Leica Cult Lenses, do they worth the price?

[bernie_kwong]

Consider the high price of following lenses and their cult status, are they really special?

 

15mm Hologon f8, 21mm Super Angulon f3.4 (Black, last version), 35mm Summicron 8 elements, 33mm

Stemar f3.5 Stereo, 35mm Summilux Aspherical (1st version), 50mm Noctilux f1.2, 65mm Elcan, 85mm

Summarex f1.5, 90mm Elmar 3 elements, 90mm Thambar f2.2, 90mm Noctilux f1 Elcan, 125mm Hektor

f2.2 viso, 180mm Tele Elmarit f2.8 viso

 

Some of these, prices are over US$5,000, practical shooter? or we are just considering they are pieces of

antique? All these were production models, not including the prototype and blackpaint.

[vivek iyer]

Can you tell me where I can see information on actual production models (not the ones made for US armed forces) on:

 

65 Elcan

 

90mm f/1 (Noctilux?!)

[35mmdelux]

Except for the 90mm Thambar f2.2 for soft portraits, I have not read raving reviews of the other lenses. Even the expensive Nocti 1.2 gets trumped by the newer and less expensive f/1.0 Nocti. YMMV.

[rolfe_tessem]

The 21mm Super Angulon f3.4 has a unique signature that is still preferred by some to the

more modern lenses in that focal length. Most of the black ones I've seen show considerable

wear, so no doubt a premium price applies to one in great condition. It is much easier to find

a good chrome one, since there were more made and they don't show the wear nearly as

much.

 

I've had mine for over 30 years and don't plan on getting rid of it.

[carbon_dragon]

I think the answer is that the collector lenses were probably all good for their time (or maybe excellent for their time) but have a much greater collector value than user value (case in point the 15mm hologon). If you already own them, then they may be "cheaper" to use in the sense that you already have them.

[bernie_kwong]

150pcs to 200pcs were made in M mount.

[vivek iyer]

Bernie,

 

This one (90/1) was without any RF coupling (right?) and was made for the US army/navy or something like that. It was no Noctilux.

 

It is an esoteric/interesting lens. I can't imagine how it can actually be used for photography.

[vinay_patel]

The f/3.4 S/A and the 8-element 35 Summicron are neither rare nor all that terribly expensive, and both are well-reputed in terms of performance. The others are of more interest to collectors, in terms of price:performance they probably aren't the best bet for users. IIRC the 90/1 wasn't designed for general photography, it was, if memory serves, for some kind of specialized device though I don't recall what.

[stuart_richardson]

I seem to remember hearing that it was used for naval surveillance. It does not have a

focusing ring, just stepping rings for infinity, 100m, 50m etc. I would think it was pretty

useless. Brought to you by the military industrial complex which sells the military toilet seats

for 640 dollars.

[Bill Blackwell Images]

"Leica Cult Lenses, [are] they worth the price?"

 

If someone is willing to pay it... then it's worth the price.

 

As long as there are collectors pushing the prices of increasingly rare items, then prices on these items will continue to rise.

 

OTOH, if you're a shooter, for the most part (IMO), you will get better results out of newer lens formulas (which, BTW, are not cheep either).

[jsc1]

The "90/2.2 Thambar" is unique.

 

...have you ever fell in love? Try and figure out that feeling...

[blakley]

<i>Except for the 90mm Thambar f2.2 for soft portraits, I have not read raving reviews of the other lenses. Even the expensive Nocti 1.2 gets trumped by the newer and less expensive f/1.0 Nocti. YMMV.</i>

<p>

I totally disagree. The 50/1.2 Noct's bokeh is not just better than the 50/1.0, it's in an entirely different league. I'll dig around and post some examples from the 1.2.

[ronald_moravec1]

Unless you like soft focus, leave them all at the dealer. If you like soft focus, buy a Thambar only.

 

The rest were nice for their time, but time has pased them by including the 21 3.4 which has bought new and kept 3 months until the 21 2.8 came out which I still have. The 21 3.4 works ok from 11-22. Being a true WA, the rear sits very close to the film and the corners do not illuminate well.

[frederick_muller]

I've seen lots of great pictures come off the 50mm f1.2 Noctilux. While I lust over it, the rarity and price just make me reluctant to buy.

 

I own the 35mm Type 1 Summicron in screw mount and paid up a bit for the screw mount. Picture quality has a very nice look to it ... has the Leica "glow", but unsurprisingly is also subject to flare and veiling glare at times. It's a good performer, and I didn't pay too much extra for the screw mount, so that's fine.

 

You didn't mention the 50mm Type 1 Rigid Summicron and 50mm Type 2 Summilux in screw mount, which are both really great lenses. You pay up for the screw mount, but here I think you are on quite solid footing relative to the 35mm piece.

 

I've seen pictures from the 85mm Summarex and the 90mm Thambar, and they were very, very soft. Not what I would call general purpose lenses.

[fred_c1]

To me, Thambar pics look like they're shot with a fog filter on a regular lens. You'll also get donut highlights with the matching centre filter.

 

The Zeiss Softars and even the Hoya Softeners work much better and don't require a second mortgage. Heck, you can even use them on wide angles!

[michael_ginex1]

I have the Midland Hektor 2.5/12.5cm...I will never sell it. Great portrait lens worth every penny I paid for it (thirty years ago).

[andrew robertson]

No.

 

Voigtlander cult lenses, though. Definately!