legendary Leica lenses -- old vs. new

[Dahlias Lee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

can anyone explain why the Summicron 35mm. f2/Made in Germany, v. 1 is considered one of Leica's legendary lenses? I've read a lot about its bokeh, sharpness, etc., but so is the newer Summicron v. 4/non-asph (made in 1979-1999) and the later asph 35mm f2 version (1999-present). Also, v.4/non asph is known as the "king of bokeh," not the version 1.

 

Does anyone know when version/type 1 was made (what years) and the serial numbers? What is their value nowadays? Is the fact that they're rare the reason why they're so highly sought after/prized/priced?

 

Why are versions 2 and 3 not considered as good as version 1?

 

If you had the money, would you buy v. 1, and why?

 

Wouldn't it be a better choice to buy a newer lens, with its better glass, technology, less flare, etc, like say the Summicron 35mm., or for us wide angle lovers, the Summilux 24 mm. f1.4? I read Steve Huff's review of it on http://www.stevehuffphotos.com. He writes passionately about Leica cameras and lenses -- a good read. He describes the Summilux 24mm as a "masterpiece." The $6,000 price tag makes it only a dream at this stage. But, does anyone know how much a used one (in good condition) goes for? Would eBay be the best place to look for/buy one?

 

Looking forward to all your valuable insights, rants and raves.

[lars_bergquist]

"Legendary lenses" are nominated largely by collectors. Another factor is of course the technical/historical situation when the lens was launched. Lenses that were at that time a leap forward are candidates for 'legend-dom'. This does not mean that they would necessarily be regarded as good or even acceptable today, because standards -- especially Leica standards -- have been raised.

 

The v.1 35mm Summicron made a splash in 1958 because of its speed, but it was not exceptional: Canon introduced its 35mm f:1.8 in 1956. The eight-lens Summicron was pretty mushy wide open, and indeed all the way up to f:4. It was both outsold and outlived by the optically superior but unsung f.2.8 Summaron, which would still be rated a competent 35 today. The versions 2 and 3 were optically nearly identical; they had greater contrast wide open on axis, but the periphery was so-so, and bokeh was indeed harsh. This is why the v.4 was hailed as king of bokeh, because it is a very nice lens, though the corners of the full format are a bit soft at wide apertures. And it was in production from 1979 to 1998, which is a goodly run. Let me add that the bokeh of the current Summicron ASPH is even nicer.

 

Long runs do not always help, however. The v.2 50mm Summilux was in production for a record 42 years, 1962--2004, but does not smell very legendary as yet. Let us not speak of the mushy and flarey 35mm Summilux, 1959--1994 ... The Noctilux 1.1 of 1966 became legendary as the first production aspherical lens. The 1.1 version had a long run, 1975--2008, but its legendariness hinges on its odd character. (The screw-mount Thambar was also an odd lens out, and thus collector-legendary.)

 

The first rigid 50mm Summicron became a legend because it was so very good for its time. It was not exceptional wide open (the predecessor Summitar was as good or better there) but it was the first universally useable speed standard lens, because it was very good when stopped down. It was no longer necessary to have a slower lens for the times when the light did not demand f:2, so you could have real sharpness. Today many love it for its 'fingerprint', but technically, it would be rated as mediocre.

 

So legendariness (legendarity?) is mostly a media and hype phenomenon. Anyone is in fact free to proclaim his own pet discontinued lens 'legendary', and hope he is loud-mouthed enough to make it stick. I hope the examples above cast some light. And yes, current lenses do beat the 'legends' hands down for pure technical quality. Taste is a different matter, as always.

 

The old man from the Age of the Rigid Summicron

[Advertisement]

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

[lars_bergquist]

And, by the way, try to find Dennis Laney: Leica Collector's Book, 2nd edition. It has all the stuff from year 1 (1914) and nearly all the info in it is correct.

 

The same old man.

[wizard]

The first rigid 50mm Summicron became a legend because it was so very good for its time. It was not exceptional wide open (the predecessor Summitar was as good or better there)...

