35 summicron 8 element one

[imran_ahmed]

Besides collector value , aesthetics and vintage is this lens better

than the last pre-asph one ? A user told me that it's performance is

dazzling in 2.8 - 11 range with inbeatable resolution.

[gmmullins]

I bought one in mint condition and compared it (tripod, release, etc)to my summicron asph. I shot at f2 and f4, indoors, and the subject was some of my son's toys. The only major difference I could see was the contrast. In fact, I let my wife pick out which prints she liked better, and she selected the 8 element pictures more than the asph. I think the asph is a great lens, but I like the look, feel and compact size of the 8 element - and since the image quality is so close, I sold the asph. I spoke to a few sales people that specialize in Leica and they were not surprised with my tests - however, they said the key was to find one with the glass in mint condition. My .02

[al_kaplan1]

I sold mine mostly because I couldn't any longer justify having 2 35mm Summicrons. Way back when I bought a second model 'cron I occasionally had assignments where I was shooting both B&W and chromes on the same job. The 8 element has a bit less contrast. Otherwise I think I actually prefer it for B&W and regret selling it.

 

But the other motivating factor was that I think I'd paid like $125 for it used, many years ago, complete with hood and Leitz UV filter. I got an offer for an obscene amount of money because it said "Wetzlar" and was original black paint with a fairly low serial number. It dated back to the era of the original MP and black painted M3's. Oh well...

[jerry cabluck]

Great Lens at f8 and 5.6 and 4 and 6.3. I think it came with elves inside it. They made sure the light bent just the right direction.

[jay_.]

The plain truth is that there is extremely little practical difference in performance between *any* generation of M lens. I'm not saying there's no difference, just very little. A little less contrast, a little more sensitivity to flare in the oldest chrome versions. So little difference between the black versions of the late 60's-70's and current versions in most cases* that it's truly insignificant, and only at the widest 1 or occasionally 2 apertures. Nothing at all like the big deal Erwin pumps it up to be--not that he's ever given one iota of quantifiable data to support his pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

 

*the exceptions are the 35/1.4 vs 35/1.4ASPHERICAL/ASPH and the 4th-gen 35 Cron vs Cron ASPH. In both cases the latest versions are a mile ahead of their predecessors.

[john_boyle3]

Slightly off topic, but the 35mm Summaron 2.8 was also an excellent lens. I've used one for 35 years and have had excellent results. No photos of test charts, but excellent detail and contrast in real life subjects. You will get fine results with any of these Leitz lenses. Just buy one and go take pictures. :-)

[stephen_w.]

I sold one (still have one) for more than I "paid" (actually traded) for my LN/in box ASPH 'lux. I still have no idea why, as they were made over a 13-year period, and was/is a popular focal length. I've seen them go for >$2000 (M-Mount, not LTM, which is more), close to the truely limited original 35 Aspherical brings (I know of one for sale for $2500 OBO).

 

Steve

[Robin Smith]

not that he's ever given one iota of quantifiable data to

support his pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo."

 

What about the MTF tests he publishes in his M-lens book? Are they not data? In general they agree with his statements. Whether you or I notice is another thing, but the differences are there.

[wgpinc]

I sold a mint Wetzlar version of an 8 element 35 Summicron to a guy in N. Italy. It more than paid for my used 35 Lux aspheric. But I bet he's enjoying using it. It is the only lens I can think of that I really regret selling as it had a very special image quality that I really liked. Now I use the 35 'cron aspheric 60% of the time and the 35 'lux asph the other 40%. Not sure you can have too much of a good thing. Be aware that any 8 element summicron you encounter will be at least 30 years old and may have multiple afflictions: cleaning marks, fog, element separation. The 35 aspheric summilux, except for its size is to me the 'best' 35 Leica has ever made. The 35 cron asph may be a better photojournalist lens with its flat field, contrast and corner to corner sharpness. I have 3 Leica 35s, 'lux asI never met a Leica 35mm I didn't like. Best, Gil.

[jay_.]

<<What about the MTF tests he publishes in his M-lens book? Are they not data? In general they agree with his statements.>>

 

If you're referring to his Leica Lens Compendium there are no MTF graphs for individual lenses. If you're referring to his online "book" on Leica's website which is an informercial that can be downloaded for free, yeah I really trust those were done by Erwin himself on an optical bench, totally un-biased ;>) I put much more stock in those on Photodo.

[stephen_w.]

And, they were probably "cherry-picked" hand tested samples by Leica.

 

Steve

[Robin Smith]

Ah so he has data, but you think his own is inaccurate? His opinions in general are also concurrent with what one might expect from the Leica produced MTFs available on the Leica site. There are one or two exceptions perhaps. Oh yes but Leica probably made up their MTFs too - just the kind of thing they would do.

[jo_l_cahane]

E.Puts and leica MTF curves differ completely for the asph summicron 35mm.

[henry_ting2]

Forget about the MTF graphs, specifications etc etc etc.....

Just enjoy whatever lens you own. They are all very good and the differences are minor and irrelevant for 99% of the pictures we take. Besides, all specs are just pseudo numbers that rarely reflects the real world difference. Just as an exotic sports car will go over 200 mph, and you pay royally to be able to boast its spec, but in real world, its still the person behind the wheels that counts.

[Rob F.]

I'm still using my 8-element Summicron. I paid $162.50 for it, in a store in Tucson, in 1968. I saw no improvement at all when I tried the ASPH, at any aperture smaller than 2.8. I'd also like to say that from about f/4 on down, I feel that my pre-ASPH Summilux is also a very fine lens, so that I don't hesitate to use it right alongside the Summicron. And ditto the praise for the f/2.8 Summaron (which I traded for the 8-element Summicron).

[Robin Smith]

I agree with the above. Many of the older lenses still have a beautiful look and fingerprint. I cannot tell the difference between the 35m Summaron 2.8 and my ASPH 'cron in practical use for 90% of the time. But there is no doubt that at f2-5.6 the ASPH is on paper a better lens and sometimes you can see this in the final result. So I therefore think that the dealer's statement is almost certainly wrong if taken literally as both the current ASPH 35s will surpass its performance (so it does not have "unbeatable resolution").

[Rob F.]

I should add that for the short time I had the ASPH, I was not able to compare the lenses at f/2 or f/2.8. I was shooting Velvia 50 on a sunny day, and couldn't open wider than f/4. This is why I limited my remarks to "f/4 and smaller" (i.e., 4, 5.6, and 8).