charles_wick

<p>I always have felt the Leica was designed for and is best used with a 50mm lens. The summicron is such a peach, why not? Some days 35 is what you need, sometimes 50. The 35 summicron is a great one, but a used 50,even an old collapsible will not disappoint and will be useful. And not a big investment.</p>

<p>I have to disagree about the 43-86 ai. While perhaps not one of the sharpest, I find it enormously useful, especially since it is quite flattering as a portrait lens. It balances nicely on an F3, is beautifully well made, and as a walking around lens is perfect.<br>

I know the rap is that it is no good, but it is very good and very useful and I like it a lot. As with other lenses incorrectly reputed to be terrible (the Leitz Summarit 1.5 comes to mind) it has a charm that is not to be dismissed.<br>

The nikkor I like the least is the 50mm 1.8 ai. Very sharp, but often harsh and unpleasing.</p>

<p>I agree with Mr Lewis; the 35 summaron ia treasure indeed. The 3.5 version is pretty nice too.</p>

<p>Finally posters who will admit that the summarit 1.5 is a good lens. It is burdened with too much lore to the effect that it is no good, usually put out by persons who have never used one. I have a nice clean early model that I use interchangeably with my M3 and 111f. I think it has a wonderful signature and for portraits especially is most useful. Compared to my DR summicron and collapsible it is different but just as fine. The 3.5 summaron is likewise usually depreciated without good cause and is one of the best lenses I have. Totally useful and sharp.</p>

This may be too simple, but often taking the shutter off auto and putting it on aset speed (1/60) will do the trick.

The glow is a curious, but absolutely true ,sense of three dimensionality,that is reality, in the photograph. My 35mm summaron 3.5 produces some of the most wonderful images. As do my two summicrons (DR and collapsible) even my old 135 hektors. It has nothing to do with flare. Scoffers abound, but the "glow" does exist, and you never see it in nikon or pentax stuff, however competent sharp or excellent those lenses may be.

Perfect M3 with collapsible summicron, 250$ in about 1985. I am still using it, never needed a tune up.

A first generation 90mm summicron and a 135 elmar both for 350$ at an estate auction in Maine in 2006, at the same time I got a very nice 111f with a clean summarit 1.5 for 450$. I also picked up a pair of 135 hektors for 25$ and recently a DR summicron (no eyes) for 295. Also 35mm summaron 3.5 from a friend for 250--a wonderful, wonderful lens (no eyes, just guess on the M3 or 111f.

You must trim the film leader so that the first 4 inches is about 1/2 the width.There shopuld be a diagram on the camera. Older film came with a longer, pretrimmed leader which is no longer the case because of auto loading cameras. The leader on modern film is only trimmed back about an inch and one half. If you do this the camera should load fine.

I have a beautiful 50mm collapsible summicron ,recently cleaned professionally by one of the top people. I looks

perfect and crystal clear, but has never been sharp, before or after the cleaning. I am on the verge of discarding it, but

wonder if I am missing something that I can do to repair its performance. It was clearly hazed before, but cleaning

has not improved it. Comments?

I have had very good luck with KEH. The one BGN camera I bought was really very good indeed, with the exception of a broken counter. They refunded no questions. I bought an old screwmount pentax lens, marked EXC which turned out to be unusable due to yellowing, and again quick, full refund. All other purchases were very satisfactory. I concur that problems may occur because of faulty inspection and any big investment is worth a call first. But there is no risk in buying BGN stuff. You will most likely be delighted, and if not just send it back.