35mm summilux from 1966 - any good?

[gewitterkind]

Hi, please excuse yet another newbie question:
I found a nice offer for a 1966 35mm summilux. Is it true that this lens was changed 1966? What would be a normal price for such a lens? Does anybody have any images to show?

 

[Ronald M]

Older fast glass is not up to todays standard by a long way.

I think you are better off with something slower unless you want fuzzy pics full open. It is probably fine stopped down 2 clicks which makes it a good 2.8 lens.

Buy a 1.2 35mm CV instead. Large but useable full open.

 

[x-ray]

I used the 35 summilux for many years and made some great images that would have been much more difficult with a slower lens. It performs OK by 1960's and 70's standards but it's not in the class with newer lenses. It flares badly, really badly, if there is a bright light source into the lens. It's OK wide open and the contrast and color are good. I considered buying another about a year ago and thought about the 35 asph summilux untill I found out about the CV Nokton 1.2 . I wound up buying the Nokton 35 and absolutely love it. It far exceeds the old summilux and from what I've seen has less flare than the new asph. Wide open performance is very good and it gets really good at f 2.8 and down. Some people complain about size and it is large relative to many M lenses but that's the price for 1.2 .

Look in my gallery and you'll find some 35 1.4 shots.

Here's one of a fire eater in a carnival the other shot of the kiddie train was to test the Nokton at 1.2. The lights were either 1000 watt or greater halogens into the lens. Very little flare and on enlargement it's very sharp with good contrast. The old summilux 35 would not have handled this so well and i'm not certain the new asph would have either.

 

[chendayuan]

The old summilux 35 would not have handled this so well and i'm not certain the new asph would have either.

eh, have you try 3.5 Summilux ASPH?

 

[gewitterkind]

thanks for the answers. i was mainly asking because i read that this lens hasn't been changed till the nineties or so, and was thinking that this must mean that it's not that bad compared to newer lenses.

 

[jaapv]

By your handle I would guess you are in Germany. If it is the lens in the shop in Kleve, I would not recommend it. That one shows that it is possible to wear Leica lenses to the bone, but the price does not reflect that...

 

[Xmas]

The optical formula was changed to a new formula from #2166702, (about '70 from memory, see cameraquest) the new formula was better with light sources in the picture.

It is a very compact lens, and ok if you can live with the flare, the aspheric sometimes hot spots.

Noel

 

[Andrew3511]

This lens is regularly slated on this forum and compared unfavourably with the 35mm Summicron versions of 1960's to 1990. I have one. It has its limitations. There is visible vignetting wide open and a noticeable drop of contrast between f2.8 and wide open. It is pretty much indistinguishable from the Summicron in the middle apertures (confirmed on MTF, see the various sources for this, Erwin Puts for example). Mine is the later version with series VII filter in the hood/shade and no filter thread, which is probably a slightly improved optical formula. I can't afford the later Summilux Asph and I do occasionally use the full aperture. Keep the important subject matter in the middle of the frame and you are fine. Bear in mind that Leica lenses were the best available at the time they were produced - things move on and the standards are now higher. What you are paying ($1000 extra) for with the modern lens is superb performance at full aperture. Stop down a double Gauss lens and performance improves immensely. I'm at work; can post pictures late this evening.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

At this point in the game, if I wanted a fast 35mm lens for an M camera I would get a Nokton, as x-ray says. In fact, earlier this year, I had big plans to GET an M camera and that Nokton. In my opinion, the extra speed plus the excellent performance for the price is a plus due to the fact that I like to shoot in very dim light. Again, though, this is just my choice.

 

[x-ray]

eh, have you try 3.5 Summilux ASPH?

Haven't shot the new asph but see many examples of flare and internal reflections. I gave strong consideration to the asph when I made my purchase but having come from the old non asph with really bad internal reflections and flare I deceided not to go that route.

My old summilux would suffer from internal reflections too. If there was a brifht object in the frame against a dark background I often would see another mirror image inverted in the frame. I could dig a few examples up next week when I return to the studio. Don't get me wrong, the old summilux made great images and served me well but the newer lenses are superior. It seems the old summilux fetches a hefty price these days. I just saw one for $1350 which seems to be fairly normal for a minty one. In my opinion it's not worth anything near that.

 

[Xmas]

The pre asph lux is a lowish volume collectors piece! Unless you go for a beaten up, no chrome on mount, you will pay good dollars.

