Need advice on Pre-ASPH 35/2 Summicron-M

Hi,

 

<p>

 

I need some advice, please, on the 35/2 Summicron-M (non-ASPH).

 

<p>

 

I have heard that this lens is the "King of Bokeh". Is this true?

 

<p>

 

What is a fair price for a mint example of this lens?

 

<p>

 

Where was this lens made? It isn't one of those darn Canadian ones is it? Just kidding .... I love Canadians!

 

<p>

 

Thanks!

We Canadians got together and decided you cannot have one! If

you do decide to get one; remember, "We Always Get Our Man!"

 

<p>

 

The "King of Bokeh" is the fourth version of the 35/2 Summicron

produced from 1979 to 1997. Serial numbers range from 2 970

00 (approx) to 3 731 200 (approx). Yes it is indeed one of those

"darn" Canadian designed lenses (Mandler) and reknown for

smoothness in the middle aperture ranges. The very last ones

benefitted from improved manufacturing tolerances and

improved coating technology to be also very good wide open as

well(see Erwin). Prices range from $500US for an early one in

user (ugly but good glass) condition to $1100US for a MIB late

German production model.

 

<p>

 

I had a LGPM and was VERY happy with it except for the fact that

the aperture ring stopped at f/2. I traded it in on a 35/1.4 Asph

and have been grining like one ever since.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

I have one and is a joy to use, very small and ligth; image is

amazing compared to my older summaron 35/2.8, summilux 35/1.4 nonasph

is very similar in apertures from f/4, although weak wide open; wish

I had the asph. one; but wouldn´t get rid of the summicron nonasph,

price are reasonable like any leica product!!!

As John said, the one you're referring to is the last pre-ASPH

version. The late-production (made in Germany) ones in mint

condition seem to be within $100 or so of an ASPH in like condition.

I take it your main reason for wanting the pre-ASPH is the bokeh. I

can't advise much about that. 99% of my shots, especially with the

35mm, I'm trying to *avoid* any out-of-focus areas. I can say the

pre-ASPH is significantly smaller and lighter than the ASPH. I had

the ASPH-Cron and ASPH-Lux in my possession for a short time until

the Cron sold, and I was surprised at how near they are in

size/weight. I still have my 1973 (I believe that would technically

be a pre-pre-ASPH) and from f/4 I can't tell it apart from the ASPH.

Those are much less expensive than the German pre-ASPHs.

John: Thanks for the info. You are spot on with those prices.

 

<p>

 

Jay: I agree with you about wanting more depth of field with a wide

angle lens!

 

<p>

 

The reason for my interest in this lens is that I have read in so

many places that if one wishes to learn what the "famous Leica bokeh"

is, then just see a shot taken wide open with a 35/2 non-ASPH.

 

<p>

 

Since I am after a 35 lens anyway I thought why not try this lens and

as a bonus, I will get to see the magical bokeh.

 

<p>

 

But after studying prices, I might as well get the APSH one! What's

the deal here? Check out:-

 

<p>

 

http://www.donchatterton.com/html/leica-m.htm

 

<p>

 

It is $100 CHEAPER to get the newer ASPH! Weird!

 

<p>

 

Does this make ANY sense?

 

<p>

 

Thanks y'all!

Chatterton's prices, which have always been high but fair, seem to

have recently taken a jump into the stratosphere.

The "King of Bokeh" is famous only for its mid range aperture

performance. Around f/5.6 and f/8 is where it really shines. Wide

open is another matter entirely!

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

I picked up a 318xxxx (canadian) version of this lens for $650 - of

course some genius had blacked out all the white lettering around the

front element, which was a great excuse to argue the price down from

$850, but really doen't bother me.

 

<p>

 

Definitely has distinctive bokeh - about which more to come in a post

to be titled 'Bokeh-Shmokeh'. Anyway I find it both magical and

attractive.

The "King of Bokeh" is sometimes the "King of Flare".

 

<p>

 

I much prefer the ASPH in difficult light and wide open.

 

<p>

 

Lucien

Would someone care to post a suitably illustrative photograph taken with this "King of Bokeh" lens? Having just acquired a brand new ASPH model, I'm starting to feel like I missed the boat. Thanks!

I don´t think you´ve missed any thing, the asph is for certain a

great lens; what I feel is the basic diference, is (and please if I´m

wrong, tell me the rigth) the new asph is a retrofocus design, wile

the older nonasph is a double gauss, so the quality of out of focus

images are diferent, the reason is something I would like to read

about.

The 35mm f2.8 Summaron also produces beautiful out of foucs

highlights, and so does the super sharp, inexpensive 40mm

Rokkor/Summicron. The performance of the 40mm lens is very similar to

the pre-asph 35 f2.0 for less than 1/2 the price.

Anybody know how the Canon 35/f2 LTM fits performance wise in the

variations of 35 Summicrons made? I have been told it compares

favorably with the 35 Summicron, but do not know which one. My guess

is the Summicron made during the same time frame.

Yes the 35/2.8 summaron is also a double gauss design if I´m rigth,

can any one tell why is this diference from retrofocus design to

simetrical design.Whish I knew how to post some picture from a 35

summaron, showing this out of focus efect.

