V3 35mm 'cron opinions?

H

Hephaestus

Established
Local time
12:08 AM
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
105
Can anyone tell me about the v3 35mm cron? Well regarded? Are the coatings soft from that vintage?

I can't afford the v4 'King of Bokeh', nor the ASPH, so I have limited options at 35mm.

Any thoughts on the cron vs. Zeiss Biogon or Voigtlander Ultron, or any other 35mm that can be had for less than $1000 used I know this is posted in the Leica forum, but I have no particular brand loyalty.

Thanks,
-Ryan
 
Ryan, of the three you should try and handle them. Other than ergonomics it looks like their all great.
 
Mike,
Sage advice (truly)- but living where I do, that will be very difficult.

I always buy used- so if I really don't care for something I can hopefully flip it for roughly what I paid.

Regards,
-Ryan
 
As usual, any answer with so many variables, is, "It depends."

If you find a nice example of the Summicron with hood for $800 or less, that is a good price.

The Zeiss has many supporters. By their accounts it is a great lens. More expensive new than the Summicron. Likely to be more expensive used as well.

Obviously the Ultron is substantially less than either the Summicron or Zeiss lens. Great performance for it's price. Shoot, you can get the Ultron NEW for a lot less than either the Zeiss or Summicron.

For that matter, the 35mm Nokton with hood NEW is in the same price range as the Summicron. A bargain!
 
I have both v3 Summicron and Ultron.

Like Wayne said.

The v3 is excellent, I haven't seen any photos that convinced me that it is significantly different from the v4.
On paper at least, v3 should have more contrast (one element less) but usually people claim that the v4 has
slightly more ... The Bokeh of the v4 (and v3) is not as good as some people say, IMO. The Ultron is better.

I don't think the coating is as soft as in older Leitz lenses but I use a filter anyways. Look at it this way: with a filter,
the v3 has as many glass interfaces as the v4 :)

The key advantage of the Summicron is that it's so small. It really helps when you do close up (goes down to .7m)
people shots.

Roland.
 
I had a V4 and V3 at the same time (typical scenario: had the V3, bought a V4 because of all the hype, intending to sell the V3). Perhaps if I had set my camera up on a tripod and shot pix of my bookshelves and then enlarged little crops from the far corners I would have seen a huge difference. But I just walked around with both lenses shooting as I normally do and then looked at the slides and I couldn't tell the players apart without a scorecard, as the saying goes. The V4 was definitely not built as solidly as the V3, that was obvious from a single glance over. So I ended up selling the V4 and happily kept the V3.
 
I picked up a v3 before I knew anything about one version vs another, I just wanted a 35mm Summicron and I found one that was affordable which turned out to be a v3. It's a great lens and I wouldn't waste too much time thinking about which one is better.

They are both really nice and if you find one in good condition for a reasonable price, I wouldn't worry too much about the version. My v3 is really solid and it's small and just does the job.

In real life you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.
 
Thanks very much, everyone- I really appreciate all the input.

I still have no idea what I'm going to do- but I'm getting closer. To something. Sometime. I think....

Cheers!
-Ryan
 
Last edited:
If you really want a v3 Summicron, by all means get it. Just be patient!

Or, you could buy the Ultron right now. Use it. When a good deal on a v3 Summicron comes aolng, you could sell up. Or maybe be content with the Ultron and a heap of change in your pocket for film.
 
Bought a v4 because of the hype, and it was fine. Then I added a v3 for variety and it was so nice, I bought another one for backup! Am now using a Summaron 2.8 because of the ergonomics, the shiny chrome, and the Wetzlar build quality. Just say "No" to ASPH!
 
The v3 is a great little lens. They're not cheap used but they're quite a bit less than the v4. It still has that real high quality feel about it that gradually seeps away through the '70s. I'm pretty sure the soft coatings were gone by the early 70's when the v2 and v3 came along. Oh, and be aware that the v2 is the same lens as the v3 but with a slightly less convenient aperture lever instead of the usual ring. And the 40mm Summicron C is just as good for a fraction of the price (but it doesn't focus quite as closely)

BTW I'm rediscovering this lens as my "50" on my new M8. Damn - I can't seem to stop myself from saying that :bang:
 
Ryan,

I own a v4, but I have had on loan for some time a v3 from a friend which I have been shooting side by side with the v4. After printing from them I can see no substantial difference in terms of performance, and the character seems to be indestinguishable between the two lenses, on paper.

But having shot them both side-by-side, the only real thing that stands out to me is the v3 aperture ring. Take a look a some pictures of the lenses to see what I mean. They improved the ring on the v4 by extending it out from the barrel so it's easier to grip. The difference never really bothered me unless I was shooting with the lens hood attached, and even then I think it might depend on which lens hood you're using exactly.

Then again it could also be that since the v4 was my first (and still only) m lens, that I simply long for her exacting tender feel at every moment of the day...
 
ferider said:
I think there might be still a v3 Summicron in the classifieds ...
Click to expand...

Indeed there is- that's what sparked my question.

Can someone with a v3 share their thoughts of the lens wide-open? From what I hear, that's where the greatest advances in bodern optics have been. Is the v3 cron terribly soft at 2.0?

Thanks again, everyone!
-Ryan
 
Travis is quite correct about the v4 aperture ring: it wins over the v3, even for hood-free shooters like me. The v3 has a nicer DOF scale which, for me, tips the scale (ha, ha).

As for image quality at full aperture, both are a tad softer than f/5.8, but the main effect is noticeably more light fall-off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom