Considering a 3.5cm Summaron f/3.5. Should I look for the Rarest Version?

[Chubkins]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I've been considering the 3.5cm f/3.5 Summaron but I'm a bit confused on which one to get. Based on the serial numbers, I see that the 1959 version is the least produced. I think I'd like to go for one made that late. Is there any difference from the earlier versions? I guess in both function and price? 

 

Thanks for any help!

[Advertisement]

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

[luigi bertolotti]

Summarons 3,5 are all equal in lens' schema, and (having 6 of them I know well...  ), they have the same rendering, with late items that (probably) have a better coating. None of them is "rare" in collectors' term (the scarcest ones are probably the goggled version with goggle in glossy black paint... and also the "postkamera"  versions, nice for collecting only)

 

As for using with modern cameras the last version in BM has a definite plus: it brings up the 35mm frame (on all Ms from M2 to M10...  ).  Unless you like goggles... is the version to have for use (of course, same can be achieved with a screwmount version and correct adapter : the screwmount version to consider, in case, is the last with E39 filter Mount... the A36, apart being "ancient by definition", are tied to "old" filters and hood). The last BM version is less common than others... but is not difficult to find, and mean prices are just a bit higher ... but is anyway not a costly item, and conditions, not "rarity",  drive the price.

 

Final little detail about use : the goggled version is the only that focuses to 0,7 / 0,65 m : even the last ones with 35mm frame activation do focus to 1 meter only.

Edited November 26, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[Jeff S]

Luigi, if they render alike, and none is rare as a collectible, why have 6? Is there something special about the lens for you? Do you have multiples of various other lenses? Just curious.

 

Jeff

[LocalHero1953]

Luigi, please may I be your heir?

[Chubkins]

hmm, I guess I considered the 1959 versions as rare as only 300 were made right before they transitioned to the 2.8. Oh well. Is there a good price range for it? Seems to be all over the map in the usual places.

[luigi bertolotti]

Luigi, if they render alike, and none is rare as a collectible, why have 6? Is there something special about the lens for you? Do you have multiples of various other lenses? Just curious.

 

Jeff

 

Because I like collecting...  and the Summaron 3,5 is a lens for which is not impossible (in practical and economical terms) to think to put together all the variations that the lens had during its life (*) ; moreover... the Summaron 35 was my 2nd Leitz lens (after the Elmar 50) and the first 35mm I used in my life. My 6 items (3 LTM, 3 BM) are all different... but of course there are stll some "missing variations"... which I'm looking for... with no hurry...  it took 34 years to reach 6...

 

(*) This is a not impossible task also for Elmar 90... while, as an example,  for Summicron 35 is very difficult and costly a lot

Edited November 27, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hmm, I guess I considered the 1959 versions as rare as only 300 were made right before they transitioned to the 2.8. Oh well. Is there a good price range for it? Seems to be all over the map in the usual places.

 

Well, surely isn't  easy to find a Summaron 3,5 in the 1690501 - 800 batch... I don't remember to have seen one for sale (no pics in my archive, anyway...) ; maybe indeed a seller can ask something more for a "last batch" item... this happens for other lenses too (both for "last" and "first" batches, if they aren't too big)

[jaapv]

Be careful not to buy a lens that has been designed for use with goggles without the attachement, even if the seller claims it has been "modified" - which it will not have been.

[romanus53]

Look after clean glasses first, then come ergonimics which fit your Needs. The googled Version is best on M3, otherwise a little bit bulky.

[microview]

First one I had had no thread for filter or hood. Were there some with threaded outer ring? I remember using a short ring of black paper as a substitute.

 

EDIT Yes, looking at collected images on the internet.

Edited November 27, 2017 by microview

[luigi bertolotti]

First one I had had no thread for filter or hood. Were there some with threaded outer ring? I remember using a short ring of black paper as a substitute.

 

EDIT Yes, looking at collected images on the internet.

Those were the first ones in screw mount, made for the old A36 filters with clamping screw, and the FOOKH hood - same fitting. 

 

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 November 27, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[Jeff S]

Because I like collecting... and the Summaron 3,5 is a lens for which is not impossible (in practical and economical terms) to think to put together all the variations that the lens had during its life (*) ; moreover... the Summaron 35 was my 2nd Leitz lens (after the Elmar 50) and the first 35mm I used in my life. My 6 items (3 LTM, 3 BM) are all different... but of course there are stll some "missing variations"... which I'm looking for... with no hurry... it took 34 years to reach 6...

 

(*) This is a not impossible task also for Elmar 90... while, as an example, for Summicron 35 is very difficult and costly a lot

Thanks. I surely understand the collecting bug, as my focus for over 40 years has been vintage b/w silver and platinum prints, along with first edition photo (and art) books.

 

If I did collect lenses, I'd want the 35 Summicrons, as that was my first M lens. Not surprised that would be an expensive endeavor.

 

Jeff

Edited November 27, 2017 by Jeff S

[Chubkins]

Thanks everybody. I may have actually found a last model version with the right serial number. Hopefully the price of £300 is ok.

[luigi bertolotti]

When it will be in your hands... pictures of the item are welcome...   (and taken with it, too)

[Chubkins]

Unfortunately that one fell through. Ah well. But I am curious about this one for sale. The price seems extreme comparitively. Pre-production is in the description. That being so, it still seems very high. I guess it's more collectible?

