Sell 35mm Summicron ASPH II for v3?

[brothernature]

Hello all,

I'm thinking of selling my Summicron ASPH II for a v3 or v4. I've found a v3 version that has just been CLA'ed for about half the price I think I can get for my ASPH II.

My thinking is that a smaller lens might be nice, and that I typically prefer the lower contrast look of the older lenses.

Anyone have experience with shooting BW film with both? Do you see noticeable differences?

 

[raid]

If you like the low contrast of older lenses, consider getting a pre-asph Summilux 35/1.4.

 

[brusby]

I sold my chrome/brass Asph to get a black v4 because of the weight savings. No regrets.

The v1 or v2 Summilux is very nice too. Gives the added benefit of being able to change character from soft and kinda dreamy wide open to razor sharp stopped down a bit. I use it for model shoots at wide apertures.

 

[steveyork]

I just got the version 3 and I like it. I like it as much as the version 4 which I owned 20 years ago. Ha, ha, based on a one roll sample of B&W, but so far, so good. Don't know why it gets such a bad rap.

I owned the aspherical summicron too, back in the last decade, and currently the new ultron. Never been a big fan of the aspherical lenses with B&W. I do like this version 3 better then the Ultron for B&W.

Not sure I would call version 3 low contrast but I like the look.

 

[DwF]

35mm Summicron v3

35mm Summicron v3

I own a v4 currently and have had a few over the years including other versions, Asph 1 and the 8 element. I recently picked up a very nice v3 and am thrilled to have it. For my purposes, v3 and v4 are virtually indistinguishable. If you find a nice clean version of the 6 element I recommend you try it. It also handles really well. David

 

[Rob-F]

Something to be aware of is that the version IV has plastic parts, and it is going around that Leica is out of replacement parts for it. The ASPH is better built, and although I don't have a version III, I'm sure it is well made, as is the pre-ASPH Summilux, which has become a favorite for me. I find the latter useless wide open, but stopped down a bit it's similar in performance to the version III. In fact, it seems to be a v. III made a little larger. It's a Walter Mandler design from the Canada factory.

 

[besk]

Fifteen plus years ago, I took some snapshots using a V3 for use in real estate marketing and later sold the lens for a reason I have forgotten.

The rendering of those snapshots really stood out and stuck in my mind. So I purchased another one a year or so ago and will keep it as long as I have a camera to mount it on.

 

[Pál_K]

I have a v4, which I bought because I really needed a 35mm M lens. I did not buy it new. What I like about it is it's small size and it does produce sharp photos. It doesn't intrude into the viewfinder very much at all (see photo). What I don't like is that it feels fragile, especially the aperture ring. Also, somewhat later I discovered the aperture index does not line up with the focus index, but that doesn't seem to affect anything.

Personally, I'd rather have the ASPH.

 

[brusby]

Something to be aware of is that the version IV has plastic parts, and it is going around that Leica is out of replacement parts for it.

Just for clarity's sake, it's only the Canadian version IV that has the plastic aperture mechanism which is known to break and cause problems. In the German version it is metal and I've never heard of any problems with those lenses.

The ASPH is better built, and although I don't have a version III, I'm sure it is well made, as is the pre-ASPH Summilux, which has become a favorite for me. I find the latter useless wide open, but stopped down a bit it's similar in performance to the version III. In fact, it seems to be a v. III made a little larger. It's a Walter Mandler design from the Canada factory.

It's odd how some people find a lens "useless" in some respects while others are fond of it for those very anomalies. I really appreciate the pre-ASPH Summilux wide open for it's unique image quality.

Below is an example I shot wide open looking for just a touch of dreaminess without having to waste time in post. I've censored it for this forum. But if it's not appropriate, please feel free to let me know and I'd be happy to delete it, or just delete it yourself if you are able.

L1001460 censored by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[Mark C]

I just got the version 3 and I like it. I like it as much as the version 4 which I owned 20 years ago. Ha, ha, based on a one roll sample of B&W, but so far, so good. Don't know why it gets such a bad rap.

