35 cron pre-asph 1st and 3rd version questions

[Flyfisher Tom]

What are your user opinions on the 1st (8 element) and 3rd version (6 element)? I understand the 1st version has 2 forms, one with eyes for M2/M3 and the other without eyes. Are the eyes removable for use on M6 cameras, or permanently mounted?

How do these two versions compare with the 4th (7 element) ? As usual, pics are welcomed, of course 🙂

Many thanks in advance.

regards

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

bumpity bump

 

[venchka]

bump bump

Tom, I'm interested too. Not trying to hijack you.

Enquiring minds want to know!

Which 35/2 Summicron is this? #1? #2?

Summicron-M 35/2 #2395046 from 1970

Thanks in advance.

 

[jja]

Wayne, that is version II. Look here:

http://www.cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

bump bump

Tom, I'm interested too. Not trying to hijack you.

Enquiring minds want to know!

Which 35/2 Summicron is this? #1? #2?

Summicron-M 35/2 #2395046 from 1970

Thanks in advance.

No problem at all, Wayne.

Now that you've brought it up, why don't we throw version 2 into the mix while we are at it (to be fair) 🙂 Curious myself.

 

[kbg32]

From what I've read, the 4th version(?) is suppose to be the bokeh king.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

From what I've read, the 4th version(?) is suppose to be the bokeh king.

... thanks 🙂

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

bump bump

Tom, I'm interested too. Not trying to hijack you.

Enquiring minds want to know!

Which 35/2 Summicron is this? #1? #2?

Summicron-M 35/2 #2395046 from 1970

Thanks in advance.

Wayne,

What do you think of yours?

 

[venchka]

What do I think? I think I found that listing among some used lenses. Since the serial number was listed, I wanted to know which version, etc. I'm clueless when it comes to 35mm Summicrons. One of several entries on a long and growing list of things about which I am clueless.😕

I hope to be educated about the earlier 35 'crons. I reckon the price of the highly regarded #4 is so close to the 35 ASPH that if I had the money, I would stretch for the ASPH model. Or maybe I'm wrong. I'm just trying to learn a thing or 3.

 

[andrewch]

I have the version 1 without eyes. I was told that the version with eyes will not focus correctly if the eyes were taken off. And I have some pictures in my gallery that was taken with this lens: EPSN 2101, 2498, 2338, 2032, 2035, 2416, and 2267.

The lens show medium contrast, and it is my sunny day lens. Ergonomics is excellent, and it has the best focusing tab of all my lens. I mainly use it for B&W pics, and it seems to produce very smooth and subtle tonal gradations. It is a bit soft wide open, and the highlight area seems to bleed into the shadow area. All in all an excellent lens, but if you tend to shoot wide open a lot, you might like to consider later versions or the ASPH version.

Price varies according to condition. I got mine from gavincamera for US$1,800.

Andrew

 

[sleepyhead]

Hi Tom, I have the 1st version, 8-element, with no eyes and use it on a M4-P. I have owed two of the 4th version (king of bokeh blah blah blah) in the past, but sold them when an 8-element at a fantastic price (like 500 US dollars) came along.

Sorry, no experience with the 3rd version, but I suspect that it could be under-appreciated having had to live in the shadow of the 4th version these last few years.

Okay, my impressions: the bokeh with the 4th version is ever so slightly better than with the 1st version, but this really isn't a factor for me, as they are virtually indistiguishable. I never did side by side tests on the same roll of film, but, WIDE-OPEN, i think that the 1st version beats the 4th for center sharpness, but the 4th is sharper over the rest of the field. They are both nice lenses. I sold the 4th versions because they were very similar to the Konica Hexar and 40mm M-Rokkors that I already had. The 1st version, which I 've only tried with B&W film, has a different feel than those other lenses, so I kept it and the 40mm M-Rokkor.

The other reason for selling the two 4th versions is that the market has overvalued them in my opinion, so I could convert them into cash to use for other gear.

'Hope this helps...

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Thank you Yaron & Andrew, that is very helpful to hear.

I've been looking for a 1st version 8 element, but have managed to only find the attached eye versions so far. I only have M6 bodies, so the eyes won't work. Or else, they have been priced a bit high.

Yaron, how does your 8-element compare with the 40/rokkor in terms of signature? For that matter, how did your 4th compare with the 40/rokkor in signature?

Thanks 🙂

 

[sleepyhead]

First of all, let me say that I wish I could back my opinions up with some sample pics, but unfortunately, the vast vast majority of my pictures are yet to be scanned.

I found the 4th version summicron and the 40/rokkor very similar interms of sharpness, bokeh, general feel. I love the 40mm FOV so that was another factor in keeping that one over the summicron. Quite frankly, when i bought my first 4th version I foolishly expected it to "change my life" because it was so hyped up on reviews on the internet. king of bokeh blah blah blah...