 

http://www.leicashop.com/vintage_en/leica-summaron-3-5-3-5cm-sku24517-37.html

 

edit:

looking some more, looks like it's the same one from this auction:

https://www.auction2000.se/auk/w.Object?inC=WLPA&inA=20160414_1608&inO=139

 

weird

Edited December 5, 2017 by Chubkins

[luigi bertolotti]

Yes, me too noticed it... well, it's undoubtly one of the very first ones : apparently, belongs to a batch of screw mount items, and in theory it predates the introduction of M3 (but  the relations s/n - year are to be taken not too strict) ; anyway, from the pictures it looks identical to my item 1.180.546 which belongs to the first "official" batch (later items of the same lens have small differences in the DOF engravings)

The "odd" s/n and the good conditions do justify an above-average price... if the amount asked is "right"... depends only on buyers attitude...

Edited December 5, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[Chubkins]

Yes, me too noticed it... well, it's undoubtly one of the very first ones : apparently, belongs to a batch of screw mount items, and in theory it predates the introduction of M3 (but  the relations s/n - year are to be taken not too strict) ; anyway, from the pictures it looks identical to my item 1.180.546 which belongs to the first "official" batch (later items of the same lens have small differences in the DOF engravings)

The "odd" s/n and the good conditions do justify an above-average price... if the amount asked is "right"... depends only on buyers attitude...

good to know. It just seemed real odd. How "elastic" are the serial number years? any hard data on it or is it all speculation?

[luigi bertolotti]

good to know. It just seemed real odd. How "elastic" are the serial number years? any hard data on it or is it all speculation?

I think that for mass-production lenses like Summaron 35 the explanation,  looking at the published production lists (see our Wiki area) , can be reasonably simple :

 

- in 1953 Leitz factory PLANNED a batch of 5000 Summarons 35, assigning to them numbers 1.058.001 to 1.063.000

- probably they actually built and delivered ALL of them

- so that, always in 1953, they planned another batch of 4000 items, assigning to them numbers 1.106.001 to 1.110.000

- and NO other batch of Summaron was planned in 1953

 

So... what can we infer from those facts ? A reasonable deduction is that they did NOT actually built and delivered ALL the items planned in the 2nd batch... at least, NOT in year 1953.

 

The rest is pure hipotesis... but once again, not nonsense :

- Some of the items planned in the above batch were actually built-delivered in 1954 (this is VERY probable imho)

- They were in the introduction phase of M3, with the then brand-new bayonet Mount

- They needed lenses with the M Mount to fulfill the (many) planned orders for the new camera (if you see the batches of Summicron 50 of 1954, they're BIG numbers...) 

- SO that it could be that some items of the above batch were indeed built in bayonet Mount, year 1954, BEFORE that factory decided to plan new batches of Summarons ; other batches were indeed planned in 1954, and, note, the first ones are separate batches for SM and BM.. which at factory level can be explained by the fact that in that timeframe SM and BM were very different items in terms of manufacturing : SM version were still the "Old" A36 body, while the BM had the "new" E39 body (the SM with E39 body arrived sometime later)

Edited December 6, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[willeica]

I have an early 35mm f3.5 Summaron that does not bring up 35mm frame lines, even on cameras which have them. They did not exist on the M3, of course. It has to be used with a finder such as the SBLOO, which is much better than any set of frame lines. The lens was also produced with goggles ( I have the f2.8 version with goggles) but the SBLOO is still much nicer.

 

William

Edited December 6, 2017 by willeica

[Chubkins]

I think that for mass-production lenses like Summaron 35 the explanation,  looking at the published production lists (see our Wiki area) , can be reasonably simple :

 

- in 1953 Leitz factory PLANNED a batch of 5000 Summarons 35, assigning to them numbers 1.058.001 to 1.063.000

- probably they actually built and delivered ALL of them

- so that, always in 1953, they planned another batch of 4000 items, assigning to them numbers 1.106.001 to 1.110.000

- and NO other batch of Summaron was planned in 1953

 

So... what can we infer from those facts ? A reasonable deduction is that they did NOT actually built and delivered ALL the items planned in the 2nd batch... at least, NOT in year 1953.

 

The rest is pure hipotesis... but once again, not nonsense :

- Some of the items planned in the above batch were actually built-delivered in 1954 (this is VERY probable imho)

- They were in the introduction phase of M3, with the then brand-new bayonet Mount

- They needed lenses with the M Mount to fulfill the (many) planned orders for the new camera (if you see the batches of Summicron 50 of 1954, they're BIG numbers...) 

- SO that it could be that some items of the above batch were indeed built in bayonet Mount, year 1954, BEFORE that factory decided to plan new batches of Summarons ; other batches were indeed planned in 1954, and, note, the first ones are separate batches for SM and BM.. which at factory level can be explained by the fact that in that timeframe SM and BM were very different items in terms of manufacturing : SM version were still the "Old" A36 body, while the BM had the "new" E39 body (the SM with E39 body arrived sometime later)

 

Thank you for the wealth of information. Interesting to see too, that the retaining ring in front of the front element maintains an identical serial number as the lens info ring, Seems like that was a carry-over from the older lenses.