ferider
Veteran
Hi Michael,
since it came from my HU, sorry.
However, if it doesn't have haze and performs I would keep it. Easily resellable for more than what you bought it for. 90% of those lenses on the used market have haze ... a thin single scratch on the front element shouldn't affect it's use.
Roland.
since it came from my HU, sorry.
However, if it doesn't have haze and performs I would keep it. Easily resellable for more than what you bought it for. 90% of those lenses on the used market have haze ... a thin single scratch on the front element shouldn't affect it's use.
Roland.
Meleica
Well-known
The DR Summi has very soft coatings, is easily prone to cleaning marks and haze ( almost all have some level of haze ), and typically exhibits flare...finding ones in nice clean condition is actually quite difficult... I tend to agree that for $ 280, it doesnt sound like a bad deal....test it and then decide. I had a beautiful DR with some very light haze inside - sent it to DAG and his cleaning wiped away the internal coatings ! This is a very difficult lens to deal with....you are almost better off paying cheap money for one with some battle scars - but be sure to use a good lens hood.
Dan
Dan
awilder
Alan Wilder
Meleica mentioned an important point. I've had and seen more than one DR (under sr. # 160xxx) with no anti-reflection coating on the concave glass surface of the cemented group directly behind the aperture blades. My guess is that it didn't come that way originally but was cleaned and the coating was lost in the process. Possibly much later versions of this lens like the posters may have a harder improved coating resistant to this problem.
sanmich
Veteran
Hey Roland
I was thinking of PM you to say thanks and of course, don't feel sory!
You are responsible in no way of Adorama's job.
Your HU was brilliant, and I am sure it was the only way for me to try this DR.
One thing you can be sory of is your statement that the DR is SO much better than the collapsible
. Now that's something I will have to check...Thanks again, sir!
rlouzan
Well-known
50mm f2 DR Summicron w/eyes late SN 2.2xx.xxx box, hood, ... Mint $750 - $800
50mm f2 DR Summicron w/eyes late SN 2.2xx.xxx Mint $650 - $750
50mm f2 DR Summicron w/eyes Mint $550 - $600
50mm f2 DR Summicron w/ eyes Ex+ $450 - $550
50mm f2 DR Summicron (no eyes) Ex+ $400 - $450
50mm f2 DR Summicron (no eyes) Ex $300
50mm f2 DR Summicron w/eyes late SN 2.2xx.xxx Mint $650 - $750
50mm f2 DR Summicron w/eyes Mint $550 - $600
50mm f2 DR Summicron w/ eyes Ex+ $450 - $550
50mm f2 DR Summicron (no eyes) Ex+ $400 - $450
50mm f2 DR Summicron (no eyes) Ex $300
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Unless you're looking for the perspective of the 50mm focal length in the close up range you'd be just as well off using a 90mm for "close-ups". The coverage of the 90mm lenses at their closest focusing distance is the same as the D.R. Summicron with the eyes in place.
sanmich
Veteran
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Three points. First, I think Peter M. has it right: I assume you are an amateur and not a pro, therefore the amount of satisfaction you are going to get from your $280 is really the thing to think about. Some folks cannot enjoy an inexpensive purchase if they feel they got screwed on the deal and if you will not be able to get your $280 of enjoyment from this piece of gear, in my opinion you are better off returning it, even if you wind up spending more money on a different lens. If you are not a pro, then this is essentially an entertainment expense. If you can be honest with yourself about whether this is an issue for you, then you can reach the right result in terms of your return/no return question.
If it were me and I received gear that had not been accurately described I would either return it, or try and figure out how much the "difference" was worth to me. In your case, let's say that the most I would pay for a lens in the condition you described is $100. I'd then try to negotiate a refund for the difference between that amount and the amount I paid. The money would probably go into fixing the problem -- see below. If the vendor would not agree, then back it would go and they could try to find another buyer who would pay that price.
If you test it and are pleased with the results then you may decide to keep it and use it as is. If the scratch is very thin, probably you'd perceive this on film as a hit to contrast and a tendency to flare more.
I recently bought a rigid Summicron for $115 from a store here in Burlington. I could tell that the lens needed a CLA ($125 from Sherry Krauter), but that the mechanics were sound. For me, that's still a good deal on a classic lens.
Finally, you can also look into having the lens polished and recoated by John Van Stelton (http://www.focalpointlens.com). At $250 or so for the process (without any refund from Adorama), you would probably then have spent more than the average cost of one of these lenses, but you'd have the benefit of modern coatings on the front element. Focal point has a little write-up on their website regarding whether it is technically advisable or not to fix this sort of damage.
