35 Summicron 8 elements (Type 1). What's so special?

[horosu]

Hello,

I found on some webpages the assertion that this lens is legendary. On ebay at least, it is almost as expensive as the current ASPH Summicron. I haven't seen any samples from this lens. What makes it so special (except the collector value, of course).

Thanks, Horea

 

[venchka]

I certainly don't know. For grins & giggles I am watching an 8 element, ver. 1 M3 model on ebay now.

 

[xayraa33]

it is the creamy bokeh thing again and people sexing up its reputation.
the Canon 35/2 is a better buy IMHO, but it is not Leica glass, if you suffer from that kind of ailment.

 

[35mmdelux]

The 8-element model is the penultimate for B&W shooters. It had everything thrown in - Leica's heart and soul - before the Version 3 production cost reduction went to 6-elements.

 

[horosu]

The ultimate being ? (50 Cron Rigid?)

 

[x-ray]

Absolutely nothing special. I shot one for a number of years and didn't like the soft edges and fall off.

 

[venchka]

The ultimate being ? (50 Cron Rigid?)

DR 50 'cron. If you ask me. But nobody did. 🙂

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Nothing. There's nothing special about this lens.

Nobody jack up this price.

Awful lens.

May I interest you in a reasonable 40mm f/1.4 Nokton? 😀

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

It comes with cool goggles.

And when you look through them, there's a Leica glow 😀

 

[kevin m]

What makes it so special (except the collector value, of course).

Well, they don't make 'em like that anymore. Heavy duty chrome on brass; weighs twice as much as it should; inspection tag signed off by twelve guys in white lab coats, etc..

But mostly, it's the collector value. 😀

 

[x-ray]

The v1 produces acceptable images but thare are much better modern lenses. Here is a sample of the v1 at F2 shot in the rain on delta 100. Almost everything around the young man was covered with black soot and the light was quite flat and dark. It's impossible to see on the internet but the original neg shows a great deal of fall off at the edges in illumination and some softness compared to modern lenses. I found F2 only of limited use if clean sharp images were desired with even illumination. A very good lens in 1960 but fair to poor by todays design standards. I traded the lens for a v4 Summicron simply because there were no other choices at the time. I had previously owned the v1 Summilux and shot both these for years. I would place both v1's in the same optical class, usable at max aperture in an emergency. The v4 is a big leap in performance compared to the v1's. Now I still have the v4 but have and generally shoot and like much more the Zeiss Biogon.

The shot of the peanut stand is the v1 Summicron and the fire eater is the v1 Summilux stopped down a little. Can't remember the exact data since it was shot thirty years ago.

Both are fine images but would have been rendered better with a modern lens. Soft corners, fall off and flare were typical of both these lenses.

 

[xayraa33]

is there any photo examples that show the creamy bokeh thing of this 35mm Summicron version 1?

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Don,

For a crappy lens, you sure made pretty good use of it, very nice shots 🙂

 

[vrgard]

DR 50 'cron. If you ask me. But nobody did. 🙂

Hey Wayne, your comment confuses me (easily done, I might add... 😛 ). Why do you draw a distinction between the rigid and the DR Summicron lenses? I was under the impression that they were basically the same optically despite one having a closer focusing ability. Is that incorrect?

Thanks in advance for clearing up any misunderstanding I may be under.

-Randy

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

rigid and DR are the same optical formula as far as I know

 

[x-ray]

Don,

For a crappy lens, you sure made pretty good use of it, very nice shots 🙂

Thanks Tom!

Again I have to thank you for that fantastic CV 28 Ultron. The Ultron has made me a lover of the 28mm focal length.

I hate to always sound like the older lenses are like crap because they aren't. They are certainly capable of great imagery and have produced some of the great images of all time. I fear people elevate them to a status level undeserved. I remember one post on this forum from a guy who bought a Leica and (I think) 50 elmar expecting to see some miracle with his photography. He was very disappointed because he didn't see a "glow". After nearly 40 years of shooting leica I still haven't seen the "glow". I figuer Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny must be the keepers of the "glow".

The myths surrounding these lenses only serve to elevate the prices and take them out of the reach of deserving photographers that can't gather $1,200 for a v1 summicron, $1,300 for a v1 Summilux or up to $1,500 for the v4. This is completely insame to pay this unless someone wants to buy my v4 for $1,495 ( look at the investment potential here). Better lenses can be bought for much less under the Zeiss, CV and Konica name.

I certainly haven't shot with every 35mm lens out at the moment but would venture to say there are no bad modern 35's out now. My guess is every one of them are better than the lenses of the 60's to the late 80's.

Invest wisely and use the additional money for film. Spend your time learning to shoot exceptional images and quit worrying about not having the "best". Best is relative for the individual shooter. The greatest images in history have been made with inferior equipment compared to what the average shooter on this forum has. If you're a half way good shooter you can take almost any lens from the past 50 years and make spectacular images. In my career of 40 years I can count the poor performing lenses that I've shot on one hand.

 

[Dougg]

Here's a shot from last October, at the Safeway pharmacy dept to get a flu shot... Using this 35 'cron type 1 lens since new in 1967. Shot at least shows the OOF look. 🙂

 

[raid]

I may do a test of vintage 35mm lenses next year. I have the 35mm Summicron with goggles (first version) and I find its creamy rendition in images wonderful.


Raid

 

[dreamsandart]

I think x-ray has some sound advice about lens choice. The only thing I can add is that many Leica users 'love' their camera/lenses and image quality is just part of the equation. With the photographer he/her self being the main reason for an interesting photograph, and with how we feel about our cameras, there still a place for the older lenses. Personally I really enjoy an afternoon with my old 35 Summilux, but if I want good 'modern' optics the 35 ASPH is on the camera.

 

[Harry Lime]

It produces a similar look as the DR/Rigid, but I don't believe it is as sharp.

Compared to modern lenses you will see lower contrast, more glow and blooming around highlights due to single coating. From a sheer technical standpoint it can't compete with modern lenses, but of course that's not everything.

The pre-ASPH 35 Summilux has a similar look, but overall I believe its a better performer.

That said, if you are after a classic 1950/60's look, this lens and a roll of Tri-X in D76 or 777 will deliver it. Nick Ut shot the famous Vietnam era picture of the naked girl running away from a napalm attack with one of these mounted on an M2.

If you find the newest 35 Cron ASPH too clinical in it's rendering I highly recommend the last pre-asph (vers. 4) of this lens. It is a very good balance between the modern and classic look.