I'm considering purchasing a 50 f/2 Summicron, sn# 2294342. I have attempted to date the lens via the threads on this list and the best I can come up with is that it is of the 69-79 batch. Is my dating correct? And if so, can any of you compare this lens' performance to the current version? Do any of you have links to images taken with this lens? As well, I'm wondering how the price sounds. The seller is asking for $395 without the hood or caps and the exterior shows signs of regular wear, but glass is excellent. Is this a fair price for this lens in that condition? Opinions and suggestions appreciated.

-- Jason Guyer (suite_cheetah@hotmail.com), March 05, 2002

Answers

Jason:

Hove 6th edition Leica Pocket Book shows that serial number as 1968. Again my book shows this to be either a rigid or Dual Range Summicron. I have a Dual Range which I enjoy very much. Is the one you are looking at Chrome or Black? I would use a flashlight on this lens and check for fogging and scratches on the front element. I acquired my DR Summicron 30 years ago and recently had a CLA, and this improved the lens tremendously (fogging). The early lenses are heavy, but great to use. I think the price is reasonable, but most of us use Ebay as a buyers guide for pricing.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logical1@catholic.org), March 05, 2002.

Your serial no. appear to be late '68, but it is my impression that it doesn't definitive outrule that it is an '69-79 model. As far as I understand (and I am no expert) all 69-79 are black, and most -but not all- rigid and Dual-Range are chrome. Another way to tell them apart: The 69-79 does not have a infinity lock but the Rigid does. Does the lens you are considering look like this:
-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), March 05, 2002.

Obviously I messed up my html. Heres the rest of my message:

Does the lens you are considering look like this:
http://www.dat.ruc.dk/~nhsn/ m2.jpg ? (then it is a Rigid) the 69-79 looks distictively more "modern".

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), March 05, 2002.

I have a 50 within 100 numbers of your serial number. It's an excellent lens & I highly recommend it. Great glass & build quality...

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), March 05, 2002.

Jason, By that serial number the lens you are being offered is of the 1969-1979 group: 6 elements in 5 groups.serial numbers of these range between: 2,268,000 to 2,995,000. These were only produced in black. To be sure, this lens should have clicks at half stops.

It is unlikely but possible that you may have a late dual range or rigid 50. Especially if your lens is chrome with knurled focussing ring. If it is a dual range or rigid, then I can highly recommend it. I don't know about the 69-79 lens as I have never shot with one.

Price sounds okay. You're not getting ripped off, but not a bargain either. Would definitely check lens for fogging etc as suggested by Mark.

Best,

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), March 05, 2002.

I have both of these lenses. I had the latest computation for a while, and then bought an M4 which came with a pristine 1969 version. I was interested in the performance difference, so I burned a lot of film.

I took many photos of many subjects, still lifes, portraits and extreme lighting scenarios. I always had the lens not being used in the photo, so when I laid out my slides, I could instantly determine which lens was on the camera.

My results for real world, 3 dimensional subjects, was that both lenses performed so similarly that I could put either version on my camera without prejudice as far as optics were concerned, (my operational preference for the tab not withstanding). I did a lot of same subject shots, and the performance at f/2.0 was so close between both lenses that you couldn't pick a "best" image.

All of this was done years before I ever heard of the internet, so I didn't have any prejudice based on reports from many of the sources we have today, (maybe that is a good thing). If there was more strict testing with graphs and other standard procedures, maybe one lens would be rated "better" than the other, but in the real world, I couldn't see anything that would cause me to reject the 1969 lens.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 05, 2002.

The 50 Summicron you are referring to is the model #11817. I have used one for 30 years and never felt deprived. I recently got a newer tabbed version (#11819) which I feel compelled to use since it is newer to me. I don't see much difference but Irwin Puts recently debated with another guy over the merits of the two versions. He said the #11819 version is slightly sharper and contrastier at 2.0. Other opinions vary. I recently sent my #11817 to Golden Touch because the aperture dot was loose and slipped around the barrel. Sherry sent it back in great shape. $395 is not a great price but it isn't bad. Shine a penlight thru the lens and look around the edges to see if there has been any separation of the elements at the edges. Cheers.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), March 05, 2002.

Likewise I have owned a 11817 for many years and also have a current 11819. Performance-wise I can distinguish no difference at all. Ergononmically the 11817 is smaller and lighter, but to me the pull- out shade on the current lens is a distinct improvement over the clip- on type.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 05, 2002.

Model #11817 50mm Summicron is rated at one of the best Leitz lenses ever produced. Though the dual-range is a very sharp 50, I prefer the 11817. Always have it on my M3. I paid $375 for mine a few years ago in user condition, glass was clean(still is).

-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), March 05, 2002.