I have a 1st version 35 'cron and a 21 SA (among others) and they are personal favorites and fine performers. Why are they so expensive now? I bought mine long ago. I can understand the SA being made in limited numbers, but the 35 surely is the most popular lens for the M. They were also made for several years: '58-'69 and '63-'80, respectively. I'm sure a large percentage must have survived up to today.

Can they be called "Legendary Lenses"?

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), February 27, 2002

Answers

Chris. As well as being great performers, the two lenses you mentioned (first version of 35/2 and SA 21/3.4 chrome) are elegant and beautifully finished lenses from a time when Leitz lenses were hand made by skilled craftsmen who took pride in their work. I think there are other chrome lenses from this era that just as well made, but none better made.

You're right about the 35/2.0 first version Summicron not being rare, but many of these lenses have disappeared into collectors hands; and the number of cosmetically really nice examples with flawless glass is not very large. The 21/3.4 chrome SA lens, although made for 17 years (as you point out), was never made in large numbers. The number of these lenses I see offered is significantly less than for the 35/2.0 Summicron.

Consider yourself lucky if you obtained these lenses before collectors and others have driven up the prices. In my opinion, in terms of construction, ergonomics, and craftsmanship, they are among the very best lenses Leica made. Of course the current versions of those focal lengths are optically superior, but the standards of craftsmanship do not measure up to these older lenses.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 27, 2002.

In the UK it certainly seems to be true that "M2" examples of the earlier versions of the 35 'cron are thin on the used market ground compared with those with M3 glasses.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), February 27, 2002.

I suspect the prices of these two lenses are high for different reasons. The early 35/2 has a loyal following like the early 50/2, who refuse to be convinced that newer versions are as good or better. Also, until the end of the v.4's production, the other 35/2's were made in Canada and suffer that unwarranted stigma.

OTOH, the 21/3.4 Super-Angulon was always considered by the majority to be a better lens than the v.1 21/2.8, and almost neck-and-neck with the 21ASPH which despite the convenience of metering on the M5 and M6, is nonetheless a large and bulky lens by comparison.

I have a Canadian v.3 35/2 which I hung onto even after selling my 35/2ASPH (for a 35/1.3ASPH)and I have never seen any appreciable difference between it, v.1,v.2 or v.4 except that it now sells for substantially less. It does not suffer from the come-unglued-front of the v.4 either. My late, black 21/3.4 will remain in my kit long after my 21ASPH is a memory.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 27, 2002.

Hello Chris. I echo Jay's comments here. Compact version one 35mm.Summicrons which were common and 21mm.Super Angulons,made in small numbers and relatively expensive to the Summicron, were more often than not heavily used by professionals.Despite their heroic construction mint condition survivors are few and far between and therefore command high prices in top condition .. I would not even think of selling either of your lenses if they are in good condition ..just see how hard it would be to buy them back. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), February 28, 2002.

Chris,I bought a Rolex GMT master II 3 years ago for £2100.The price this year is £2400 and the second-hand price is nearly as much as the new price I payed for it.Just be smug.

-- Phil Andrews (philandrew@hotmail.com), February 28, 2002.