I'd really like to hear the knowledgeable opinions of what people think are the best M-summicrons made for deliver the Leica look or glow. I'm not meaning the lens with maximum sharpness, but the lens which produces maximum 'character'. Many thanks,

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), January 21, 2002

Answers

Sparkie,

I'm quite happy with the performance of my first version. It's the 3D and OOF look.

I don't know why they are so expensive these days. They were made for 11 years.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 21, 2002.

I'll second that. I use the 8-element version I myself, with no complaints.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 21, 2002.

Chris: seems that the 1st version 35 'cron (8 element) is quite rare/ high demand. fetching from 1,000 for the 8 element chrome [R4] to 2,000 for the black/chrome version [R6] canadian. The wetzlar made ones are even rarer.

Chris/Bob: any idea how it compares to the 4th version (pre-ASPH) 'cron?

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), January 21, 2002.

Sparkie: No idea. I don't own the fourth version. Just the first.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 21, 2002.

I sold my Cron ASPH for a Lux ASPH so the only 35 Cron I still have is a 3rd generation from 1973. John Shaw said that if you own a lens, by definition it's good. Maybe that's influencing my opinion but I really like my 3rd-gen and wouldn't ever part with it. They seem to be the red-headded-stepchild of the 35's, selling subtantially lower than the others. Maybe that's due to internet mythology. I like the lens.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

I traded my first version for the fourth because the old one appeared warmer than the rest of my M lenses using Kodachrome 25. I'm not sure I'd do it again. That old lens can produce some really nice images (but so does the newer one). One thing is certain, the first version is built to a much higher standard than the fourth.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), January 21, 2002.

Jay, I too have the third also from '73. I did own a faulty fourth version previously and do miss it's tiny size and dinky hood.

If 4th versions weren't so expensive I would try and find another.

More annoyance with Leica, why don't they continue to offer a cheaper version (ie non-aspherical) as they once did giving us a choice of 35 F2's.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 21, 2002.

Giles, I don't know that the Non-ASPH Cron would be any cheaper for them to produce. They have the aspherical production down to a science now. They press the glass blank into a mold. No more hand- grinding requiring great skill, as used to be the case with the Noctilux f/1.2. Since one aspherical surface is said to do the job of two spherical ones, maybe it even saves them money . . .

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 21, 2002.

Just bought a 35mm Summicron ASPH and it is superb....haven't used any pre-ASPH 35 lenses although I do have a 50mm Summilux....

-- Robert Clark (rclark@onemain.com), January 21, 2002.

first version with eyes for M3, glass seems cleaned with sand paper, still nice glow.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.

Hi,

How do I know my summicrons is first version or second version ? Would any fellow give me some hints ?

Thanks in advance, Joe

-- Joe Liu (liujoe8@hotmail.com), January 26, 2002.

Joe,

Use your serial number to see which lens you have. The first version will have a serial number of LESS than 2,316,001, while the second version will have a serial number of that number or higher. The third version has a starting serial number of 2,646,001 and just to fill out the list, the last non-ASPH Summicron (version 4) starts at serial number 2,974,251.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 26, 2002.