50mm Summilux opinions

Hi all, just to update the thread... In the end I bought a Summilux on the *bay that I was looking for sometime: a late pre-asph version with the built in hood, received yesterday. The lens is spotless, no dings on the barrel, unblemished. The glass is spotless as well, no scratches or anything. Came with bos, pouch and everything, all for 1k euros. I guess it was a fair price.

But...

As a first impression... build quality... err... my 35mm Biogon seems more "sturdy". The summilux seems very delicate! And the aperture ring moves a bit (a very tiny bit) back and forth (I mean from the front element to the body), but the clicks are ok.

I'm eager to put a good UV filter on it and go out to try it!!!

Thanks again for all the replies I got to my first question!
 
namelast said:
And the aperture ring moves a bit (a very tiny bit) back and forth (I mean from the front element to the body), but the clicks are ok.
Click to expand...

Watch that looseness, it should not be that way. Mine was loose (a little more than a "tiny" bit) and then started binding on me as I turned the aperture ring. Sherry did a CLA and when it came back it was a complately different lens, tightened up perfectly, no front and back looseness at all. I have the 35 Biogon and if anything the late pre-asph 'lux IMO seems sturdier and better built.
 
Very early E43 version 1 here (by serial number, late 1958 manufacture, confirmed by a Leica rep), vastly improved by a CLA from DAG. Better contrast and sharpness than my late Summarit, with smoother bokeh.

It is about twice the bulk of a ZM Sonnar C.
 
A bit late...

A bit late...

I have a v1 from 1960. I can't compare it to any of the later ones, but it was the first lens I bought for my M3, and the only lens I had for over a year. It may not be as sharp as later versions, but it was pretty sharp. I only shot B+W with it, but it was a dependable performer, except past f/8 or so, it tended to lose contrast. On the other hand, I shot a lot of P3200 wide open so the grain probably hid a little softness.
 
rich815 said:
Watch that looseness, it should not be that way. Mine was loose (a little more than a "tiny" bit) and then started binding on me as I turned the aperture ring. Sherry did a CLA and when it came back it was a complately different lens, tightened up perfectly, no front and back looseness at all. I have the 35 Biogon and if anything the late pre-asph 'lux IMO seems sturdier and better built.
Click to expand...

Hi Rich, thanks for pointing this out! Do you have a contact for Sherry? How much did it cost you have the summilux repaired? For now I will just use it "as it is", since I wanted for such a long time a 1.4 lens I want to use it a bit! But for sure I will have it CLAed... Today again it felt a bit delicate and fragile (still the biogon seems more tight and robust).

Wow, an E46 UV filter from Leica costed a lot! But anything to save the front element! :)
 
namelast said:
Hi Rich, thanks for pointing this out! Do you have a contact for Sherry? How much did it cost you have the summilux repaired? For now I will just use it "as it is", since I wanted for such a long time a 1.4 lens I want to use it a bit! But for sure I will have it CLAed... Today again it felt a bit delicate and fragile (still the biogon seems more tight and robust).

Wow, an E46 UV filter from Leica costed a lot! But anything to save the front element! :)
Click to expand...

Sherry Krauter: http://www.sherrykrauter.com/

I think it was something like $75-85 for the CLA on the lens.

I would not obessess about a Leica E46 filter. Personally I only use P filters at the seashore or some other dusty condition or if I specifically need a polarizer or colored one for B&W work, no protection filter per se though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom