50 or 35 summicron pre-asph

[venchka]

...So far I think Im set on a 35mm pre-asph. Its just seems like the ones Ive been finding are going for high prices, close to the point where I could just pay a little more for an ASPH.

How right you are! Leica 35mm lenses command high prices. Starting with Summarons at about $600, the 1st & 2nd-3rd (optical twins) Summicrons are $800-$1,000, the 4th is silly high at $1,000-$1,200 and the ASPH can be had for $1,200 and up. Most 50mm Summicrons, prior to the current model, can be had for $600 or less. Even a nice Dual Range with good "goggles" is in the $600 neighborhood, plus or minus. A 50 'cron with a fresh CLA by DAG just sold here at the RFF for $475. Go figure. That said, I'll probably spring for a 35 'cron to complete my Leica Holy Trinity of 35-50-90. That was the advice I was given in the Dark Ages by the first Leica rep. I ever met. The only Leica rep. I ever met too. 😎

Good luck.

 

[Crasis]

How right you are! Leica 35mm lenses command high prices. Starting with Summarons at about $600, the 1st & 2nd-3rd (optical twins) Summicrons are $800-$1,000, the 4th is silly high at $1,000-$1,200 and the ASPH can be had for $1,200 and up. Most 50mm Summicrons, prior to the current model, can be had for $600 or less. Even a nice Dual Range with good "goggles" is in the $600 neighborhood, plus or minus. A 50 'cron with a fresh CLA by DAG just sold here at the RFF for $475. Go figure. That said, I'll probably spring for a 35 'cron to complete my Leica Holy Trinity of 35-50-90. That was the advice I was given in the Dark Ages by the first Leica rep. I ever met. The only Leica rep. I ever met too. 😎

Good luck.

My vote would be for the 2nd or 3rd gen 35 Summicron pre-asph, or the 35 summicron asph. Pretty much the 35 summicron asph is considered the be all and end all of 35 lenses. If you like contrast, definitely go for the asph.

Why no love for the 35/2 4th gen? Well nobody likes them 😉

Seriously though, you cannot, and I mean cannot go wrong with any of the 35s and if you're a 35 kinda guy, don't worry about them being less than sharp.. unless you're shooting brick walls.. even then you won't have to worry.. unless you're shooting MTF charts. I guess.. then you'd worry?

 

[venchka]

My vote would be for the 2nd or 3rd gen 35 Summicron pre-asph,

Don't fret over image variations between 2nd & 3rd. They are optically identical. The difference is in the barrel, etc.

If you use the search feature and type in 35mm Summicron you could get old and grey reading everything that has been said of the various examples of the lens. One of the latest discussios included a very firm endorsement for Version Numero Uno from a user who sold #4 and stayed with #1. I reckon they are all good.

 

[Crasis]

Don't fret over image variations between 2nd & 3rd. They are optically identical. The difference is in the barrel, etc.

If you use the search feature and type in 35mm Summicron you could get old and grey reading everything that has been said of the various examples of the lens. One of the latest discussios included a very firm endorsement for Version Numero Uno from a user who sold #4 and stayed with #1. I reckon they are all good.

Alright, I'm changing my vote.

Buy anything starting with a summi, and ending with a cron, and you shall be supremely (heh pun) happy.

 

[Kim Coxon]

If you are still looking for a 50, another here at almost the same price.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=1456&cat=500

Kim

Welcome, black_box, though we have already 'met.' I took a quick look at the 50 on e-bay and it looks fair for the vintage (70s?), but here's a better price:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=1546

Pretty close in age to the one you're eyeing, with a recent CLA, and $100 less.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[rover]

This lens overwhelms me. To me, it is magnifcent. Why? Because it treads the dividing line between the "older" Leitz / Leica look and the "new" ASPH look (which is not always the same, by the way) magnificently. It yields prints which I like to call "chocolate and cream". My 90mm Elmar (II) has almost exactly the same fingerprint.

And that is the fingerprint I really wish my 35mm ASPH Summicron had, and to which the 35mm ASPH Summilux inches toward more closely.

Interesting, I will have to think about this. I do agree fully about the 50 Summicron, I have the tabbed same optical version as your lens. I have always liked the 35 Summicron, but been drawn towards the 35 lux, this may explain the difference.

 

[markinlondon]

My(i) 50mm Summicron (IV): That's the version without the tab and with the collapsible hood, but optically it is identical to its predecessor (III).

This lens overwhelms me. To me, it is magnifcent. Why? Because it treads the dividing line between the "older" Leitz / Leica look and the "new" ASPH look (which is not always the same, by the way) magnificently. It yields prints which I like to call "chocolate and cream".

Seconded, this is the 50 that all 50's want to be when they grow up🙂 . Plus you get a choice of two versions, tab or no tab. One of the few win/win choices around.

I like the v4 35 'cron but then I like the CV Color Skopar too. I have less use for a 35 these days and will probably keep the Skopar and sell the 'cron, I'm testing this choice at the moment.

