The rocketing price of the 35mm Summicron eight element

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/11/2021 at 6:08 PM, ianman said:

I can find many on eBay.... this one seems kinda strange https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/265222177284?hash=item3dc0794204:g:pFsAAOSwVt9g5gLD

It's the "postkamera version"... a pure collectible (does not provide focusing) of a certain interest.

About the first Summicron 35... I think its value is driven by collectors : is an historically important item (as all the Summicrons), and has also the "dual source" (Wetzlar and Midland) : an example of similar behavior of price is the first Elmarit 28... definitely not better than its later brothers... but look at the prices made by items descrbed as "9 elements Wetzlar"...

Edited July 13, 2021 by luigi bertolotti

[luigi bertolotti]

On 7/11/2021 at 7:11 PM, colint544 said:

Yes. They seem thinner on the ground than before. Not seen one at Red Dot Cameras in a long time. Quick look at eBay, and someone is wanting almost three thousand UK pounds for this one. Five years ago, these were sub £500.

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!

The "dual mount" box is maybe more interesting than the lens in itself... 😁

[giannis]

4 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

"9 elements Wetzlar"...

I think the element count is part of the mythos of those more collectible lenses. Combined with their low production numbers (which of course would be lower when you're comparing a single, older version against all subsequent versions), usually the narrative goes:

"Yeah they don't make them like they used to. That X version with Y elements was the best, they really went all out, but afterwards they cheapened out and used fewer elements to make it cheaper/easier to produce".

Of course this is pretty much never the case, and is based on the implicit - yet false - assumptions that:

1. More elements means "better" corrected lens
2. Less elements means cheaper to produce

Those two implicit assumptions hold true only for a very special case: when comparing contemporary lenses, using the same technology and manufacturing techniques, and being in the same price bracket roughly. Otherwise, if say we're comparing an older vs newer lens, more elements  (in the old one) don't mean better correction. Usually, it means that a new design was produced, that was probably harder to calculate, but resulted in fewer elements *and* better correction, as long as you used special glass (with specific, maybe anomalous, dispersion, or aspherics, or specific refraction indices), and special cements and coatings. For this exact reason, assumption 2. is also false, since the elements might be fewer, but still more expensive and harder to produce. Aspherical elements are the most obvious example, but it's still true for vintage lenses with specific glass formulations and curvatures that were harder to produce and grind.

All in all, such narratives (""Yeah they don't make them like they used to. That X version with Y elements...") are almost always false when it comes to lenses and their performance. However along with the implicit assumptions, as well as the high prices (due to small numbers) that act as a "confirmation", they create a "believable" story that many people buy. For someone that bought into that story, everything makes sense and is consistent. "X version was the best, it had Y elements. But it was too expensive to produce, so they cheapened out and made another version, with Y-1 elements. Obviously not as good, that's why it's cheaper now in the second hand market, while the best version X is the most expensive". That person will perpetuate that story,  even amplify it if they happen to have a blog/youtube channel/website/podcast/etc. . Sellers and whatnot will jump on the bandwagon too, as an opportunity to make a quick buck on the hype. And life goes on.

Edited July 13, 2021 by giannis
grammar

[pedaes]

18 minutes ago, giannis said:

Obviously not as good,

If you look at MTF charts , each replacement version of every lens had higher performance than its predecessor as you suggest, irrespective of elements and glass types.

We then of course get into the 'look' and the 'glow' and myths about how the out of focus areas are rendered, and 'to my eye'. 

And life does indeed go on in this mythical world.

[giannis]

19 minutes ago, pedaes said:

If you look at MTF charts , each replacement version of every lens had higher performance than its predecessor as you suggest, irrespective of elements and glass types.

Of course, I wouldn't expect anything different.

[pippy]

32 minutes ago, pedaes said:

If you look at MTF charts , each replacement version of every lens had higher performance than its predecessor as you suggest, irrespective of elements and glass types....We then of course get into the 'look' and the 'glow' and myths about how the out of focus areas are rendered, and 'to my eye'...

"It's funny 'cause it's true..."

Not that I have anything whatsoever against 'Old Glass'; far from it. Sometimes I think many users who rave about the older Leitz lenses should have a go with either a FED 1 or Zorki 1 and explore the fabulous, fascinating world inhabited by, for instance, the Jupiter / Industar / Helios ranges of lenses; they might be in for a very pleasant surprise!

Philip.

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pedaes said:

We then of course get into the 'look' and the 'glow' and myths about how the out of focus areas are rendered, and 'to my eye'. 

And life does indeed go on in this mythical world.

I never bought into the myths or beliefs that there is some magical quality “king of bokeh” thing, which as mentioned in a previous post was just an off the cuff comment by a fairly popular photography writer but was subsequently blown out of all proportion, by owners delighted that their lens became “highly sought” overnight, by buyers who went on a desperate search for this new legend, and by merchants rubbing their hands at the prospect of parting the buyers with bucket loads of cash.

