Summilux 35mm CLA or not?

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys,

 

Some of you might have read about my Summilux 35 dilemma in this thread

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/365826-summilux-35mm-dilemma.html

 

As you can see on photo the sample is used but in very good condition. Something happened with the bajonet in the past, but it still mounts fine.

For the rest the only major blemish is the big black object that sits on the inside (nearly 1 mm)

You can see that on the bottom. It is only visible at a certain angle.

 

Main question is now.

Should I keep it in this state for collectors value?

Or will it not hurt the value if it is given a CLA?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jc_braconi]

You certainly ADD the value if you ask for a CLA

Here a sample using an M8 camera

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 10, 2015 by jc_braconi

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dpitt]

I am also inclined to give it a CLA. The black object (most probably some kind of bug that died in there) is obvious and might affect pictures...

Its a pitty I can not try it on my M8 because it will not mount without modification.

Modification of the mount will not be done to keep it in original state.

[pico]

Its a pitty I can not try it on my M8 because it will not mount without modification.

 

There are M mount lenses that do not fit on the M8?

 

Edit: Holy cow! I just learned that a few of the very first Summilux 35mm will not fit the M8!

Edited March 11, 2015 by pico
correcting myself

[jaapv]

Of course it won't mount with the bajonet in that condition. I suggest you get it repaired This state is not only detrimental to its usability -I would not dream of attemptingto mount it on any camera to avoid damaging it - it is surely detrimental to its value as well.

[luigi bertolotti]

Is surely a lens that worths a CLA/repair, both for its value and its usability : when you say that cannot be mounted on M8, I suppose you mean that the bayonet is damaged (and indeed, looks like this in your picture) : when repaired (probably they will change the whole flange... is a rather common spare) this lens can make a good job on M8 (*), and keep its value : it is not a rare item per se, but Summilux 35 was made always in rather small numbers during its long life, and is a lens that has always enjoyed a specific taste of its own.

 

(*) The famed ring that prevents mounting on M8 can be easily filed out in the repair shop... a modification that has no impact on your item's value and originality

Edited March 11, 2015 by luigi bertolotti

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just learned that some early Summilux 35mm have a light baffle that extends into the body and interferes with infinity focus. I do not know for certain if that lens is also considered the highly collectible version.

 

It can be modified easily, but if it is collectible, perhaps better to sell it.

.

 

Personally (but do not pretend to be a Bible) I haven't had the feel that the items with the famous ring/baffle are acquiring a special value for collectors.... but honestly I can't swear that in the future they won't... collectors' is a strange market in which, time to time, odd speculations start (and die... someone do remember the Summilux 35 like this...BUT with chrome front ring ? time ago some were offered and apparently sold at 20.000 Euros or so.... )

Edited March 11, 2015 by luigi bertolotti

[pico]

Personally (but do not pretend to be a Bible) I haven't had the feel that the items with the famous ring/baffle are acquiring a special value for collectors.... but honestly I can't swear that in the future they won't... collectors' is a strange market in which, time to time, odd speculations start (and die... someone do remember the Summilux 35 like this...BUT with chrome front ring ? time ago some were offered and apparently sold at 14-15.000 Euros and so.... )

 

I am posting too quickly and deleted my post.

 

Checking just now, I found the 'steel (chrome) rim' version is rare, as you noted. Sheesh. I can't get into that kind of minutiae.

[luigi bertolotti]

I am posting too quickly and deleted my post.

 

Checking just now, I found the 'steel (chrome) rim' version is rare, as you noted. Sheesh. I can't get into that kind of minutiae.

 

LOL... better to stay far from some frenzinesses of the collector market... ... I have a Lux 35 chrome (very old, no baffle...) and another black like the above (but no baffle, too) and am satisfied with... at the best (or worst...) of my collector' GAS could buy one day a goggled... but stop so.

[luigi bertolotti]

Damn... I just now have taken notice.... I could have invented something better for my 10.000th post...

[dpitt]

Hi all, thanks for your replies even if they are somewhat confusing.

 

@Jaap

It is possible that the damage to the bajonet is preventing mount on my M8, but it mounts on the M5 it came with. It would need filing of to get to infinity on digital bodies. I thought the flange was the reason for it not mounting.

 

If I understand right, I do have a fairly rare sample, but giving it a CLA would not hurt the value?

Fitting a new bajonet would not hurt the value?

Then I suppose I would give it a 6-bit code to make it good on digital bodies?

[luigi bertolotti]

Hi all, thanks for your replies even if they are somewhat confusing.

 

@Jaap

It is possible that the damage to the bajonet is preventing mount on my M8, but it mounts on the M5 it came with. It would need filing of to get to infinity on digital bodies. I thought the flange was the reason for it not mounting.

 

If I understand right, I do have a fairly rare sample, but giving it a CLA would not hurt the value?

Fitting a new bajonet would not hurt the value?

Then I suppose I would give it a 6-bit code to make it good on digital bodies?

 

The bad state of the bayonet anyway hurts the value... a new one, expecially if orignal (it is a spare that many labs do have in their warehouses) can only make the item better; 6 bit coding is another matter... is not a MUST for this focal... expecially on M8... your mount is codable in itself (it hasn't the 6 screws that, for instance, do prevent coding on my Elmarit 28) but you could decide to haven't it for keeping the original status... imho is a factor that does not hurt value, anyway.

Edited March 12, 2015 by luigi bertolotti

[dpitt]

The bad state of the bayonet anyway hurts the value... a new one, expecially if orignal (it is a spare that many labs do have in their warehouses) can only make the item better; 6 bit coding is another matter... is not a MUST for this focal... expecially on M8... your mount is codable in itself (it hasn't the 6 screws that, for instance, do prevent coding on my Elmarit 28) but you could decide to haven't it for keeping the original status... imho is a factor that does not hurt value, anyway.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I will not have it coded but will ask for a bajonet replacement and filing of the flange that prevents use on digital bodies.

That seems to be the best compromise to make it usable and still keep it original as much as possible.

[chilihead]

I recently had my 35 summilux cleaned by Gus

Lazzari. The lens is now in Mint condition and was worth every cent.