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

I agree with Harry: part of the fun is using period gear for its own sake. The run-up in price for the V1 is frightening, so I have the poor cousin Summaron 35/2.8. These share the same barrel and are a delight to handle. The 'cron has the best DOF layout ever. As noted already, the satin Wetzlar chrome is unmatched.
 
Well, I have one of these lenses, but unfortunately no pictures taken with it are scanned in at the moment. I agree with much of what has been said above, but not all. I would like to also note, with all due respect to X-ray, that I sold two version 4 summicrons and kept my version 1. The images from the version 1 were simply more distinctive.

It is a non-goggled version and gets used on an M4-P. I was lucky enough to buy it for about $500 from someone who inherited their father's gear and didn't know what it was.

My version 1 is in great condition, but I decided to USE it instead of selling it to a collector for a lot of money and buying another summicron (ASPH version?), because I DO shoot mostly tri-x and I AM going for the special vintage look of this lens.

I don't know if X-ray had a bummer example of this lens, but the one I have is deadly sharp in the centre and, yes, a bit softer at the corners (wide open), but it's contrast is perfect for me and vignetting is no issue (I never shot colour slides, so maybe in that circumstance). The bokeh is pretty much indistinguishable to the version 4 to my eyes, but the build quality of the version 1 is the best there can be.

Ergonomically, I also find the version 1 more natural to handle than version 4, not so much the focus, but the aperture ring just is in exactly the right place. NOTE THAT THERE ARE NO HALF STOP CLICK STOPS on the version 1, but I can live with that.

Anyway, i think a lot of this discussion boils down to "the look" that you're after.
 
sleepyhead:

I agree the v1 is the best construction and ergonomics are better too. I really don't like the v4 in either respect. I think my example was typical but for some this might be the answer for how they shoot and the look they want. No argument there. I guess my issue is the out of sight price of this gear. I simply do not understand the current thinking that has driven the price up so much. I guess i purchased my v1 in a kit that i found in an antique store. It had one zeiss ltm 50 1.5 and seven or eight M lenses in mint or near mint condition, a E+++ M2, couple of visoflexes, bellows and tons of adaptor rings, filters and 2 meters. If my memory hasn't failed I paid just over $1,100. I also picked up a mint IIIG with a summicron 50 for $500. This was a bargain even at the time but why has the price risen so much? I believe the pricing on some of these cult lenses has risen due to internet discussion not true performance or value.
 
x-ray said:
I guess my issue is the out of sight price of this gear. I simply do not understand the current thinking that has driven the price up so much. ...I believe the pricing on some of these cult lenses has risen due to internet discussion not true performance or value.
Click to expand...

Hello X-ray, I agree with you 100% - and it's a shame for those "deserving" people out there who really want to use the great vintage equipment. I should have posted above, that if I hadn't been lucky to find "a cheap" version 1, I WOULD NEVER NEVER EVER spend $1300 or so on one. Then for sure, I would get a version 2 or 3.

I don't really understand the "collector" mentality, and I guess because of the price-driving-upwards factor, I wish they didn't exist...
 
horosu said:
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
Click to expand...

It really is the ultimate lens. I'll sell you mine for $3000,- and that's a bargain🙂
It has scratch but that will add to the bokeh.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema
 
x-ray said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don,

Learn something from your sound comments.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Don, whenever I see your 'fire-eater' pic, I think, 'Darn. Coulda' been a good pic if he just had an Aspherical Summilux.' 🙄 😀

Whenever I hear words like "magical; legendary; bokeh-king" used to describe a lens, I figure the punch has been spiked. I cannot imagine that lens designers use any of those terms in their work, so why should we? There are, of course, differences in how lenses render images, but why not use the terms that accurately describe those differences, rather than engage in faith-based terminology?
 
kevin m said:
Don, whenever I see your 'fire-eater' pic, I think, 'Darn. Coulda' been a good pic if he just had an Aspherical Summilux.' 🙄 😀

Whenever I hear words like "magical; legendary; bokeh-king" used to describe a lens, I figure the punch has been spiked. I cannot imagine that lens designers use any of those terms in their work, so why should we? There are, of course, differences in how lenses render images, but why not use the terms that accurately describe those differences, rather than engage in faith-based terminology?
Click to expand...