However, despite that rant, there are lenses with a very distinct rendering, that is undeniable. “They don’t make them as they used to” is also true, but whether that is a good thing or not depends on our own needs and taste. Funny thing is, a new lens which does have an undeniable “look” is precisely one that they do make as they use to. You know which one I mean

Edited July 13, 2021 by ianman

[TheBestSLIsALeicaflex]

On 7/11/2021 at 3:27 PM, Steven said:

Enjoy. 
I paid 4200 for mine, but it’s the silver copy. 

Ha, ha, back some 24 years ago, when the ASPH came out, one could purchase a new, silver 35/2 IV for about $900 US.  I did get one, but sold it later.  What's the old saying, 'never sell your Leica lenses; it'll only costs more to replace them.'  Somewhat true.  Circa 2005, when Leica was nearly going out of business, before the advent of the digital rangefinder, I got a bunch of new Leica goodies at dealer's cost from a store liquidating its' inventory.  No one was buying, they stuff couldn't sell the stuff.  How times have changed.  Ha, ha, should have stocked up back then!  There's always been peaks and valleys for Leica pricing.  We'll see how long this current ascent lasts.    

Edited July 13, 2021 by TheBestSLIsALeicaflex

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

https://www.setadelstudios.com/collections/leica-m-lenses/products/leica-leitz-35mm-summaron-f3-5-soonc-m-11105-protoype-lens-no-serial-caps

About the 35 Summaron, here's a nice one ! 

Prototypes are collectors territory.

[ianman]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

https://www.setadelstudios.com/collections/leica-m-lenses/products/leica-leitz-35mm-summaron-f3-5-soonc-m-11105-protoype-lens-no-serial-caps

About the 35 Summaron, here's a nice one ! 

Just a warning if you are thinking of buying one... Be aware that the 35mm Summaron was available in f/3,5 and f/2,8. Also there are goggled versions (sometimes called M3 version) and non goggled (called M2). Some sellers take the goggles off and sell them as non goggled but they won’t work correctly (iirc they bring up 50mm frame lines instead of 35). They are also available with a screw mount (with a minimum focus distance of 0,65m) or an M mount(min focus distance 0,7m). The f/2,8 is also available in dual LTM/M mount and can be identified by a tiny screw on the base of the lens.

I think all this is correct but I’m sure Luigi can point out any mistakes or add important relevant info.

[pippy]

43 minutes ago, ianman said:

...Be aware that the 35mm Summaron was available in f/3,5 and f/2,8. Also there are goggled versions...and non goggled (called M2). Some sellers take the goggles off and sell them as non goggled but they won’t work correctly (iirc they bring up 50mm frame lines instead of 35)....

The f3.5 in M-mount (non-goggled) first became available for the M3 when it was relased in '54 - I have a first-batch example (Ex+ condition; solid-brass hewn / Satin-Chrome finish; recently CLA'd. Price on Request, Steven, but for you it'll be less than 9,999 Euros!......) - and (in 1954 and to this day) it does bring up the 50mm framelines for obvious reasons.

AFAICR if the spectacles are removed from the later 'Goggled' set the lens will not focus accurately - if at all.

Spectacularly good for the era and easily holds its own today. Practically 100% rectilinear and as sharp as anyone could ever desire. Superb colour performance; 39mm filter-thread and takes the ubiquitous 12585 hood. Near-perfect 35mm lens - if a tad 'slow'. In my 40+ years of M-shooting it has been the only 35mm M-mount lens I've ever owned and I've had mine since c.1979 / 80; It's that good. For My Purposes, of course. YMMV.

Philip.

Edited July 13, 2021 by pippy

[Michael Geschlecht]

1 hour ago, ianman said:

Just a warning if you are thinking of buying one... Be aware that the 35mm Summaron was available in f/3,5 and f/2,8. Also there are goggled versions (sometimes called M3 version) and non goggled (called M2). Some sellers take the goggles off and sell them as non goggled but they won’t work correctly (iirc they bring up 50mm frame lines instead of 35). They are also available with a screw mount (with a minimum focus distance of 0,65m) or an M mount(min focus distance 0,7m). The f/2,8 is also available in dual LTM/M mount and can be identified by a tiny screw on the base of the lens.

I think all this is correct but I’m sure Luigi can point out any mistakes or add important relevant info.

Hello Ian,

The original screw mount 35mm lenses are usually engraved to show the focus to 1 meter. It is the "goggled" 35mm versions that are usually engraved to show the focus to 65cm. The 35mm "M2" versions are usually engraved to show the focus to 70 cm. Some of the early "M2" 35mm versions bring up the 50mm frame. As with much of Leitz/Leica: There are sometimes exceptions. The screw mount lenses with bayonets attached, either with a screw or glue, generally focus to where the bayonet mount version of the lens they have become would normally focus to.

