50mm Summ vs 50mm Colapsible Summ

[brambor]

I see that the colapsible Summ goes for less on Ebay. Is it because

of image quality?

[dan flanders]

No difference in design or performance � purely a matter of supply and demand, particularly to the collectors. The first Summars were rigid, not collapsible. The number produced in �33 - �34 was relatively small, probably less than 3,000. The same design was then produced in a collapsible mount that is still rather common. According to Laney (Leica Pocket Book) a total of 122,950 were produced. Last production year was 1940. The lens has been criticized because of its low contrast and tendency to flare, but there has been renewed interest in its other qualities in recent years. It is an interesting lens and capable of excellent pics when capably used.

[stephen_w.]

I believe Rene is referring to Summicrons and not Summars. IME, rigids are slightly more expensive than similar cosmetic quality coll. due to mechanical wear of the mount or fear thereof.

[brambor]

Yes Steve. I was refering to Summicrons. I'll get a hang of the jargon soon...

[johnmarkpainter]

Rene,

 

I can speak for the ones that I have. MY Collapsible Summicron has less contrast, less

detail and Warmer Colors than my Rigid Summicron of the same era.

 

I like both of them. I prefer the Rigid for B&W

 

jmp

[alex_lofquist]

Bob Shell had an article comparing the two Summicrons. The rigid one was slightly longer and obviously of different optical construction. He felt that the rigid was a significant improvement over the collapsible. If you are interested I'll look for the link to this article.

[kevin m.]

Actually, a collapsible Summicron in minty shape with good

coatings will cost almost as much as a later,rigid Summicron.

The collapsible has a big advantage in portability, but in image

quality, the newer lens is better wide open.