Summicron 35mm v1 (M2) Chrome

[rmeskill]

<p>Also posted this over on GetDPI, but thought I'd try here as well... I have a v1 Summicron 35mm that I'm considering getting rid of. It's a great lens, and mine's in excellent condition, but part of the highlight of this lens is its relatively low contrast, particularly wide open, and that just doesn't suit my style of shooting. Admittedly my copy has what looks like some coating loss, which I imagine doesn't help, but regardless I'm considering trading it up for a more modern copy. That said, I haven't paid much attention to the prices of things of late-are the old prices on antiquecameras still accurate? That is, would a 1-for-1 trade of a v1 'cron for a ASPH still be within a reasonable range if someone was looking for a v1? Sorry about the iPhone picture, but figured I'd better put something in for reference...</p><div></div>

[wgpinc]

<p>This 35mm Summicron is a fantastic lens. I used one for years and in some ways wish I still had mine. It finally got sold to a guy in Northern Italy who was a lucky guy. I bought a 35mm Summilux asph that was a little rough with the profits from the sale and finally settled on a 35mm Summicron Asph which is a beautiful, sharp and contrasty lens, but more prosaic than either the V1 Summicron or the Lux. Irwin Puts has quite a bit to say about the various Leica 35mm lenses. I just don't think there's wrong choice in there anywhere. Here's a sample with the 'cron asph. Good luck!</p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6913009-lg.jpg" alt="" /></center>

[SCL]

<p>Ryan - if you check on the big auction site for the lens of your choice under "completed auctions" you can see prices of what sold and what didn't, what the prices were, and read the sellers' description of condition. I used a 35 Summaron for a number of years and switched several years ago to the 35 Summicron ASPH. What a difference....sharp and crisp all across the field, excellent color rendition...just an all around incredibly good lens. I eventually sold it for more than I originally paid, as I was in a cash squeeze. Haven't regretted it, but you should know from the user perspective, that it certainly lives up to its billing!</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Ryan, I believe the short answer to your question is no. The ASPH should cost quite a bit more, especially if you are talking about coatings etc. Unless someone wants one so bad they would trade you a good condition ASPH straight across. I myself use the 35mm V4 Summicron, my favorite lens even though it has a <gasp> plastic barrel may be more in line. It has beautiful contrast and is very sharp though it won't have the crispness in the corners that the ASPH has wide open.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>In general when buyers purchase something they want it to work. Therefore you're going to take a beating on your lens since it has contrast and perhaps coating issues. If you could do without a 35mm lens (& I know I can't) I think it would be worthwhile to have it cleaned and repaired. When you have it back you probably won't want to sell it. [disclaimer: I own (that I can think of) seven 35mm lenses.] Good luck with your photography.</p>

[rmeskill]

<p>Forgive me, I've been out of the States for a few years now but will be back for a month shortly-does anyone have any recommendations for a good cleaning for the old 'cron? Truth is it probably doesn't really need much of a CLA-it just could use to be recoated, which I know isn't quite as straightforward, but is there anyone doing that sort of thing these days? Slash does anyone really think it's worth it? It doesn't take bad photos at all, and I know it's meant to be a low-contrast lens, it just gets washed out quickly with any sort of in- or out-of-frame glare</p><div></div>

[rmeskill]

<p>Maybe it's just a personal preference-here's an example of how it washes out quickly when wide open...</p><div></div>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Ryan - if you were shooting film there might be a different answer to the question. However you appear to be shooting with an M9. Low contrast can easily be dealt with in post production. A (very) quick look at your two photographs looked fine to me. I'd boost the contrast but a good flat digital file is not a bad thing. Good luck with your photography.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"it washes out quickly when wide open - I know it's meant to be a low-contrast lens, it just gets washed out quickly with any sort of in- or out-of-frame glare" <em><strong>Ryan M.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your "<em>Kiev Protests</em>" sample image is the result of <strong>your</strong> fog/haze/coating issues. <br>

<a href="http://kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f2-8-element.htm">This lens model</a> shouldn't be judged in this condition, it's in fact superb when up to factory specifications...</p>

[02Pete]

<p>Whether this lens meets one's needs or preferences is a matter of personal preference, rather than something about which any absolute statements can be made. That is not the only way to view or assess things, though.</p>

<p>The Leitz 35mm f/2 v.1 is an excellent lens, especially when in good optical and mechanical condition. Despite its age, it still offers very high resolution. The contrast may be somewhat lower than newer lenses, but there are several factors to consider in that regard. It is thought to be one of the best lenses for shooting with black and white film. Such film tends to deliver high-contrast images, and the somewhat lower contrast of this lens can deliver a broader tonal range with B/W film than newer lenses with higher contrast. </p>

<p>The quality of this lens should also be evaluated, and understood, based on more than just comparisons with the latest modern lenses, which benefit from all of the advances in optics which have occurred in the 50-plus years since it was first introduced. When this lens first came out in 1958, it represented a tremendous advance in optical quality compared with its predecessors, such as the Leitz LTM 35mm f/3.5 lens. In its time, it was one of the world's finest lenses for 35mm-format photography, bar none. It set a standard which few, if any, of its contemporary competitors could achieve, and none could exceed. </p>

<p>In the late 1950s, Nikon made a 35mm f/1.8 RF lens which was quite good, was used by a number of professional photographers, and was well-regarded. Today, however, while that lens can still take good pictures, it is mostly considered to be a collector's item, and is seldom seen in actual use. In comparison, it is not unusual to see the Leitz 35mm f/2 v.1 still in active use, more than 50 years after it was first introduced. It is not merely a survivor -- it is still considered worthy of comparison with the newest designs, even if they exceed its performance in some regards. It is, in other words, an all-time classic design, and one still worth using. </p>