 

Lars, are you indeed referring to the first RIGID Summicron 50 lens? Wide open, the first RIGID Summicron 50 performs markedly better than the FIRST Summicron 50 (the collapsible version), and while you may have a point in comparing the wide open performance of the first (collapsible) Summicron and the Summitar (I don't own a Summitar, so I can't really tell), the first rigid version of the Summicron 50 is definitely and quite visibly better wide open than the much older Summitar.

 

Andy

[luigi bertolotti]

Lars has said it all and well about the Summicron 35: I can only add, strictly referring to Dahlias' topic, that there are two elements that make the 1st Summicron 35 a little "legend" for collectors :

1) It was made also in screw mount version... and THIS is a very rare and sought after item (little more than 500 made).

2) He speaks of "Made in Germany"... and really, for M mount version, the Wetzlar-engraved variant is much rarer than the Canada (I have a Wetzlar item, so I like to defend my value... ).

 

Then there are the even rarer black items... all in all, 1st Summicron 35 has a significant number of variants, and so for collectors is a fascinating item: as a user lens, Lars is right... nothing particularly wonderful... the Summaron 2,8 is definitively better as value-for-money.

[pgk]

I've owned v.1, v.2, v.4 and now the asp 35mm Summicrons. All can deliver surprisingly good images but IMHO the asph simply flares significantly less than the others and is very sharp at all apertures. As a user it outperforms the earlier versions, but, because it is a very well corrected lens, it lacks the optical 'signatures' which relate to imperfect corrections of the earlier versions.

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lars, are you indeed referring to the first RIGID Summicron 50 lens? Wide open, the first RIGID Summicron 50 performs markedly better than the FIRST Summicron 50 (the collapsible version), and while you may have a point in comparing the wide open performance of the first (collapsible) Summicron and the Summitar (I don't own a Summitar, so I can't really tell), the first rigid version of the Summicron 50 is definitely and quite visibly better wide open than the much older Summitar.

 

Andy

Perhaps I was not quite clear. Yes, the performance wide open of the Rigid is clearly better than that of the Collapsible. This is especially so at close distances; Leitz did in fact recommend users of the Collapsible to use it at two meters or longer distances! This increased contrast was one important reason for Mandler's redesign of the Wetzlar lens. As one American photojournalist said about the Collapsible: "This lens resolves the cat's whiskers, but sometimes we lose the cat!"

 

The old man

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

As usual, Lars has the solid, factual information. Let me add a point that I have found to be valid for practical photography:

I prefer the 1st version of the 35/2 Summicron (I have both bayonet and screw versions, even one black screw version) because it renders low contrast scenes with more delicacy than the 35/2 asph. The tonal scale is more flowing rather than step-like, which for softer scenes results in a more pleasing picture, particularly with slide film.

The 35/2,8 Summaron is the equal of the 35/2 above and outperforms it from f4 on.

The rigid version of the 50/2 is also a favourite of mine for the same reasons.

A Thambar is an interesting, rare and difficult to use lens. It is very hard to judge the effect on the final print. Only a great deal of experimentation, mainly in against the light shots, will give you an idea of what it can do. In the best cases, it results in a dreamy, surrealistic. view.

Since these old lenses were presented, films have become much more contrasty, making the older lenses quite desirable for softer effects. With digital M's, the manipulation on the computer is an entirely different game which I have not been able to go into in any depth.

Teddy

[lars_bergquist]

Lars has said it all and well about the Summicron 35: I can only add, strictly referring to Dahlias' topic, that there are two elements that make the 1st Summicron 35 a little "legend" for collectors :

1) It was made also in screw mount version... and THIS is a very rare and sought after item (little more than 500 made).

2) He speaks of "Made in Germany"... and really, for M mount version, the Wetzlar-engraved variant is much rarer than the Canada (I have a Wetzlar item, so I like to defend my value... ).

 

Then there are the even rarer black items... all in all, 1st Summicron 35 has a significant number of variants, and so for collectors is a fascinating item: as a user lens, Lars is right... nothing particularly wonderful... the Summaron 2,8 is definitively better as value-for-money.

