35mm Summilux pre-asph with M9

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used to own one, but sold it in PX for a Summicron ASPH. I wish I'd kept it really.

 

This is an example of what I did with it while I had it

 

In the Tate Modern

 

I really like the hood that comes with it, and use it as the standard hood for the Summicron.

[menos I M6]

I wish I'd kept it really.

 

Yes, andy, you should have - it did you good!

 

On the point of the hoods - I really like round metal hoods with quick release.

I found, they are the least possible, to catch, while getting the camera out of or into bags, but: with the pre ASPH Lux hood, it is quite larger than the 12426 and A LOT less shielding against the elements (which is why I use a hood primarily.

 

I like the feel and the look of the 12426 much less, but this doesn't matter at all, as it is hands down the technically better lens hood.

 

I really think, everybody should own a pre ASPH 35 Lux - these are so tiny, to make for a fantastic "throw in the bag, soft Summicron" for a certain look.

Nothing looks better for black and white than these lenses.

 

I always use mine without any hood, taking the full advantage of it's size (and making usage of the aperture dial a lot easier. I wish, it had a proper aperture ring, a la Summicron though - would make ergonomics so much better.

 

On build quality: it is one of the least well made Leica designs, construction wise. Leica really was out, to save every single gram on this lens - they succeeded, it is extremely lightweight, but it unfortunately doesn't hold up in its sturdiness with the better built lenses.

[freecitizen]

I am thinking of buying a Leitz Canada 35 pre-asph lux serial number 272xxxx.

 

The owner cannot tell me - so I'm hoping one of the members here can tell from the serial number if it woud need the modification to the rear of the lens before use on the M9 ( and the M8 ). And is anyone able to give me a little more detail on exacty what the problem is, and what the modification entails please ?

 

If it does need the modification .............

 

Can it damage itself or the M8/M9 if I tried to use it not knowing it needs modifying ........

 

How much should I expect it to cost .....so I can allow for that in the price.

 

Could I do it myself, do you think ? .... Is it the sort of thing which really shoud be done by Leica Germany, or would a good camera technician suffice ?

 

Also, would getting the lens 6-bit coded automatically fix this problem ?

 

Many Thanks and Happy New Year to all !

[menos I M6]

I am thinking of buying a Leitz Canada 35 pre-asph lux serial number 272xxxx.

 

The owner cannot tell me - so I'm hoping one of the members here can tell from the serial number if it woud need the modification to the rear of the lens before use on the M9 ( and the M8 ). And is anyone able to give me a little more detail on exacty what the problem is, and what the modification entails please ?

 

If it does need the modification .............

 

Can it damage itself or the M8/M9 if I tried to use it not knowing it needs modifying ........

 

How much should I expect it to cost .....so I can allow for that in the price.

 

Could I do it myself, do you think ? .... Is it the sort of thing which really shoud be done by Leica Germany, or would a good camera technician suffice ?

 

Also, would getting the lens 6-bit coded automatically fix this problem ?

 

Many Thanks and Happy New Year to all !

 

You can determine easiest with the lens and your M8/9 by focussing the lens away from infinity, mounting the lens and trying to focus to infinity, mounted on the camera (lightly, without force).

If the lens, easily focusses to infinity without any wrong feel, it is likely to work properly.

 

Nobody can tell according to the serial no., if a lens needs modification or not, as many have already been modified and apparently not all needed a modification to begin with.

 

Don't mount a 35 Summilux pre ASPH V2 to your digital camera, focussed to infinity, if you don't know, if it needs modification or not!

 

The safe way to determine:

 

- measure the depth from lens mount surface to the big obstruction within the lightbox of your M8/9 - the measurement should be something around 9.5 − 9.6mm

 

- focus your lens to infinity and measure from it's lens mount to the rear element shroud edge - if this dimension is larger, than the dimension within your camera body, the lens needs modification, as it would collide, when mounted and focussed towards infinity

 

6-bit coding has nothing to do with this.

Leica - according to reports from customers on the internet - is reluctant, to 6-bit code the 35 Summilux-M V2 (pre ASPH), as it has a classic lens mount, different from the newer unified mount, which cannot be economically exchanged with a coded one, but must be machined with 6 grooves instead.

 

Some repair shops offer 6-bit coding for the pre ASPH Summilux for a fee (John Millich in the US is one of the machining shops, who does the actual machining of the lens mount, which has to be shipped separately to him (through Don Goldberg for example).

 

I did not machine my lens mount for 6-bit coding, as I simply use the lens, as is on the M8.2 and choose the appropriate code in the M9 menu.

 

Btw - in Lightroom, the lens shows up as Summicron vIV, despite the correct code being used in the M9 (other image software shows the max aperture correctly as f1.4, so it seems like a Lightroom hiccup).

 

In any case, the lens has it's fans (myself included) and a reason for being despite many people, who despise it for it's obvious optical flaws ;-)

 

Go ahead and enjoy it!

[freecitizen]

Thankyou menos .....

 

Very helpful post - much appreciated.

[haroldp]

Depending on how much you want / need F1.4, the pre-asph 35 Summicron is in my opinion nearly perfect. I also have the asph. 35 summicron, and after shooting, decided to keep both. They 'paint' slightly differently but I am hard pressed to call one better than the other. At F2, the asph is slightly better in the corners, but corners are rarely in the plane of focus in shots that involve people.

 

A gen 4 (pre-asph) 35 Summicron should also be reasonably priced (for Leica).

 

Happy new year .... Harold

[petard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My Summilux needs to be adapted to work on my M9, but i also need to use it on a film M. Now I’m confused how some examples work out of the box and others don’t.

If the rear element gets adapted to protrude less at infinity for digital, wouldn’t it not protrude enough on a film so you can’t get to infinity?
 

 

[LocalHero1953]

7 minutes ago, petard said:

My Summilux needs to be adapted to work on my M9, but i also need to use it on a film M. Now I’m confused how some examples work out of the box and others don’t.

If the rear element gets adapted to protrude less at infinity for digital, wouldn’t it not protrude enough on a film so you can’t get to infinity?
 

 

The issue is not that the lens can protrude so far into the camera that it hits the sensor (or film), but rather that the rear end of the lens can catch on internal parts of the camera within the light box. I believe the modification required is to cut down the width of the metal rear shroud of the lens so it does not catch. I have the lens but have no digital M.

[costa43]

Yes, it’s the shroud at the back. It protrudes too far out on some lenses and restricts the ability to focus to infinity on the m8/m9. You can get it shaved or removed I believe. The rear element will have less protection though if you do so don’t set it down on a table without a suitable cap!

[petard]

I might be misunderstanding the inner workings then. I thought the shroud that protrudes too much moves the rangefinder cam. So if it becomes shorter (doesn't protrude as much) it would not protrude enough on film to reach infinity.

Still hesitating to give the lens to a shop since I wouldn't want to have the shroud dremeled. Folks who did it at Leica, did you see visual difference in the shroud? Or did they adjust how much the shroud protrudes opposed to but did not alter it.