I think the lux without the filter threads has the recomputed optics. I'll look it up this pm.

It is a nice lens performance wise but I'm reluctant to use mine for replacement difficulty. I'd not want a larger lens. I've no problems with the controls. I'd not mind obscuration in the viewfinder, e.g. the cron 90mm and lux 50mm dont bother me exceot their bulk and weight in the bag is a pain. I use a j12 when the light is good!

My only real problem is the lack of filter threads, and the larger series VII glass in the bag.

I only have flare problems when the light sources were large and in the picture, it is really convenient to be able to drop to 2 or 1.4 with a 35mm there is still some depth of field.

Noel

 

[gewitterkind]

thanks again for the replies : )

i had thought about the nokton, but it looks way bigger than the summilux. i'm not sure i like that. does anybody know an onlineshop in germany selling the nokton for a good price?

 

[sleepyhead]

You may also want to see this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20182&highlight=summilux


I have the pre-ASPH summilux (series 7 version) and pretty much only shoot B&W. I'm still learning the lens, but so far I'm quite happy with it, even wide-open.

Not everything is about SHARPNESS, CONTRAST, and LACK OF FLARE. The character of a photo is very important and a "too clinical" result can look quite soul-less. The 35mm summilux gives a pleasing B&W look, in my opinion. The occasional flare can actually make some pictures more dramatic.

I briefly considered the 35mm 1.2 Nokton but ruled it out based on it's size and weight. The 35mm pre-ASPH summilux on a black M4-P is discrete, and TRULY pocketable (coat pocket). A used one cost me about what I new Nokton would cost. The Nokton just doesn't look right (as a wide-angle) on an M camera in my opinion. But neither does a 75mm Summilux!

my two cents...

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[SolaresLarrave]

The summilux went virtually unchanged from 1961 to 1990, when the first aspherical version came up. The lens's formula was changed in 1994.

This version has been maligned when compared with these two aspherical brethrens, but it ain't that bad either... There are instances of flare and comma, but that's inherent of a lens of its kind in its time. As Sleepyhead says, it does have its merits because, after all, sharpness is not all that counts.

Hence, if the lens is in decent shape, go for it. I am saving for one myself...

You can always sell it if you don't like it.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

BTW, my info on the lens comes from the Sartorius book. I don't know that much about Leicas! 🙂

 

[Xmas]

Magnus

I stand corrected, but inestimable page on cameraquest which I referenced says

'van Hasbroeck, however, states that it was recomputed in 1966 from # 2166702 onwards with noticeably improved performance.'

My problem was around '70 Victor Blackman, Fleet street photg, 1/2 page every week in AP, said the new design is absolutely flare free, - compared to the previous and I went out and bought one...

There may have been two changes I'll see if I have records, I was not expecting not to have filter threads.

To tell the truth I liked the high key dreamy shots I got/get, in extreme back light cases and the freedom of going to 1.4 in more normal (dark) lighting.

Given I like compact and light weight, I think it is a nice lens, if I dropped it I'd buy another, the cost and scratches from other users would be a pain. New aspheric too big...

Noel

 

[chendayuan]

Magnus

I stand corrected, but inestimable page on cameraquest which I referenced says

'van Hasbroeck, however, states that it was recomputed in 1966 from # 2166702 onwards with noticeably improved performance.'
Noel

Mr. Puts' Leica book did not indicate any optical formula changes. He has opportunity t oaccess Leica's data, I believe him than any other "Internet Leica Expert".

 

[summaron]

The interestingly titled site, Epson RD1 Paranoia Users Dame Forum, always has a few interesting old Summilux examples posted. I'm always struck by the depth and subtle richness of the colors taken with these lenses--quite different that the current Zeiss over-saturation:

Off reds are like this:
http://rangefinder.jp/r-d1/picbbs/html/RD0719.html

Blues are similar to this Summarit:
http://rangefinder.jp/r-d1/picbbs/html/IMG00029s.html

Same set up with Summicron, but still nice:
http://rangefinder.jp/r-d1/picbbs/html/IMG00034s.html

Summilux candles with some flare:
http://rangefinder.jp/r-d1/picbbs/html/EPSN0037.html

 

[gewitterkind]

hmm, just so you know, in the end - it was at ebay - it cost more than a new nokton would cost, so i let it pass.