I am a big fan of the last pre-aspheric lens. I'm sure that it can

be proven on paper to be inferior to the newest aspheric model as far

as things that can be quantified, but there are intangible things

that don't show up on test graphs. I do use my lens wide open quite

often, and given care with hood in place, I haven't suffered any

problems with flare. Given the choice, I like to use the lens at

f/2.0, and from there I jump to f/5.6 or beyond. Why? Because the

effect of selective focus is more clear wide open. If I am at f/2.8

or f/4.0, there is enough residual sharpening that the overall photo

looks soft. I want my main subject to pop, so I shoot wide open. The

older lens might not be super sharp, but when the central subject is

contrasted with the cotton candy looking background, the overall

effect makes the image look different than I have been able to create

with any other lens. From f/5.6, normal shots are as sharp as can

be. One last benefit, with hood removed this lens is about the same

size as the 50mm Elmarit collapsible when the 50mm is collapsed,

making a very portable Leica M package.

 

<p>

 

In case you are interested, the June 2001 issue of "Popular

Photography" has a small article on the last page about Bokeh and has

a shot taken with the 35mm pre-asph Summicron at f/2.0. To me, it is

not the best image to show off the lens, but you can see the effect

pretty clear.

 

<p>

 

I will replace any lens that is causing me to be limited. I will not

replace my Summicron.

What, exactly, is a 50mm Elmarit?

Hey Mike,

 

<p>

 

I had the Canadian version of this lens and it is without a doubt a

wonderful lens, easily as good as the ASPH version. I now own and use

the ASPH version and as far as bokeh is concerned, I can't really see

a difference. IMHO when using the lens the only difference I notice is

that the ASPH version shows more contrast wide open and is

significantly larger then the previous lens. Which ever one you decide

to buy will be an outstanding performer.

 

<p>

 

T. Gallagher

Probably means 50mm Elmar. With "Elmarit" these days meaning any

Leica f/2.8,it's an easy mistake to make. I have, not the fourth

pre=asph 35mm Summicron, but the first (216xxxx). Bought it around

1968, in a shop in Tucson, for $168.00 My guide says it was made in

1966. It's the eight element version. I've always been really happy

with it, never had a reason to be dissatisfied. I use it for

landscapes and architecture. All these comments about the fourth

version and the ASPH make me wonder just how behind-the-times I

really am. I've had my eye on a used ASPH for $1200 (mint) but I

question whether I'll really see the difference in pictorial shots

that depend on DOF anyway. I'm thinking of how long it took me to

find the difference between my 50mm collapsible Summicron, and my

tabbed version. Then again, once I saw it, it's really there; am I

getting the most out of my Velvia and Delta Pro 100 with my old

Cron? I don't think I could part with my old 35 Summicron, though,

even if I bought the ASPH. And with my 35 Lux, I'd have three 35's.

It's terrible to have such problems . . .

Bob:

 

<p>

 

Leica expert Bill Maxwell told me the 8 element Summicron is one of

the best lenses Leica ever made. He suggested I look for one if I was

a sharpness nut. Really folks, I doubt very much that any image taken

with any of these lenses mentioned above (that was nicely composed,

with correct exposure and accurate focus) is going to be

significantly better with one version over another to the point that

the photo will have more of an impact on the viewer because of what

lens was used. We are splitting hairs here. I bet I could throw

some 8 X 10's on a table taken with the 35mm 2.8 Summaron and no one

would think anything if I said they were taken with the 4th version

Summicron.

Andrew, I think you are right. I used to have a 35mm Summaron. It

was sharp and contrasty, and great for color. The only real

difference I could see was that it didn't open up past f/2.8.

I have worked with summaron from the 50´s and 50/2 D.R. from the 50´s

too for years, lately I moved to the newest 50/2 and the fourth 35/2;

now I have to remaster my developing technik because of higher

contrast, shape of image hasn´t change, but contras has indeed

changed.In color and b/w, up and down, and lefth to rigth.of course

it doesn´t mean the first summicron is a jewel.

Ooops! it should read

>it doesn´t mean the first summicron is not a jewel>

As far as I've found two examples on this page:

http://home.planet.nl/~sanderva/SummiTest.htm

I see no reason to consider this lens to be a "bokeh king". As for me, the

bokeh of Asph. version is much more pleasant.

Personally I own so-called 3-rd 6-element Canadian version of 35-th

Summicron, and extremely satisfied with it (sharp!), except heavy flare

problems. Bokeh is very pleasant too.

I'm not sure what Sander van Hulsenbeek means by quiet vs. unquiet

unsharpness, or by "busy." I thought it was hard to compare the two

pictures, which are not equivalent because of the different season.

One has a lot of foliage, and the other has snow, which I think makes

it hard to compare them directly. I though the "inner circle with a

different character" might be the reslut of some vignetting, causing

an exposure difference near the edges. The central area might be

showing less out-of-focus detail because the exposure is more blown

out. Apart from these concerns, I think you could say that the ASPH

shot looks softer in its out of focus character.

I've written to Oren Grad, the one who called it "the King of bokeh"

in Photo Techniques magazine. He replied that while it is really

great at middle apertures, it's really not that good wider open than

about f/4.