Best Regards,

Michael

[ianman]

13 minutes ago, Steven said:

Americano Pankake

 😂  😂  😂  😂  😂  😂  😂  😂  😂  😂  😂  😂

[ianman]

  😂  😂  😂  😂  😂  😂

[ianman]

16 minutes ago, Steven said:

Summiluxian... Summicronian... Summaronian

I like that you have decided to include my name at the end of each

I'm a blueberry muffinian.

[farnz]

8 minutes ago, ianman said:

I like that you have decided to include my name at the end of each

I'm a blueberry muffinian.

And an Electric Ian according to your avatar.

Pete.

[Danner]

44 minutes ago, Steven said:

Thank you very much. 

I am not really attracted to that lens, though. I am definitely a Summiluxian. The truth is, I'm not even a Summicronian. Out of all the summicrons I've tried, I returned most of them. I only kept the 8e, because of the design and build quality, but while I like it on film, I never use it on digital, and the KOB (v4) in silver, for its collector value, and in case I change my mind one day. I returned the Cron asph, I returned the Cron APO, and I even returned my 50 crons, although im now interested to try the 50APO again. In conclusion, I don't think I would be a Summaronian either.

Summilux wide open for life, whatever Americano Pankake and company think... 

Mais, Votre Altesse Royale, les paysans n'ont pas de Summicrons. Ensuite, laissez-les tirer sur Summiluxes.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Danner

[Capuccino-Muffin]

14 hours ago, giannis said:

I think the element count is part of the mythos of those more collectible lenses. Combined with their low production numbers (which of course would be lower when you're comparing a single, older version against all subsequent versions), usually the narrative goes:

"Yeah they don't make them like they used to. That X version with Y elements was the best, they really went all out, but afterwards they cheapened out and used fewer elements to make it cheaper/easier to produce".

Of course this is pretty much never the case, and is based on the implicit - yet false - assumptions that:

1. More elements means "better" corrected lens
2. Less elements means cheaper to produce

Those two implicit assumptions hold true only for a very special case: when comparing contemporary lenses, using the same technology and manufacturing techniques, and being in the same price bracket roughly. Otherwise, if say we're comparing an older vs newer lens, more elements  (in the old one) don't mean better correction. Usually, it means that a new design was produced, that was probably harder to calculate, but resulted in fewer elements *and* better correction, as long as you used special glass (with specific, maybe anomalous, dispersion, or aspherics, or specific refraction indices), and special cements and coatings. For this exact reason, assumption 2. is also false, since the elements might be fewer, but still more expensive and harder to produce. Aspherical elements are the most obvious example, but it's still true for vintage lenses with specific glass formulations and curvatures that were harder to produce and grind.

All in all, such narratives (""Yeah they don't make them like they used to. That X version with Y elements...") are almost always false when it comes to lenses and their performance. However along with the implicit assumptions, as well as the high prices (due to small numbers) that act as a "confirmation", they create a "believable" story that many people buy. For someone that bought into that story, everything makes sense and is consistent. "X version was the best, it had Y elements. But it was too expensive to produce, so they cheapened out and made another version, with Y-1 elements. Obviously not as good, that's why it's cheaper now in the second hand market, while the best version X is the most expensive". That person will perpetuate that story,  even amplify it if they happen to have a blog/youtube channel/website/podcast/etc. . Sellers and whatnot will jump on the bandwagon too, as an opportunity to make a quick buck on the hype. And life goes on.

Parole de Café-filtre Baguette!

[luigi bertolotti]

12 hours ago, ianman said:

Just a warning if you are thinking of buying one... Be aware that the 35mm Summaron was available in f/3,5 and f/2,8. Also there are goggled versions (sometimes called M3 version) and non goggled (called M2). Some sellers take the goggles off and sell them as non goggled but they won’t work correctly (iirc they bring up 50mm frame lines instead of 35). They are also available with a screw mount (with a minimum focus distance of 0,65m) or an M mount(min focus distance 0,7m). The f/2,8 is also available in dual LTM/M mount and can be identified by a tiny screw on the base of the lens.

I think all this is correct but I’m sure Luigi can point out any mistakes or add important relevant info.

Thanks for quoting me as a Summaron expert... 😎 ; the dealer who sells the "prototype - no s/n" has been clever to point out the small assemblying differences  which qualify it as a real prototype (i.e. not a reworked front ring...) : don't comment though on the price asked... 🙄 if one is well disposed to spend such amount, so good for both.

There are, anyway, some variants of the honest Summaron 3,5 that, though not "unique", do have a certain scarcity , sufficient to qualify them as collectibles 😉 : the first M3 version had a rather small last batch with little differences in the DOF scale... and the goggled version was initially  made with the goggles in a glossy black paint, soon changed with the usual black crackle finishing (*).  And of course there are the "Postkamera" versions...

 

(*) ... and they anyway made a small modification during its life... see the orientation of the front writing... 😉

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[luigi bertolotti]

15 hours ago, pedaes said:

Prototypes are collectors territory.

Some with NO number, some with TWO... 😁

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!