I just paid $700 for a 2nd ver. 35f/2.

Did I pay too much?

Anybody have experience shooting this lens wide open. I know my version has less contrast than current summicrons. I've also read about the light fall off from center to corners plus flare issues the older lenses have had.

But is it still a good lens to use if I shoot at f/2 in low-light?

I'm in the process of trying it out. I have 30 days to use and return it if I don't like it.

Also, FYI, the lens is a used with nicks to the black finish. There's some dust within the lens. It's focusing ring and aperture rings are smooth. There's a tiny, tiny, tiny nick in the front element just off center. Other than that, the glass is clean, no fungus or other marks.

I've shot the lens at f/8-f/16 and can't really tell the difference betw. that and my current ver. 50f/2. I've got a roll in it now for wide-open, stage lighting dance photos.

Any advice?

Thanks.

-- victor (danzfotog@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002

Answers

I'm not an expert on pricing by any stretch of the imagination, Victor, but with a nick near the center of the front element, $700 might be on the high side. With your 30-day trail period, I'd suggest doing some serious testing where you can actually determine if the nick results in a soft spot. That would mean photographing something with a regular pattern of fine detail where you can actually look for a soft spot, along with conventional images.

Others with more extensive experience may have better suggestions.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 11, 2002.

Victor,

With any dated lens, I would take with a grain of salt any third party opinion about what the lens can and can't do. The sample variations can be too great to make a smart decision based on one other person's opinion. Since you have the actual lens in question, it would be best to shoot your own test and see if the lens meets your needs. I have been disappointed by lenses that were suppose to be "great" and surprised by "lesser" lenses that were supposable superseded beyond use by upgraded versions.

Looking in Erwin Puts' book, the lens you have is suppose to be an improvement on the previous version, but is suppose to have been bettered by each subsequent version of the non-aspheric models. Puts mentions some lacking in the outer fields, that while improving upon stopping down, never gets too great. He also mentions that the lens tends to flare at wide apertures.

Buy a roll or two of film and check out the lens for yourself under the actual conditions that you will use it... it might be fine. FWIW, I paid 650 Dollars for my 4th version with hood and caps in 1991. I am still using this lens today. Even though the ASPH version is suppose to beat this model, It works for me, so I buy film rather than hardware. Others might not be satisfied with my lens, so my opinion would not be valid to them.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 11, 2002.

I used a chrome 8 element 35 summicron for almost 30 years and loved it. Late last year I 'upgraded' to a 4th version pre aspheric cron and an aspheric lux. I only paid $800 for the cron in mint condition (late model made in Solms). My 8 element cron paid for the used summilux which is sharper and more contrasty but I'm not sure if the images are as special. Lot of what appear at least to be great deals on 35s out on ebay. >>> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1331141939 <<< http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1331314316 <<< http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1330844713 <<< http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1330865627 <<< http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1331426967

Good luck.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002.

For $700, that lens should be like new in the box and even then you might be better off spending a few dollars more for the fourth version...I would.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), February 11, 2002.

Victor

I think you may have paid a little over the odds. The 4th version goes for c.900-1200 depending on condition and the 3rd version for c.700-900, so the 2nd version I would have expected to pay around c.$500 for unless it is perfect cosmetically or rare. But it is difficult to tell since on some Leica items the price is not very clear (witness the differences seen between Tamarkin, B & H, ebay, Don Chatterton and Delta International for prices) as the sample size is so small.

Just use it and see if you like it. I think if you have a 50mm you will notice that this 35mm is not so good optically as the 50mm, even a contemporary-to-your-35 50mm. The 35mm ASPH version is, in my opinion, the only one that is pretty well the full equal of the contemporary 50mm Summicron.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

Victor

I think 700 is a bit steep for a nicked up second version 35/2. The, fourth version is IMHO the superlative 35/2 'Cron. Nearly the performance of the ASPH model and a light, compact, beautiful fit on the M. These can be had in Canadian or German build in the 800 - 1000 range and worth it. I paid 950 for a mint late German model and cant say enough good things about it.

-- Ron Dixon (RDixon@stny.rr.com), February 11, 2002.

I think $700 is OK for this lens in perfect optical condition, perhaps even with slight cosmetic wear. But with the problems you noted, I think you should take it back and wait for a more favorable buy.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 11, 2002.

I have a v.3 (1974)which I kept prerentially to a v.4 because I saw no difference in the performance and it certainly is better constructed. The v.4 are notorious for coming apart because the front section was assembled with thread lock compound (read: glue)rather than lateral set-screws. So don't just swallow the v.4 pre-ASPH legend whole.

However, that legend does inflate prices, and $700 would be a fair price for a v.4 with the flaws you describe. A v.2 or v.3 should sell for $500 or so with a nicked front element.

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

agree with Jay, lens solid construction feel is miss in 4th version. earlier feel stronger, wish my 4th version felt like my '60 35/2.8.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.