Hi, someone offer me a mint condition LEICA-M SUMMARON 35mm 1:2.8 with EYES for $400, is it a good deal? Would this lens work fine with my M3? thank you!!!

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), March 17, 2002

Answers

The lens was meant for the M3. It will work fine on any M body. This is actually a very good lens. The price might be alright since it's in mint condition. My favorite price data source, Don Chatterton, doesn't have one listed right now. You might try checking the KEH website, or Tamarkin, for a price comparison. They may tend to be a little high, though, so I would make allowances for that.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 17, 2002.

If you have an M3 this lens with the bug-eyes makes some sense. If I use a 35 with my M3 I usually guestimate with the finder outside the 50 frame or use a little Nikon auxilliary 35 finder. Good luck.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), March 17, 2002.

Be sure to check the lens itself and the eyes for fog--that lens seems to always be very prone to hazing up. To clean the lens is about $75 to $100, but the finder is a real pain and can cost a bundle to have it cleaned up. Shine the flashlight into this one for sure, and don't be surprised if there is a very foggy film on all the internal elements unless it has already been cleaned recently. With mint glassn, I rate the Summaron as a stellar performer-in Summicron territory less the one stop.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 17, 2002.

The 35/2.8 Summaron (which was made in both M2 (no eyes) and M3 (eyes)) configurations, is a very good lens, a;most the equal of the contemporary (8-element) 35/2 Summicron. It's wide open performace will not equal that of the modern 35 mm aspherics, but it is still a good lens, and not a bad deal for $ 400. The construction and mechanics of this lens are superior to the current offerings. Just make sure that the mechanics and optics are working and clean, and you have a good deal. I personally like chrome lenses from this era (1960s) very much.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 17, 2002.

Its a very good lens indeed, taking its age into account. I have a screw-mount version for my IIIg and its hard to see any difference in sharpness between it and the asph 'lux. Its inferior in other ways to the more modern lens of course, but for everyday use can hold its own.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), March 18, 2002.

Mitch,

I saw a M- bugeyed 'cron at Jefferson Camera in St. Louis last weekend (tempted given cond., but already have two w/o eyes). BTW, Bob F. and Andy P. the 'lux in question for $475 is actually a black 'cron. Thanks Bob F.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 18, 2002.

Oh, right, Andy did say Lux. Guess my mind was playing tricks on me. I ought to have noticed that a Lux in such good condition wouldn't be going for $475. I paid Don Chatterton $900 for one in Ex++ to Ln- or so, just recently. Silly me.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 18, 2002.

Mitch,

Back to your orig. question: If the glass is clear to the naked eye and the barrel not too rough, $400 is a good price. The only other M lenses in that range are the ones built for the CL/CLE, and as everyone knows, they're not "proper" M lenses; they're orphans built for a different type body; no matter what anyone states about compatability. All being equal, I'd get the 2.8 @ $400, or 2.0 @ $475 way before I get the 28 Minolta or 40 @ $300 $600. These "old" lenses are sturdy mechanically and produce special images.

Jump on it. I guarantee you WILL NOT lose money.

I'm a bit lazy, and this hasn't come up here recently:

I know bugeyed lenses will work on the M3, but they must also work on the other M's and bring up the 50 frame lines. How accurate are the bugeyes compared to a non-bugeyed lens of same focal length? As I said: I'm still tempted, it's a beautiful lens, and I will not lose money either.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 18, 2002.

Mitch, The 35mm 2.8 Summaron is my all time favorite lens. I have used it for about 20 years on my m2r and find that the transition from sharp to softer focus areas of the negative is fabulous. I also find that it is capable of picking up reflected indoor light in a way that none of my other lenses do. Like when sunlight bounces to other surfaces in a room. I shoot it wide open and also never had any hazing problems. If you intend to keep it many years, paying a little more is no big deal...they're hard to find.

-- Seth Levine (pepe3@bellatlantic.net), March 19, 2002.