For used gear, I try to stay away from the NY stores. Despite their excellent reputations on new stuff and customer service, even B&H and Adorama fall short on used gear compared to other vendors (e.g. KEH) in my experience. My own theory about this is that they get a lot of gear from the NY professional and art-school crowd and it has been reeeealy used hard. They also tend to have an inflated idea of what a banged-to-cr@p lens is worth, in my limited experience, because they are looking at one another and the rest of the NY market as a reference point, rather than the national market (which would be more reasonable in these days of the world-shrinking internet).
Good luck with your choice.
Ben Marks
If it were me and I received gear that had not been accurately described I would either return it, or try and figure out how much the "difference" was worth to me. In your case, let's say that the most I would pay for a lens in the condition you described is $100. I'd then try to negotiate a refund for the difference between that amount and the amount I paid. The money would probably go into fixing the problem -- see below. If the vendor would not agree, then back it would go and they could try to find another buyer who would pay that price.
If you test it and are pleased with the results then you may decide to keep it and use it as is. If the scratch is very thin, probably you'd perceive this on film as a hit to contrast and a tendency to flare more.
I recently bought a rigid Summicron for $115 from a store here in Burlington. I could tell that the lens needed a CLA ($125 from Sherry Krauter), but that the mechanics were sound. For me, that's still a good deal on a classic lens.
Finally, you can also look into having the lens polished and recoated by John Van Stelton (http://www.focalpointlens.com). At $250 or so for the process (without any refund from Adorama), you would probably then have spent more than the average cost of one of these lenses, but you'd have the benefit of modern coatings on the front element. Focal point has a little write-up on their website regarding whether it is technically advisable or not to fix this sort of damage.
For used gear, I try to stay away from the NY stores. Despite their excellent reputations on new stuff and customer service, even B&H and Adorama fall short on used gear compared to other vendors (e.g. KEH) in my experience. My own theory about this is that they get a lot of gear from the NY professional and art-school crowd and it has been reeeealy used hard. They also tend to have an inflated idea of what a banged-to-cr@p lens is worth, in my limited experience, because they are looking at one another and the rest of the NY market as a reference point, rather than the national market (which would be more reasonable in these days of the world-shrinking internet).
Good luck with your choice.
Ben Marks
Last edited:
JohnTF
Veteran
For some odd reason, every show I have been to this year has had a DR Summicron, and some walking in on cameras for sale-- there are fewer shows. ;-)
I think mine came on an M2 or 3 body I picked up as a collection?
Pity it does not fit the M8.
Know what you mean about the scratch though, a scratch on the passenger side of my car does not bother me near as much as one by my door handle.
Regards, John
I think mine came on an M2 or 3 body I picked up as a collection?
Pity it does not fit the M8.
Know what you mean about the scratch though, a scratch on the passenger side of my car does not bother me near as much as one by my door handle.
Regards, John
sanmich
Veteran
Ben, thanks for the thorough answer.
Interesting point you have on NY stores vs national.
I had John VS in mind, but I really think it's not necessary, the lens will do better as it is right now.
Meleica,
The quality of the coating is also an interesting point, and if I understand right, the fact that a DR is from the late 60's, contemporary of lenses that are not known for their soft coating, could be an indication that it will not end with no coating at all on an internal surface during a future CLA (and that would certainly detract more from the IQ than the defects I mentioned).
Is there an indication that the coatings on the "usual suspects" have improved during the 60's ??. That would be nice to know when shopping for one of these lenses.
So at the end, its: psychology and $...
John, I see what you mean, I have put a filter on it, and the flaws are kinda gone. I like my car for that reason: it's so full of scratches I have a hard time to remark a new one. Now if it wasn't a 10 years old japanese minivan with a milage indicating frquent trips to the moon but a pristine Jaguar S from the 60's, I might feel a bit different..
Interesting point you have on NY stores vs national.
I had John VS in mind, but I really think it's not necessary, the lens will do better as it is right now.
Meleica,
The quality of the coating is also an interesting point, and if I understand right, the fact that a DR is from the late 60's, contemporary of lenses that are not known for their soft coating, could be an indication that it will not end with no coating at all on an internal surface during a future CLA (and that would certainly detract more from the IQ than the defects I mentioned).