Yes Luigi, as I wrote, "collector legendary" is not the same as "user legendary". And I am a user, not a collector. Regarding things like definition, resistance to flare and internal reflexes, etc., there is simply no comparison. And flare, reflexes etc. is very important in RF camera lenses, for with a RF camera you don't discover what happened until after the fact.

 

T.O.M.

[luigi bertolotti]

Yes Luigi,...

 

 

T.O.M.

 

I prefer The Old Man of <something> : it's a distinctive signature and a fine fly of phantasies...... if you pretend royalties... I've started to sign some mails to my staff as "the Old Man of <something (unrelated to photo)>

Edited September 17, 2009 by luigi bertolotti

[Dahlias Lee]

Lars, many thanks for your interesting and informative history lesson! I find history fascinating, and Leica's is much more interesting than its competitors.

 

Would you please inform us about the 24mm f1.4 Summilux M? Do you think it deserves to be called a "masterpiece" (for users, not collectors). Why does it cost several thousands more than the summicrons? is it just the extra f-stop (1.4 v. 2)?

 

Thanks again, all, for sharing your wealth of information!

[luigi bertolotti]

Well... Summilux 24 does not concern the "Collectors and Historica" section, indeed...; it's a lens that has been announced less then 1 year ago: with its "twin" of 21 mm is a typical offspring of modern Leica factory, with aspherical elements, an exceptional luminosity for its focal, and it received enthusiastic reviews from Leica users. It is a costly item as most of today Leica lenses... determining if its huge price can be "justified" is a unuseful exercise... if you are a Leica user you have no alternative if you WANT such a focal with such an aperture... and Leica offers to you a superbly engineered lens, at a very high price. But, at least, one can be confident it's a lasting value, probably much more than a Leica M9 body : Leica has a very long history of absolute lenses compatibilty through the years: for instance (speaking of "legends") I have a Summarex 85mm f 1,5 that dates back to 1954: at its time, it was a terribly costly lens... but I can use it TODAY, with satisfaction, on my digital M8 dated 2007, so as on my film M4 dated 1967...

[lars_bergquist]

I am not qualified to opine about the qualities WA Summiluxes beyond what is obvious, because I haven't used them. They are clearly extreme 'bragging lenses' that few of us will want to use, lug around or pay for. Those who do use them will need to compose their pictures differently, if the specifics of the lenses (wide angle PLUS relatively shallow d.o.f.) is to make a difference. It has seldom done so in the published pictures I have seen yet. Most of them could have been done with a Summicron at 2.8, as long as we have had no chance to compare the images with the actual geometry of the places and spaces where they ere made ("oh, was the room THAT small!"). So the 'legendariness' of these lenses will to a large extend depend on how their users use them!

 

The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar

[lars_bergquist]

Would you please inform us about the 24mm f1.4 Summilux M? Do you think it deserves to be called a "masterpiece" (for users, not collectors). Why does it cost several thousands more than the summicrons? is it just the extra f-stop (1.4 v. 2)?

 

Thanks again, all, for sharing your wealth of information!

Increasing the speed of a lens by one f-stop will increase the complications to be dealt with -- optical aberrations, mechanical issues, etc.) by a factor of four, with luck, or ten, with less luck, or even more. Many people do not appreciate that. They think you just have to press harder on the accelerator pedal. It is not so.

 

The new wide Summiluxes are mind-boggling feats. Whether they will give us eye-boggling pictures is entirely up to the users. Let us hope that the two categories, those who can afford them, and those that can use them innovatively, do overlap to some extent.

 

The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar

[lars_bergquist]

Long runs do not always help, however. The v.2 50mm Summilux was in production for a record 42 years, 1962--2004, but does not smell very legendary as yet. Let us not speak of the mushy and flarey 35mm Summilux, 1959--1994 ... The Noctilux 1.1 of 1966 became legendary as the first production aspherical lens. The 1.1 version had a long run, 1975--2008, but its legendariness hinges on its odd character. (The screw-mount Thambar was also an odd lens out, and thus collector-legendary.)