Mark

 

[venchka]

Black_Box,

Regardless of optics chosen, try to buy a complete lens: hood, caps, maybe even a filter. These items can drive the price up quite a bit if you have to purchase them separately.

Good luck! Enjoy!

 

[Crasis]

Black_Box,

Regardless of optics chosen, try to buy a complete lens: hood, caps, maybe even a filter. These items can drive the price up quite a bit if you have to purchase them separately.

Good luck! Enjoy!

I second the hoods and caps. Filter? Most lenses that I see that come with say, a UV filter, comes with a pretty subpar filter to stick on a non-subpar lens. 🙂

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[ywenz]

i'll take it!
and i wont bother to haggle as 40 is an ok price and it's local.

how shall we proceed?
joe

Badass thread hijacking! By a mod too! 😀

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[black_box]

Haha

Well, Ill just agree on avoiding the IV 35 summicron. Now its gone from being the best pre-asph to the worst? So the other versions produce better results?
Ive also heard alot of 50 summicrons have a soft front element, is this true?

It sounds like all the older lenses have a alot of ups and downs, but the only down of a 35 ASPH is the cost. I might go with that... All in all Im looking for sharp and contrasy results. I guess Im too young to like that old style look; because you can always photoshop that in, but you cant fake sharp and detailed images. To me it seems that expensive high end cameras should produce those sharp/contrasy images, as soft grainy images are more iconic of cheap cameras.

I like images like this one-
http://www.pbase.com/image/28620282
And thats made with a leica CM... which I already have. I want images like that, only better from an M system. I dont see many images like that coming from a pre-asph 35, which makes it look like an expensive step backwards for me.

 

[Crasis]

Haha

Well, Ill just agree on avoiding the IV 35 summicron. Now they went from being the best pre-asph to the worst? So the other versions are better?
Ive also heard alot of 50 summicrons have a soft front element, is this true?

It sounds like all the older lenses have a big amount of ups and downs, but the only down of a 35 ASPH is the cost. I might go with that...

Also, certain folk (Not meaning to name drop but Tom Abrahammsson) find that the asph 35 is too contrasty for him to print B&W so he stays away from it.

Uh oh! I've dropped another egg into your hat of.. ok.. well whatever strange metaphor I was trying to concoct has apparently backfired on me. Can't go wrong with any 50 summicron.. how about that? They're GOOD.. GREAT even. ACCOMPLISHED! Ok, so accomplished isn't the best possible moniker but they are accomplished among Leica lenses, which says a thing or two.

Get the asph 35. If you find that you don't like it, sell it and get something else. Leica lenses don't fluctuate in price THAT much over a short time. You can pretty much sell it for how much you bought it. If you don't do B&W, then there should be no complaints whatsoever about the 35 ASPH.

Go nuts! Go! Buy! Spend!

 

[clintock]

Has high contrast always been a bad thing in a lens? I keep seeing 'I had to get rid of that sumanokohepanon because the dang thing was too contrasty'.
Isn't that like saying a race car is bad because it is too fast?

 

[Crasis]

Has high contrast always been a bad thing in a lens? I keep seeing 'I had to get rid of that sumanokohepanon because the dang thing was too contrasty'.
Isn't that like saying a race car is bad because it is too fast?

Well.. I guess you analogy would have to be changed a bit. How about this, your normal car goes 0-200. Your race car goes 40-240. Doesn't make much sense.. well it was a bad analogy to begin with.

Actually, it's pretty difficult to understand why high contrast is bad unless you've encountered it. Even with a low contrast lens, APX 100 in rodinal at 1:50 will tend to produce very contrasty negatives. Well, that might mean nothing to you, but it's easy to raise contrast while printing and harder to lower contrast.

Of course.. it's the digital age, so just scan it and photoshop it, I guess. Printing it in the darkroom is overrated anyways.

 

[back alley]

i think the concern with high contrast is the loss of detail in the photo.
some prefer as much detail as possible to begin with and then it can always be lessened if wanted later.

 

[Crasis]

i think the concern with high contrast is the loss of detail in the photo.
some prefer as much detail as possible to begin with and then it can always be lessened if wanted later.

Yeah, that too, although the detail should still BE on the negative even with a very high contrast lens.. the problem is printing that detail onto paper.

I mean, it's there.. but.. I don't know how to get at it 🙁

 

[clintock]

High contrast lenses yield less detail now!? I thought this contrast obsession was something to do with digital cameras and their linear and limited dynamic range compared to film, with it's 'shoulders'.
I'm not trying to argue, I really do want to understand- i thought detail, resolution and contrast were all different ways of describing things that a good lens should have as much of as possible. Weren't multi coatings, aspheric elements and fancy glasses developed to reduce internal reflections at glass/air interfaces for the express purpose of gaining more contrast? Was all that science in vain?
Isn't it more practical to limit contrast with film/developer etc?
It's been a long time since I printed in the darkroom, before the internet was invented and I could know that I might be doing something wrong!