Leica Summicron Dual Range or Rigid

[RayD28]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a DR with appropriate goggles that I use with an M3.  I have mixed feelings about this lens because it can't (or shouldn't) be used with an M240.  I believe there are also film cameras with which a DR is not fully compatible.  

 

I don't want to modify the DR so it will work with an M240.  Someone described having two focusing mounts (the original and a second that is modified so it works with digital) and switching the head between the two, but I'm not interested in going that route.

 

I'm thinking about trading the lens for a rigid that I can use for digital.  The DR was made in 1963 and the rigid in 1958.  Questions:  

 

1.  Will there be much difference between the quality of the glass or coatings between the five years?

 

2.  Are there construction quality differences between the five years?

 

3.  Assuming all other things are equal, should a DR with appropriate goggles sell for signficantly more or less than a rigid?  

 

Please let me know if there are other factors to help evaluate a decision.  Thanks in advance for your input.  

 

Ray

[iaeaix]

I have had both, can not really tell the difference in image quality.

Now I have only kept Rigid, a few copies actually. The coating is different between early and later copies, if you want better flare resistance go with later year.

The Rigid is much lighter than DR(I remember saw somewhere says that the mount is made out of aluminum), but the construction is solid well made. I actually prefer the weight of Rigid, much better balanced on Camera.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

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

[TomB_tx]

I have both, and believe the only difference is in the mounts. I've heard the rigid construction changed over the years to more aluminum in the mount, but I'm not aware of coating changes. I prefer the rigid for the feel of the focus ring with the infinity lock.

[luigi bertolotti]

To questions 1) and 2) : no significant differences, or, better to say, the differences may arise not from the age in itself but from HOW those lenses have been treated during their long life, and this applies both to coating and mechanics. Generally, the 1st series of rigid Summicrons (as well as the DR) has been made in a time when at Wetzlar THEY WORKED REALLY WELL : the "native" built quality was superb, they supported hard treatement... but 60 years in various hands can take a toll: so look above all at the quality of the item you are targeting; moreover, keep in mind that classic Summicrons were made also with the concept of MAINTENANCE well in the mind of designers and manufacturing planners : in the right hands a Summicron bought for use can still today be very well maintained / adjusted /cleaned etc... and it can Worth the cost.

 

About 3) : at same conditions, Summicron DRs have always been prized over the rigids be it for their "aura" , numbers made, and flexibility in use (which disappears on digitals).

 

Of course, even staying on Summicron only, you have other choices apart the "old rigid"... personally I got time ago a Canadian Summicron V4, excellent, not too costly, with the plus of 0,7m focus and the minus (only for old passionates... ) of the no more unscrewable lens unit for toying with SOMKY - Viso -Bellows etc...

Edited July 21, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[RayD28]

Thanks for all of your input.  The rigid I'm considering had a recent CLA and I'm waiting to hear who did the work.  I have current versions of 50 and 35 Summicrons.   I want at least one older lens and everything I read about he rigid is mostly positive.

 

Luigi, you bring up a good point about the close focus on a rigid being only 1 meter.  I'll throw that into the equation.  

 

Ray