Re-reading the above I find that I have garbled the message. The two Noctiluxes referred to are of course, first, the 1966 Noctilux 1.2, and, second, the 1.0 which ran from 1975 to 2008. I had not had my morning coffee yet ...

 

The old man from the Age of the Collapsible Summicron

[wizard]

The first rigid 50mm Summicron became a legend because it was so very good for its time. It was not exceptional wide open (the predecessor Summitar was as good or better there)...

 

Lars, while you're at it (re-reading that is), the above quote from your post seems to say that the first RIGID Summicron is worse wide open than the Summitar. This is what I was referring to in my post above, and thought you may have meant the FIRST Summicron (the collapsible one) instead. Judging from my own experience, the first rigid Summicron is clearly better wide open than the collapsible version (which was the first Summicron ever) and thus should be visibly better than the Summitar, too. Hence my question above.

 

Regards,

 

Andy

[lars_bergquist]

No, it was the collapsible Summicron that was very marginally inferior to the Summitar at f:2. It seems that it was at the insistence of U.S. photojournalists that Walter Mandler re-designed the optics to go into the rigid version, and improved contrast wide open was one of the goals.

 

As late as the middle of the 1950's lenses were generally designed with resolution as the main quailty criterion, as this was easiest to quantify. But anyone who has got his baptism of hypo in a darkroom knows that the fine detail you can barely discern in the neg is not what you can really print. And resolution and contrast are to some extent contradictory qualities in a lens.

 

When modulation transfer measurements began to be used in the optical design departments, this tended to change design criteria radically, and this change from resolution to modulation happened with Leitz about at the time of the changeover from collapsible to rigid. But these Summicrons were also some of the first lenses that were designed with the aid of specialized computer programs.

 

I'd like to repeat that at mid-apertures the 50mm Summicrons, even the collapsible one, were vastly superior to the old Summitar, and that was really their revolutionary feature. Before that, 'speed lenses' were used for speed only by the more fastidious photographers, such as Paul Wolff, who used his 5cm Elmar in preference to the Summar whenever the light permitted.

 

The old man from the Age of Bertele and Berek

[brianv]

I've used "perfect glass" coated Summitars (and one pretty close to perfect) and "perfect glass" collapsible Summicrons. To my eye the Collapsible Summicrons clearly outperformed the Summitars. The Collapsible Summicron itself was reformulated early in the run. I have an early thorium-glass collapsible and later collapsible Summicrons. Perhaps the comment refers to the early Thorium lens compared with a Summitar? I have a second Thorium lens coming in, I'll have to do a comparison with the later collapsible Summicrons.

[batmobile]

There is perhaps another perspective, aside from the actual performance of a lens, which may impact things and that is association i.e. famous photos taken with a particular lens, or particular eras in which certain lenses were well used. I am not sure how real this might be, but I wonder whether people admiring photos through the 70s and 80s, btu unable to afford the 35mm V3/4 crons might be more determined to own them than people born later. This demand would presumably push up prices. Maybe its the equivalent of the man who retires at 60 and buys the mint show condition vintage mustang/corvette etc that he longed for in his youth? There seems to be a hybrid group of people who are more like collectors in their approach to equipment and images,but claim to be out and out shooters, who will pay through the nose for certain 'classic shooter' lenses. I would suggest that the Noct 1.0 and the 35mm V4 Cron, as well as the latest pre-asph 50 cron have had their prices driven up by this group. They are not collectors per se, but are certainly not looking at their kit through the cold eyes of someome concerned only with their art. They also tend to have a lot of money to spend and I think are quite influential on the prices of 'modern classics' if you like. 35 1.4 pre asph Lux is another casualty perhaps.

Edited September 20, 2009 by batmobile

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[iShutterbug]

I agree with Batmobile. I got caught up in the "bokeh king" thing and bought one and was disappointed with it. I had gotten used to buying things on the basis of reviews--like computers and software and other things--but a lens--or photography as art--something as subjective as that--I think someone has to experience it for themselves. Not to cross-post but here's a similar comment I made elsewhere.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/97982-m6-lens-2.html#post1043964

Edited September 20, 2009 by iShutterbug