from the 60s.
The coatings are better today and in general the optics are also better, at least from some perspectives, but the mechanical quality of older lenses was better. However, Leica is far, far from alone in that regard today.
I agree with Peter. The much-sought version IV 35/2 is pretty well known for mechanical problems with the mount. I have a 90 AA that was basically un-focusable from the factory; DAG fixed it. However, I have a recent 50/1.4 (E46) that's beautiful and a 35/2 ASPH that rivals anything from the 60s.
The coatings are better today and in general the optics are also better, at least from some perspectives, but the mechanical quality of older lenses was better. However, Leica is far, far from alone in that regard today.