Well, I was "underwhelmed" with the summicron - it was good, but basically like the M-rokkor. So I sold it and bought another one in case I got a bummer example. It was the same as the first one, good, but didn't blow me away. Then the 8-element came along. Even after my first roll with it I could see a difference - the resolution in the center was incredible. The slight fall off in sharpness towards the edges when wide open contributes to the nice out-of-focus effect and make the subject snap out more, if that makes sense. My only other f/stop is 8 (a basically shoot at f/2, 2.8 or 8), and here the lens is just a nice, all-round, sharp, not too contrasty, pleasing 35mm wide angle. I love the 8-element.

by the way, all these lenses are basically the same size, i.e., nice and small. The 8-element has an infinity lock, which I'm not crazy about, but can live with. Ergonomically, I find the rokkor best for me, by a slight margin. I prefer black lenses (as YOU know), but the chrome 8-element still is a keeper.
My dream is to one day own a chrome M2 or M4 just for this lens.

 

[Rafael]

Tom, I have the third version but unfortunately have never handled a fourth version. So I am unable to offer you any comparisons of the two. However, I have been extremely pleased with my 35. And, as Yaron suggests, I think that this lens may be under-appreciated on account of the fourth version's reputation.

In terms of handling, the fourth version is supposed to be an improvement over the third. I must confess that I do like the idea of the oval aperture ring with the larger gripping sections. However, I have never had any difficulty manipulating the aperture ring on my lens. And I do have quite big hands. Also, I like the focussing tab on the third version (indented) better than that on the fourth (flat). So it is possible that the fourth version handles better than the third. With no basis for comparison I really can't say. But I do think that the third version handles very well. And these are pretty small lenses.

In terms of sharpness and bokeh, I find the third version to be a fantastic lens. The bokeh is smooth. And this is a very sharp lens.

Again, without the ability to offer you any comparisons, I am not sure how valuable my views will be to you. But there they are. Good luck with your search.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Again, without the ability to offer you any comparisons, I am not sure how valuable my views will be to you. But there they are. Good luck with your search.

All insights are valuable, Rafael, I appreciate it 🙂

 

[x-ray]

I had the first version for a few years and sold it for a forth version about six years ago. The first version was very well made and the focusing tab is the best but the lens was soft wide open particularly at the edges. Illumination fell off noticably wide open and was OK by f4. Overall I didn't really care for the performance. I do like my 4th version optically but the mechanics are not nearly as good as the 1st. Prior to the 1st version I owned the 1st version summilux 35 for about twenty years. Wile the summilux was a great lens for its day in the 60's to the 80's it fell very short of current technology. I would place the 1st version summicron 35 in the same class, good in it's day but lacking now. I use my 4th version regularly but have purchased a CV 35 1.2 which I like better. It's much larger but the images are stunning and crisp at all apertures. I see it as a much more versatile lens vs the summicron. Given the cost and performance of the 1st version summicron I would opt for a CV 1.7 even over a 4th version summicron.

Here's a sample form the 1st version shot at f2 with delta 100 in the rain. Keep in mind the light was very low 1/60 at f2 and most of the subject was black or near black.

 

[KM-25]

I just purchased my very first Leica and it arrives today. It is an M6 with a 3rd generation 35 2.0 Summicron. It will see at least a few rolls of Kodachrome by the end of the day with an assignment on a newspaper's 125th anniversary bash, lots of well knowns and celebs.

I'll tell you how I like it.

If it screams Leica, I *might* keep it and not give in the temptation of a 35 ASPH. Since I plan on shooting a metric ton of low light work exclusively on Kodachrome, I will most likely need to give in and get the ASPH. version though.

A 35 1.4 ASPH has not been ruled out either.....

 

[venchka]

...I use my 4th version regularly but have purchased a CV 35 1.2 which I like better. It's much larger but the images are stunning and crisp at all apertures. I see it as a much more versatile lens vs the summicron. Given the cost and performance of the 1st version summicron I would opt for a CV 1.7 even over a 4th version summicron.

Very interesting. Thank you.

1st, 3rd & 4th versions are well represented. Apparently nobody ever bought and used the 2nd version. I wonder why? If that's true, why are they expensive?

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Apparently nobody ever bought and used the 2nd version. I wonder why? If that's true, why are they expensive?

From what I have observed recently, the 4th runs about $950 to $1300 depending on condition. This starts to overlap the used Asph prices at about $1300 to $1500 (dep on condition).

As for the 2nd version, they seem to run a bit lower, at about $700 to $800. I haven't seen any samples from the 2nd version either.

 

[Palaeoboy]

From what I have observed recently, the 4th runs about $950 to $1300 depending on condition. This starts to overlap the used Asph prices at about $1300 to $1500 (dep on condition).

It certainly makes you wonder how the 40mm Summicron/Rokkors stay so cheap when you get similar performance and bokeh! It must be the lack of many cameras with the right framelines. The 40mm focal length is a favourite so I prefer cameras that have those framelines but on an M It can be a pain for some. A forum member has both a Summicron 40 and a CLE 40 for sale for well under $250 USD, you cant get into classic Leica any cheaper than that!