I have an old 35/3.5 Summaron that I purchased with my M2 several years ago. The aperature ring became loose-- it would freely rotate without changing the aperature unless pressure was applied towards the camera body. It appeared to only be missing two screws, so I took it to what I believe is a reputable camera shop here in San Francisco. After four weeks, the estimate came back at $189. It seems that their plan is to send it to a Leica facility for the repair plus a complete cleaning and rebuild, and they said that they were not able to simply fix the loose ring.

I am wondering if it is even worth putting $189 into this lens, which seems to not be the most spectacular 35 available. Would I maybe be better advised to write off this lens and put the money towards a 35/2 Summicron, or would the newly rebuilt and cleaned Summaron offer decent performance and be worth the money for the repair?

-- Robert Luscombe (bob@antepenultimate.org), October 07, 2001

Answers

The 35/3.5 was a nice lens in its day. The 35/2.8 Summaron was much better, almost the equal of the contemporary Summicron. I definitely don't consider the 35/3.5 worth putting $189 into; however before you write it off, try contacting Sherry Krauter (look a few threads down under "...any place cheaper than Leica", the second response posted has her address and phone. My guess is that if it's not worse off than you say it is, it shouldn't cost more than half that amount to get it cleaned up and working. Once you can state that it has been CLA'd by Sherry you have a good chance of making a private sale should you then desire to move up to a Summicron.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 07, 2001.

Robert

The 35/3.5 Summaron (the one that brings up the 35 mm frame on the M2) is a collectible lens, it it is fully functional with pretty clean glass. You should be able to get $ 300-350 for it on eBay or other private sale (a little less from a dealer).

If the glass is in excellent condition, a repair, with a complete CLA is probably worthwhile. And as Jay says, you might be able to get this done for less than $ 189.

As far as optical quality, it is no match for any version of the 35/2.0 Summicron, let alone the ASPH version. It was a good lens in its day; but its day was forty years ago.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 07, 2001.

Hrm, this implies that other 35s won't get me the 35 frame in the viewfinder of my M2? Which 35s will?

-- Robert Luscombe (bob@antepenultimate.org), October 07, 2001.

Was the guy behind the counter at the 'reputable' camera store wearing a mask? I sent a 28 Elmarit (third version) to Leica in N. J. because it had lost its focus tab and there were screws rattling around inside. They put on a new tab, cleaned it thoroughly and sent it back looking beautiful. Charged me $72. It works great and takes better pictures than my R 28. It took about 8 weeks though. I don't think you can go wrong with any of the 35 Summicrons. Bring your lens home and call one of the camera repair people recommended on this thread for an estimate. $189 sounds too steep to me. Leica of America 156 Ludlow Avenue Northvale, New Jersey 07647

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), October 07, 2001.

Robert,

My comment applies only to the 35 mm F/3.5 Summarons. The history is as follows. The 35/3.5 Summaron was introduced in 1954 in the M configuration. The optical formula was the same as the SM version introduced in 1949, but the barrel was different. The early bayonet mount 35/3.5 lenses bring up the 50 mm frame. These were made for the M3 (which had no 35 mm framelines), prior to the introduction of the M2, which occurred in 1958. These lenses were intended for use with the accessory 35 mm viewfinder SBLOO. After that, Leica decided to produce a new version of the 35/3.5 with an RF-VF attachment for the M3 to convert the 50 mm framelines to give a 35 mm view.

Later, Leica introduced the 35/3.5 in an M2 configuration: ie., no RF- VF attachment, but it brings up the 35 mm framelines. In my experience, these later M2 version 35/3.5 lenses are a little harder to find than the earlier M3 lenses. You should check whether or not your lens brings up the 35 mm or 50 mm frame in the M2.

All other bayonet mount 35 mm lenses (eg., 35/2.8, 35/2.0) were introduced along with or after the M2, so they call up the correct 35 mm framelines.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 07, 2001.

I see. Yes, my 3.5 brings up the 35mm framelines on my M2. I'll have this lens serviced by one of the people mentioned in some of the recent threads. Even though it might not be the most stellar performer, it seems like a nice collectible match for my M2, and it has been my most often used lens for the last 10 years, so no real complaints here. Thanks for all the input.

-- Robert Luscombe (bob@antepenultimate.org), October 08, 2001.

I recently sent my 35mm Summaron f3.5 off to Leica for a cleaning, etc. I paid Leica $114.00 and the lens is like new. I purchased the lens for use with my M6 and the results are excellent. True, there are "better" 35mm lenses as far as sharpness is concerned but this one has that "retro" look both physically and in the results it produces. I also have the same lens with "eyes" for use with an M3. Also an excellent lens.To me each and every lens has its own characteristics. No one lens is any "better" than any other. They are just different.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), October 08, 2001.

Robert:

$189 is too much for a simple repair and CLA! Even Leica USA in NJ will do a CLA for about $100. Sherry Krauter, DAG or John van Stelten (Focal Point) charge far less for lens repair and CLAs. I would certainly keep the lens. It is no match for current Leica 35mm ASPH lenses, but you have a lens with a distinct optical signature that some photographers like.........

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), October 08, 2001.