Used 50 summilux and 35 summicron

[BobPS]

Hi guys,

Greetings, I'm a new guy, been lurking for a while and this is my first post here.

I do not have a Leica RF yet, I will receive mine, a Leitz M6 in December.

In the anticipation of the M6, I've been looking for a lens. Two local stores (I'm in Jakarta, Indonesia) here don't have any Leica lenses in their stock. So I've been looking for a used one and come across these two Leica lenses:

SEKAR Collections: 50mm Summilux f/1.4
SEKAR Collections: 35mm Summicron f/2

I want to buy either the the 35 summicron or 50 summilux.
My questions are: is this a good one? Is there any way to tell the production year of the lenses? How much is the fair price for either of these lenses?

I called the seller, but he doesn't know yet how much he's going to sell them for. He inherited them from his father and since nobody in th family is using them, they want to sell the lenses.

The other alternative I have is to buy a 35 zeiss biogon, which one store has in their stock. How does that particular 35 'Cron compared to the new biogon?

Thanks in advance,
Bob

 

[awilder]

Can't comment on the 50/1.4 without knowing more about the condition of the lens, i.e. any scratches, haze, oil on aperture blades, cosmetic wear on barrel etc. It looks like the 1st version so it might be worth about $650-800 if clean. The 35/2 appears to have a fair amount of haze to the goggles so I'd pass. The 35/2 Biogon will easily outperform this first version and will be far easier to handle than a goggled lens to boot.

 

[Tom A]

Bob, the Summilux 50f1.4 looks like an early version. Couldn't see the serial number on, but the red box indicates a 60's lens. Price wise, it is all down to condition. You are living in an area with high humidity and the chance of having :fungus" etching the glass fairly large. The bonus is the hood and filter. The "crackle" finish hood is a bit scarce and if the filter has been on the lens throughout its life, probably means that it has kept the front element from being scratched.
It is an OK lens - when it came out it was Leica's answer to the Nikon/Canon's f1.4's and the 1 st version (# 188x xxx or lower was rather mediocre compared to these). The later versions are better, but a Zeiss ZM Sonnar 50f1.5 or the ZM Planar 50f2 are better today.
Value, probably around $650 -800, depending on condition and how much you want it!
Stay away from the 35f2. It is a "goggled" version and it is very clumsy on a M6 or "non" M3. Adds bulk and weight and also adds a whole new set of glass that can be damaged by heat or humidity. It is obviously the much vaunted version 1 (8 elements). It was a really good lens in 1958 and held its own against most of the Canon/Nikon 35's. However, by todays standard it is quite a bit behind the pack. I it is a 35 you want, go for a version III (1970's) or a version IV (1980 onward - pricey though).
The Zeiss ZM Biogon 35f2.0 is as good as, if not better than either of these two Leica offerings. It is also bigger, it that is a factor for you.
Goggled 35f2's tend to be rather modestly priced $500-700 tops. A clean version III 35f2 should be possible to find for around the same price + the cost of the hood (usually $60-75). The version IV is usually $1200 and up (these are for black, lightweight lenses - the heavier brass/chrome version IV's tend to be more and the titanium plated version even more - no optical improvement - just cosmetics!
Hope this helps and enjoy the M6. Start with one lens/one body and a lot of film. You might find that is all you need, but from personal experience, it rarely works that way1

 

[BobPS]

Thank you very much awilder and Tom for the explanation.
Looks like I'll get the 35 biogon.
Regards,
Bob

 

[35mmdelux]

the 35mm Biogon without a doubt your best glass and investment.

 

[rlouzan]

Bob,

The 35mm Biogon - hands down. Take a look at Stefan Dinu´s wonderful pictures:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=61452