Is there an indication that the coatings on the "usual suspects" have improved during the 60's ??. That would be nice to know when shopping for one of these lenses.
So at the end, its: psychology and $...
John, I see what you mean, I have put a filter on it, and the flaws are kinda gone
. I like my car for that reason: it's so full of scratches I have a hard time to remark a new one. Now if it wasn't a 10 years old japanese minivan with a milage indicating frquent trips to the moon but a pristine Jaguar S from the 60's, I might feel a bit different..
rlouzan
Well-known
rlouzan
Well-known
Michael,
I recommend the following lens hood for your 50mm f2 DR Summicron:
LEICA SILVER METAL LENS HOOD #12549
Regards,
RLouzan
I recommend the following lens hood for your 50mm f2 DR Summicron:
LEICA SILVER METAL LENS HOOD #12549
Regards,
RLouzan
Al Kaplan
Veteran
You should use a UV filter on the moon. There's not enough atmosphere to filter the light.
ferider
Veteran
I definitely think so. Have a v2 Summilux from 67 that definitely has harder coating than the early Summicrons I've seen.
Really, if your lens has no haze, cleaning mark/scratch or not, consider yourself very lucky. Might have to do with the late edition too. Any haze impacts a photo visibly, IMO. A front element mark does not.
Cheers,
Roland.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
I took delivery on a DR yesterday SN 1582xxx. No scratches or haze but a tiny point of fungus on one of the middle elements. Shots so far only on the R-D1 but look great. Very happy.
sanmich
Veteran
epilogue
epilogue
end of the story:
I have kept the lens.
I just ran a quick test of the focus callibration, and used my Planar and canon 1.4 as a "control group".
I was amazed to see that in the center the DR seems (I say seems because I still have difficulties to believe it) slightly sharper than both other lenses.
This is consistent over about four shots of every lens.
So that lens IS that good! (Thanks Roland!!)
Now I have to see that "special look" everybody talks about...
About Adorama, I have mixed feelings:
I sent them a short mail about the story, clearly stating that I will keep the lens but I was disapointed by its condition.You know, just to give them the opportunity to "correct a mistake". No answer.
Three days after I saw another DR rate E- too, so I thought I could swap (that was before my tests). I asked a few questions about it, and it appears that its glass is not totally "free of marks" either.
So just beware: they seem to consistently rate glass with minor, insignificant marks as E- /with perfect glass.
If you have eyes for the DR that you would like to sell or trade, please contact me..
epilogue
end of the story:
I have kept the lens.
I just ran a quick test of the focus callibration, and used my Planar and canon 1.4 as a "control group".
I was amazed to see that in the center the DR seems (I say seems because I still have difficulties to believe it) slightly sharper than both other lenses.
This is consistent over about four shots of every lens.
So that lens IS that good!
(Thanks Roland!!)Now I have to see that "special look" everybody talks about...
About Adorama, I have mixed feelings:
I sent them a short mail about the story, clearly stating that I will keep the lens but I was disapointed by its condition.You know, just to give them the opportunity to "correct a mistake". No answer.
Three days after I saw another DR rate E- too, so I thought I could swap (that was before my tests). I asked a few questions about it, and it appears that its glass is not totally "free of marks" either.
So just beware: they seem to consistently rate glass with minor, insignificant marks as E- /with perfect glass.
If you have eyes for the DR that you would like to sell or trade, please contact me..
ferider
Veteran
Try also some bokeh and some color shots, Michael.
That lens, at f2, has thinner DOF than it should have, and very beautiful, pastel-like color rendering. And beautiful OOF.
Enjoy !
Roland.
That lens, at f2, has thinner DOF than it should have, and very beautiful, pastel-like color rendering. And beautiful OOF.
Enjoy !
Roland.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Damn straight. While I loved K25 & K64 with that lens, it was really special with Agfachrome 64. Their palettes together seemed like a neverending film orgasm.
Mephiloco
Well-known
There's a summicron at keh in UG condition for like $150 that is tempting me. How bad can it be right?
and I guess I could always send it back.
and I guess I could always send it back.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
You mean like this?
Shot this wide-open on the R-D1, lens set on the close range, scale focus.
I like this lens so much I went a little nuts - I bought ANOTHER one, this one with eyes, and an early M3 to shoot it on :bang:
So I will be listing this DR - 158xxxx, some dust, a pinpoint of fungus inside the front element - here on RFF in the next few days. If someone wanted to make a good deal before I list it, they could send a pm