I owned the aspherical summicron too, back in the last decade, and currently the new Ultron. Never been a big fan of the aspherical lenses with B&W. I do like this version 3 better then the Ultron for B&W.

Not sure I would call version 3 low contrast but I like the look.

I have to agree about the contrast. I've gone back and forth with the version 3 over the years, but only because I've always liked the v 1 so much. That is lower contrast and the v2/3 were designed for higher contrast. Every copy of v3 I've had is very snappy, including the far less the pristine one I have now. I always called the look "zingy". My v3 gets the most use lately, including a roll this evening. I am speaking mostly about b&w here, but can't imagine it isn't at least as good with color, where the v1 can be a bit muted.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Hello all,

I'm thinking of selling my Summicron ASPH II for a v3 or v4. I've found a v3 version that has just been CLA'ed for about half the price I think I can get for my ASPH II.

My thinking is that a smaller lens might be nice, and that I typically prefer the lower contrast look of the older lenses.

Anyone have experience with shooting BW film with both? Do you see noticeable differences?

I have used both & prefer the older lenses. I do like the small size, weight and balance compared to the ASPH as well as the character. Although i've used the Summilux as well, i always ended up with the summicron. I preferred to shorter minimum focus distance and the easy E39 filter set. Local, CLAd and 1/2 the price of the ASPH... it would be an easy choice for me.

 

[steveyork]

Here We Go Again by Steve, on Flickr

35mm Summicron (type 3) (yellow filter) on Fomapan 100 in Rodinal/Vuescan

 

[DwF]

Seems the OP jumped ship but fun thread!

 

[Rayt]

I had the V4 and did not like the handling. The focusing tab I though was too close to the body when mounted. And then I had to send it off to glue elements back in place. I then bought the Asph and found it too contrasty for my liking. V3 was perfect in both handling and tonality for b/w. 35mm Summilux pre-a has that legendary Leica look but and this is just my opinion based on usage, it shines wide open for low light. I would not want this as my only 35mm but use it when appropriate. I think I am going to spend more time with an 35/3.5 coated Elmar and see how that goes.

 

[kiemchacsu]

it was taken with a v3 summicron, among my most favorite photos


Reaching the sky [A street circus in Hamburg] by Trung Nguyen, on Flickr

 

[maddoc]

My copy of the vs 3 is quite OK but not as good as my previous M-Rokkor CLE or the Summicron-C 40/2.0. Interestingly, here in Japan the 35 mm Summicron vs 2 was always more sought after and more expensive than the vs 3.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I've censored it for this forum. But if it's not appropriate, please feel free to let me know

I don't see why it is not appropriate to show a human being without clothes on. Images of people without clothes on are as old as the world.

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

About the lens: get a LLL8! Best of all.

Leica M2/LLL8 35mm f/2/TMY400-2/IlfordMGFB.

Erik.

 

[brusby]

I don't see why it is not appropriate to show a human being without clothes on. Images of people without clothes on are as old as the world.

Erik.

I guess it's obvious I feel the same way or I wouldn't have made the original image and posted it on my Flickr account. But because I rarely see any nudes on this forum, I wanted to be considerate of other peoples' sensibilities.

 

[Doug]

I don't see why it is not appropriate to show a human being without clothes on. Images of people without clothes on are as old as the world.

Erik.

I guess it's obvious I feel the same way or I wouldn't have made the original image and posted it on my Flickr account. But because I rarely see any nudes on this forum, I wanted to be considerate of other peoples' sensibilities.

There is an RFF rule that includes nudity. Generally I'd say unclothed pubic area is a no-no, though Erik has posted such more than once and we've let it stay as not particularly prurient. Hard to say for sure, but I expect your un-blurred photo would be ok. When there's any doubt we tend to be permissive, and I don't recall seeing complaints from members on this issue.

Rule No. 4 - No "Offensive" Posts, Links or Images
4) You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory, or otherwise violative of any local or international laws. This includes links in your signature, profile, bookmarks as well as posted images, photos and avatars. Staff will ultimately decide if something is appropriate or not.