Hi, I am planning a trip over sees on business, and I would like to take my M3 with me in my attache in case I see something worth shooting... Now, I am debating if I should buy either a Summicron 50mm rigid or Collapsible... I'd like to get the collapsible to have the camera be a bit smaller; but is it really THAT much of a size difference to the rigid? How much shorter is it, maybe 1"? Thanks Phillip

-- Phillip Silitschanu (speedin_saab@hotmail.com), January 12, 2002

Answers

I was told buy my local camera store that back in the 1950s Leica made a smaller ever-ready camera case for an M3 with a collapsable lens. At the time I wasn't interested because I was looking at rigid lenses, so I didn't check it out. Maybe some other forum contributors may know more about these compact cases. That would really make a collapable lens an asset for travel. Enjoy your travels.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), January 12, 2002.

Phillip, with no lens cap or filter, the collapsible Summicron extends one and 17/32 inch from the body. Collapsed, it extends one and 1/16". So it collapses just under a half inch.

I don't own a "rigid," but I do have a Dual-Range Summicron, which extends one and 3/4". I don't know how its length compares to the rigid. The difference between the DR and the collapsible one when collapsed is 15/32" or about a half inch.

The 50mm Elmar collapsed flatter than that, if you're interested.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 12, 2002.

No, 1 3/4 minus 1 1/16 is 11/16, or nearly 3/4 inch advantage over the DR model. Sorry.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 12, 2002.

I have had the screw-mount version of the collapsible 50/2 since the early 60's and used it later with an adaptor on my M2's up until I got the 11817 version along with the M4. In practical terms, the collapsed size of the collapsible 50/2 isn't enough of a difference to make up for the much-improved performance of the rigid versions at f/5.6 or wider. The 50/3.5 is a *truely* compact collapsible, which barely protrudes from the body.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 12, 2002.

A nice compact lens that works well on the M3 is the 40mm Summicron/Rokkor. The whole finder in an M3 shows very close to what a 40mm lens sees,(you can even put a piece of tape on the illumination window to make the 50 lines go away) and the 40 is super compact (only sticks out about 3/4 inch)s harp as they come, near zero distortion, and very resistant to flare.

The old 50 Collapsing Summicron lens is not so great at the wide apertures, and the ergonomics leave something to be desired. Almost every one I ever looked at have deep cleaning marks on the front (and even sometimes rear) elements and internal fogging as well. Mine flared readily. Think about the 40--I use mine with an M3 often.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 13, 2002.

I got the new 50 2.8 collapsible for just that type reason -- fits into normal coat jacket, flat in briefcase, etc. It, too, has some compromise compared to the summicron (but it is noticeably better than the collapsible (screw mount) summicron that I also have -- the newer Elmar is signicificantly better than the old summircon (my copy, anyway) -- the lattter was never Leica's best). Both the new and old collapsibles have a narrow recess mount, some flare, and need a hood -- add the little one with the newer elmar, maybe a protective filter, and a cap, and I have lost most my size advantage.

If you are interested in the ELmar (new), I think I know of a store that effecgively you could get it for around $400 (new, recycled stock, rebate, etc.) I think, that is.

I do carry the elmar in my jacket pocket -- but remember that when you pull it out, there is that extra fidget time (extend, twist), so it is not as quick in shooting.

I agree about the 40 minolta and the preceding CL version. both very small, and very good. I do not currently have either, though I've had both (regrets, regrets...)

-- Lacey Smith (lacsmith@bellsouth.net), January 13, 2002.