I'm a dedicated LTM user presently using a IIIc and a Fed-3 and also looking into getting a Canon P or 7. I would like to get a Summicron 50 and my choices it seems are either the expensive recently released screw version selling for around $1000, the origional rare(and expensive) screw rigid or the collapseable 50 screw which is reasonably priced. From what I've read and from my own experience owning a rigid Summicron they are superior to the collapseable version. I've read (maybe here or another site) that when the first batch of bayonent lenses were sold Leica attached an adapter with screws that can be removed and some people are doing this and selling these lenses as the origional screw version. I don't know if this is true but would anyone know the serial number range of these lenses so maybe I can pick one up (the rigid Summis are pretty reasonably priced)and figure out how to remove the adapter.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), September 06, 2001

Answers

Don't sell the collapseable Summicron short. It is a really fine lens, in some ways it may be preferable to the later lenses.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), September 06, 2001.

I own and have used both the collapsible and non-collapsible 50mm Summicron lenses and found both to be excellent performers. The collapsible was purchased along with my M3 and is a bit softer (some say more flattering) than my non-collapsible Summicron. I use my collapsible lens for colour, especially when photographing people and use my non-collapsible for black and white prints. For transparencies, I believe the more recent Summicron produces more vibrant images. It may just be my eye. Bottom line: both have their place. Neither is, generally speaking, any better than the other.They are just different.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), September 06, 2001.

Bill and John, thanks for the reply. While I'm sure the collapseable Summicron is a fine lens, I had a rigid Summi for 30 years and loved its performance and look. I presently have an Elmar 3.5 which is a fine lens, and a Summar 2.0 both of which have that Leica look but I want the rigid Summicron because it performs well wide open and extremely well stopped down a bit. In looking back over my slides and prints taken through the years with the rigid version I can really appreciate it's quality.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), September 06, 2001.

Gerry said, "I had a rigid Summi for 30 years and loved its performance and look..." "In looking back over my slides and prints taken through the years with the rigid version I can really appreciate it's quality."

This exact finding has been my experience also for several older lenses that have long since been sold off in the name of "progress". I have never felt any long term financial advantage to selling them, but many years later... I wish I had these lenses back! It was only in their absence that I learned to appreciate the unique look that they gave, upon reviewing boxes of old slides. It is not a "Wow, look at that!" kind of thing. It is a subtle, intangible feel that works for some situations (like portraits), even though the lens could be shown to be "inferior" on paper.

I will never again sell any Leica gear.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 06, 2001.

Al, I know the feeling well. I purchased a beautiful M3 a number of years ago and sold it when I purchased my M6 new. I wanted a light meter in the camera. There was no financial advantage to selling the M3 but I wanted the light meter since my slides were coming out really lousy using my M3 without a meter. I was really stupid expecting good results shooting slides without using a light meter. I miss my former M3. I also will never sell another camera or lens.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), September 07, 2001.

Al, I sold my entire Leica set up a little over a year ago. I had a M2 with a 50 Summicron, 35 Summaron 3.5 (wasn't such a great lens) and a Fat Elmar 2.8. Except for the 35 all of which I got new about 35 years ago. For last 10 years or so I hadn't really taken many photographs I blamed it on the "old" technology and saw some of my friends taking nice shots with their auto-everything SLRs of their kids playing football,soccer trips etc. So I sold the set up, for a decent price and got a Nikon N80 with 3 lenses. When I got the Nikon I got back into photography again but started to miss the Leica more and more. I purchased a IIIc and numerous lenses and use it now for 90% of my shots. The IIIc is a fine camera but a real pain in the but to use.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), September 07, 2001.

Ah, Gerry, that's my story, with a 15 year layoff and an Olympus. Once a Leicaphile, always a leicaphile. Never sell, I say now, in retrospect. :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), September 07, 2001.

I have rigid and collapseable versions of the summicron for the M (50 DR summicron, and an early collapseable in M mount) and the DR rigid seems to be a much better performer to me.

I don't have one, but everything I've heard says that the more modern summicron sold today is better yet than either of the ones I have. You might be happier with that one, even with the higher price.

-- David W. Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com), September 12, 2001.

Gerry,

Regarding your question about the first batch of bayonet lenses I am pretty sure they were the 8-element 35mm Summicrons because I have one. I can see a tiny screw on the side of the bayonet mount and if I remove it the mount should unscrew exposing the LTM. Well, I didn't want to try that at home! By the way I use the cheapest uncoated Elmar on my IIIf and the b&w prints still make my jaw drop and I shoot it at f/3.5 to f/4.5.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), September 13, 2001.