Because Leica is as much a religion to some as they are a camera company to others 😀
 
Great wisdom guys, I fully agree.

I had to laugh at the comment on my fire eater image being better if shot with an asph. You can't imagine what a bear this neg is to print. The fire is ten times the exposure of the shaddow area where the kids are on the left side. What I need is a self masking lens that would dodge the shadows and burn in the highlight during exposure. Now that would be a real lens!
 
My Summicron is still in true mint condition, and I can second the comment on the satin finish of this lens. It is a piece of art. Just like any expensive toy, Leica items are costly and beautiful, with usefulness for the discriminating photographer. As time progresses, some of the vintage items will become even more expensive if in clean condition. I use more often a Canon 35mm/1.8 lens since it has no goggles. The Summicron is left for the M3 only.

Raid
 
Just my opinion

Just my opinion

vrgard said:
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
Click to expand...

It's just me. A plug for my favorite lens. I have no idea if the DR & Rigid are the same or not. I've never even held a rigid nor have I used one. I just reckon that if they are the same optically, why not get the one that does more, hey? 🙂

Either way, I'm sure both are great.
 
x-ray said:
Great wisdom guys, I fully agree.

I had to laugh at the comment on my fire eater image being better if shot with an asph. You can't imagine what a bear this neg is to print. The fire is ten times the exposure of the shaddow area where the kids are on the left side. What I need is a self masking lens that would dodge the shadows and burn in the highlight during exposure. Now that would be a real lens!
Click to expand...
They are perfecting automated highlight contrast Photoshop actions and filters to do this. I wonder if within a generation or two, people will say "ca-mera? what is ca-mera?"

I've always agreed with X-ray in the regard to the insane prices and people expecting miracles due to a lens fame, etc.

It's like the Summitar, it is a very unique lens, which renders B&W images in a very pleasing way, but if it were labeled the "King" of anything, I'm sure it'd be pushing $800 prices. Look at the Canon 85 f/1.5 and the Canon 100 f/2; the prices are bordering on insane. The same goes for the "old" Contax 85mm lenses, depending on their "markings" and body.

It's the hype that drives prices up.

So again, the 35mm Summicron is horrible. It's soft on the corners wide open, flares easily compared to modern, much cheaper designs. And it has an infinity lock in the tab; that's got to irritate a lot of people. 😛
 
v1 summicron 35 is actually already a step down from the previous 35 summaron, the summaron has brass filter ring, the v1 summicron's is aluminum alloy, v2 and v3 feels solid alright, but v4 feels light, v4's bokeh is not that good either, pre asph summilux 35 has better bokeh than it.
 
Horea

You are correct...

'(except the collector value, of course).'

The other thing is the early leitz lenses are superb mechanically, probably over the top.

Myself I use a j12 in preference to my early 'lux, if I drop it, I might not bother to pick it up other then to file broken glass in a trash can, apart from speed it is not much worse (i.e. different) for flare, mechanically and ergonomically s$%&, but cheap. I'll post a pic when I manage to reduce the size.

Noel
 
It's a legend, like merlin it's a legend....

The MTF chart people and the theorists will probably be able to tell you the difference.... not the "normal photogs" though ... as for the creamy bokeh .... Hmmmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bololoco
Cameras to fix
2
Replies
30
Views
803
Mos6502
Mos6502
J
  • Article Article
The Kowa SET R2: A leaf shutter SLR for $150 or 7 lens cine set only $111, 000 KOWABUNGA !
Replies
1
Views
368
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
CameraQuest
The ARMY OF THE DEAD are eating this $5800 (or more) 35/1.5 Canon RF lens ALIVE!
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
7K
james.liam
J
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, part 2, K-mount 35mm SLRs, 1975 to 1980. From the first K-mount K2 to the magnificent pro caliber Pentax LX
2 3
Replies
47
Views
6K
Archiver
A
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
901
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom