Old 35/2 Summicron vs. 40/2 Summicron-C

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I've been mulling over the possibility of actually owning a Leica lens for my M2, and had been trolling eBay for 35mm Summarons and Summicrons...but then I cam across a Summicron-C. Is this lens comparable to the other 'Crons?

 

[splitimageview]

Ditto. Best buy in Leica M glass, IMHO. 😉

 

[Al Kaplan]

The only problems it has are an odd "series 5.5" filter thread, a rubber hood which probably is falling apart and shredded by now, and it brings up the 50mm frame lines in M bodies. The optics are superb! Fantastic glass!

The 35mm frameline in M cameras is a bit undersize in the M2, M4, and M5, a good match for the 40. Later M bodies frame lines are even MORE undersize. The 35mm frame is the default position of the frame selector, what you get when no lens is on the camera. Look inside the lens flange on your M and move the frame selector lever. You should notice a piece of metal moving up and down as you change from one frame to another. What you want to do is shorten the bayonet lug on the lens that pushes against that gizmo. A few strokes with a file does it. It doesn't have to be perfectly square or neat, just shorter. The first file stroke is cutting through hard chrome. After that it's soft brass. Keep trying the lens until you've removed enough of the lug. It won't affect using it on the CL camera in any way.

If you still have the tattered remains of the hood trim the rubber off of the ring. Don't dig the rubber out of the groove though. Now you need a Series VI lens hood. Older camera shops often have a "junk box" full of such goodies but new ones are still available. The hood should be a gentle push fit over the ring. You'll probably have to either file about a miillimeter off of the thread on the hood or shim it with a layer or two of thin cardboard between the hood and the ring so it won't bind against the diaphragm ring on the lens. Now epoxy the the series VI hood over the original hood flange. You now have a metal CL lens hood!

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Cool. If I end up with one, I will probably file down the lug. I have done this with adapters before, but not a lens...yikes...

If anyone has one they want to trade me for a Canon 35/1.8, let me know. I like the 1.8 a lot, but I have too many Canon lenses and could use a little variety. Not sure if they are of comparable value actually...

 

[splitimageview]

John, I had one posted here a week ago with a perfect hood but got no interest so I put it on the bay. I was asking $339 on RFF, but it sold for $495...to give you an idea of what they are going for. This one was I would say EX++.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Oh man...that's more expensive than I thought...nice sale for you though!

 

[Benjamin]

Minimum focus is also .8m's as opposed to the .7m's of the 35mm Summicrons. The 10mm might not matter to you, but just so you know.

 

[calajava@gmail.com]

digitalintrigue: obviously I missed that chance to get this petty lens 🙂

 

[Al Kaplan]

Your 35/1.8 Canon is a fantastic optic also, but 40mm diameter filters are hard to come by. The "look" of the Canon lens, sharpness, contrast, bokeh, is very similar to the 8 element 35/2 Summicron of the same era.

Circa 1960 shooting color meant shooting chromes and that meant getting the correct color balance in the camera. You'd need a minimum of half a dozen warming and cooling filters. Leitz lenses took 39mm, Canon lenses used 40mm, while LTM Nikkors were 40.5mm just to make sure you wouldn't buy the other company's lenses I suppose.

If you want to use 39mm Leica filters on your 40mm threaded Canon lens put a layer or two of masking tape over the threads in the lens. The threads of the 39mm filter will cut their way into the tape just fine. A little bit of candle wax on the filter thread helps. Once you've done that there should be enough wax on the tape so you won't have to do it with every filter.

 

[splitimageview]

Oh man...that's more expensive than I thought...nice sale for you though!

I was shocked to be honest...had no idea it would get 50% more than what I was asking on RFF. They can be found for less if you hunt. 🙂 Good luck!

BTW, KEH has original hoods.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Another money saver should you decide that you want the 90mm Elmar-C. The CL was a joint venture between Leitz and Minolta. Minolta made the 40mm Rokkor and it's the same design as the Summicron. Minolta didn't make their own 90mm Elmar-C. It's a German made Leitz lens with Minolta's name on it, but the lens sells for a lot less than the Leitz marked lens.

The lenses for the later made Minolta CLE are multi-coated and the 90 is made by Minolta.

The seventies were a time of transition in coating technology. Asahi (Pentax) made a big deal out of their "Seven Layer Multi-coated Takumar lenses" but Leitz and others were also multi-coating by then, so a claim of multi-coating might not mean much compared to the previous years' lenses.

 

[Krosya]

I'd go for M-Rokkor - usually less expensive, easy to find filter/hood size - 40.5mm and the word is CLE (see pic below) version has multicoating vs CL Version Rokkor/Summicron C - supposed to be single coated. Yet , I have used both - CL and CLE versions and cant tell difference in images, just in handling a little.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I actually have a black 40.5 vented hood that should work...

And Al, I generally shoot B&W with my film cameras! And even when I do shoot color, I scan and correct in software generally...all those accessories give me a headache...the only filters I really care about are yellow and red for B&W shooting...

 

[Krosya]

M-Rokkor 40/2 - Its a sharp lens and has nice bokeh too:

 

[Bingley]

I agree w/ Krosya about the Rokkor-M 40/2 CLE. It's a fantastic optic -- Gabor (Maddoc) started a thread on the lens not long ago, and there are pix posted there:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72704

The prices on the Rokkor-M are usually a little less than prices for the Summicron-C, usually around $300 for lens in nice condition. True, it doesn't say "Leica" but the design is the same as the Summicron-C with improved coating, and the look is supposedly indistinguishable from a 35 Summicron from the same period. Highly recommended.

 

[ddutchison]

Now this is kind of funny. I bought my Minolta CLE 40 f2.0 because, at the time, the Canon 35 f1.8 was out of my price range.

A few years ago (like 4 or 5), your lens was the more expensive and desirable of the two, running anywhere from $100~$200 more than a Minolta/Summicron 40. I think that if you search through the RFF threads on non-Leica 35mm lenses, you'll come to the conclusion that the one you already have is the one to get.

The multi-coated CLE Minolta 40 f2.0 is amazingly flare-proof. That point, for sure, is better than either the Summicron 40 or your Canon. If flare is a big issue with you, then get the Minolta (not the Summicron-C). However, be warned, the M2's 35mm framelines are just slightly too tight for a 40mm lens, you'll have to think "inside the box" on every shot. I know 'cause I have an M2. I also have an M6, the 40 is fine with that.

If I was looking for some real Leica glass to go on my M2 -and I already had a superb 35mm lens - then I'd be looking for a nice dual-range Summicron - with or without the "glasses".

 

[Ghiom]

However, be warned, the M2 framelines are just slightly too tight for a 40mm lens, you'll have to think "inside the box" on every shot. I know 'cause I have an M2. I also have an M6, the 40 is fine with that...

Hi, I am sorry but I am not sure to understand clearly which framelines you are talking about... (both M2 or M6) Are these the ones of the 50 or 35mm?
Thanks

PS: I recently got a Rokkor 40 but I am still awaiting for my MP to get back from CLA... I have never mounted it so far... I was planning to trimm the rokkor in order to get it call for the 35mm framelines... but what you are saying is suddenly confusing me...

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Now this is kind of funny. I bought my Minolta CLE 40 f2.0 because, at the time, the Canon 35 f1.8 was out of my price range.

A few years ago (like 4 or 5), your lens was the more expensive and desirable of the two, running anywhere from $100~$200 more than a Minolta/Summicron 40. I think that if you search through the RFF threads on non-Leica 35mm lenses, you'll come to the conclusion that the one you already have is the one to get.

You know what, I have kind of come around to this way of thinking. I'm going to hang onto the Canon.

 

[ddutchison]

Hi, I am sorry but I am not sure to understand clearly which framelines you are talking about... (both M2 or M6) Are these the ones of the 50 or 35mm?
Thanks

PS: I recently got a Rokkor 40 but I am still awaiting for my MP to get back from CLA... I have never mounted it so far... I was planning to trimm the rokkor in order to get it call for the 35mm framelines... but what you are saying is suddenly confusing me...

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the 35mm frame-lines

 

[Krosya]

I agree w/ Krosya about the Rokkor-M 40/2 CLE. It's a fantastic optic -- Gabor (Maddoc) started a thread on the lens not long ago, and there are pix posted there:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72704

The prices on the Rokkor-M are usually a little less than prices for the Summicron-C, usually around $300 for lens in nice condition. True, it doesn't say "Leica" but the design is the same as the Summicron-C with improved coating, and the look is supposedly indistinguishable from a 35 Summicron from the same period. Highly recommended.

And prices on Both - Summicron C and Rokkors are on the rise:
http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Prod...ID=&BC=LM&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=

or:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Minolta-Rokkor-...66:2|39:1|72:1205|240:1318|301:0|293:1|294:50

So get one while you can! Before they get to the level of other Leica prices!