Which Leica lens, new or old, gives you the best BANG for your buck?

[colint544]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 35mm Summaron F2.8 is still a very cheap (by Leica standards) lens, if you can find one. Very sharp, but with smooth out of focus areas at F2.8. It’s also tiny, and built beautifully.

[Advertisement]

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

[newnew]

A 50 Summicron V4

[UliWer]

Interesting indeed, i did not remember the SA 21/3.4 was that expensive new. Would you have any link by chance? Just curious. Last time i checked its price was close to that of the Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph if memory serves but i may be wrong.

In the German „Gesamtkatalog“ of 1968 the Super-Angulon was 750,-DM, the Noctilux 1:1,2 was 1905,-DM - both in black. The 35mmSummilux without goggles was 622 DM with goggles 722,-DM

 

From the time, when the Super-Angulon as well as the 1:1 Noctilux where sold, I have only a Dutch catalogue from 1980 which listed the Super-Angulon with 2065 FL and the Noctilux 1:1 with 2345 FL., the 35 mm Summilux was 1200 FL.

Edited February 11, 2018 by UliWer

[michaelwj]

I remember seeing a Leitz NY catalogue with the SA (inc finder) within a few dollars of the Noctilux. I'm guessing it was the 1.0 not the 1.2 given the extreme cost of the 1.2.

I'll try to dig it up...

Edited February 11, 2018 by michaelwj

[michaelwj]

Interesting indeed, i did not remember the SA 21/3.4 was that expensive new. Would you have any link by chance? Just curious. Last time i checked its price was close to that of the Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph if memory serves but i may be wrong.

Interestingly now it goes for about half the cost of the 1.4/35 pre-asph. Bang for buck!

 

The 35 Summilux has never been a cheap Leica, typically the second most expensive behind the Noctilux before the APO craze came to town.

[Adrian Lord]

The 35mm Summaron F2.8 is still a very cheap (by Leica standards) lens, if you can find one. Very sharp, but with smooth out of focus areas at F2.8. It’s also tiny, and built beautifully.

 

Totally agree. 

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interestingly now it goes for about half the cost of the 1.4/35 pre-asph. Bang for buck! 

 

Got a SA 21/3.4 in as new condition with box and accessories for 600 € on e**y but i was lucky then as prices are significantly higher generally. Pity the lens performs so poorly on digital Ms as it does quite well on my Sony A7s mod. 

[pico]

Some like very contrasty lenses, others are happy with lower contrast...and getting a longer dynamic range.

 

I am not sure that is true, David. Greater contrast means greater micro-contrast rather than overall image contrast. Flare lowers contrast but also obscures detail which cannot be recovered, hence lower dynamic range.

 

I will defer to convincing evidence.

[spydrxx]

I think the answer depends on whether you are talking "big" bucks or "small" bucks. Many years ago I was a big bucks guy, as are many of the forum's participants, but now in retirement, I'm a small bucks guy. So I'll offer an alternative opinion. The Elmar 90/4 is almost a giveaway these days...noted for low contrast, but with modern post processing and closed down a notch or two it does a terrific job, especially in B&W. In the 50 camp, if one sticks with Leica the collapsible Elmar 50/3.5 red scale or 2.8 is hard to beat, but if one dares to step outside the Leica brand, the rigid Canon Serenar 50/1.9, going for about $110-150, easily matches the early Summicrons.

[sandler]

Surprised no one has mentioned the 40mm C-Summicron. Tiny, wonderful rendering, and a nice compromise between 35mm and 50mm.

 

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk

[jdlaing]

MATE

[TomB_tx]

Also retired with small bucks, the 90 Elmar-C was my best value for Leica.

[SiggiGun]

If I take just the ratio Number_of_images/price the answer is SUMMILUX-M f1.4/35mm ASPH.

[Jeffry Abt]

35mm f/2 ASPH Summicron-M ...I would not be without this lens! Not expensive, Good for portraits, Good for landscapes, Good walk around lens for travel, it can just about do it all!

[m0n0]

Also sticking to the measurable ratio of number of images / price rather than my subjective sense of "bang for buck" , I find that the results for me are a 35mm Summicron IV and a 50mm f/2.5 Summarit. This is despite my also having many of the lenses others have listed as favorites. I guess it's because these two are light and small and end up going on the camera I almost never leave home without. They're great for the camera you have with you all the time.

 

Sent from my EVA-L29 using Tapatalk

[APA_Leica]

For me there is a very clear answer: 40mm Summicron-C. Inexpensive, I bought it for $600, and it is one of my most used lenses on the M240 and now the M10, because of the great focal length and outstanding image quality. I just bought a 35mm Summilux, so we’ll see how I feel after that...If you are trying to optimize in the low cost end, the 40mm is a steal. Paul

[Ecar]

For a modern rendering, I'd go for a Summarit, 35 or 50. The f/2.5 version of either lens can be found in almost new condition at reasonable prices and deliver a pretty loud BANG.

For a more classic rendering, it all depends on the bucks one paid for a vintage lens. AFAIC, it would probably be the 50/2 Rigid, with a beautiful Summitar that I bought for a song a close second.

[mdemeyer]

+1

 

 

Surprised no one has mentioned the 40mm C-Summicron. Tiny, wonderful rendering, and a nice compromise between 35mm and 50mm.

 

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ko.Fe.]

Summarit-M 35 2.5.

Still available NiB. Works incredibly well with all media, bw/color, film/digital. It is small, fast to operate. 39mm filters. It is ASPH, but not too sterile or too contrasty.   

[gberger]

M7 is on the closet shelf (eyesight); however, by a wide margin, the 35 Chron Mk IV spent more time on our cameras than the other lenses combined.