My Two Favorite M-Mount Lenses

I've used many Leitz and Leica lenses over many years. I've owned about eight of them and used another...ten, maybe? I can't really recall all of them now, although at one time I could have given you chapter and verse from memory. To that you can add another dozen or so non- Leitz/Leica third party lenses, from makers such as Minolta, Zeiss, Voigtländer, and Konica. But this doesn't make me an expert overall—there are too many lenses for my ~30 to be more than a sampling. However, I'm not unfamiliar with M lenses.

I've generally not used many of the "cost-no-object" statement lenses, with a few exceptions: one picture in my portfolio is a portrait of my friend Oren Grad taken with the now-rare pre-1994 35mm Summilux Aspherical Type 1. It's called either the "Aspherical" [or "ASPHERICAL"—thanks Jeff] because it's written out that way on the lens barrel, as opposed to "ASPH.," or sometimes the "double-aspherical" because it has two such surfaces (the successor lens has one asphere). I believe that it was designed by Walter Watz, that the aspherical surfaces were hand-ground, that Leica had either one or two technicians capable of doing that work, and that either 1k or  4k lenses (I found both numbers on the internet—the former sounds more likely to me) were produced between 1988 and 1994. It's now very rare and considered exclusively a collector's item. There's currently a somewhat worn sample for sale from Alex Yuzbasiyan's Setadel Studios, a reputable reseller, for $25,000. (If you are a Leicaphile and have better information on this lens, please do contribute to the Comments section accessible below.) And I'm currently using the 1994–2010 ASPH. Summilux on my friend Jack's M10 Reporter, compliments of my friend John.

Anyway, please don't ask "what do you think of the [insert name of current high-end Leica lens]?," because I won't know. Except to say it's probably excellent if you don't mind the handling and the cost, because I'm pretty confident that can be said of any of the top current Leica lenses.

Some of my preferences 'n' principles go against the grain. For me personally, handling with an M-lens is more important than optical quality. The advantage of a Leica in the olden days was that it was a small camera that made little noise and attracted little notice. So a small lens with simple controls you can memorize made more sense than any of the "statement" lenses such as the Noctilux. Zone focusing by feel was also important to me when I owned my Leicas—with just a little practice, I learned to set the focus distance without looking through the camera at the rangefinder. The skill worked best between about five feet and infinity, and of course made more sense in good light when you can stop down and exact focus is less critical. Also in my opinion, slower lenses made much more sense than fast ones. Not only are they more likely to be small, but a brighter view isn't necessary for focusing. Of course, it depended on what you were trying to do. But I'd rather have a slow lens on a Leica than a big heavy fast lens that blocked part of the viewfinder view. Other people can think whatever they like.

Collapsible 50mm 7-element Summicron

My two faves
Among the ones I owned or tried, I had two favorites. The first was a sample of the first-generation collapsible 7-element 50mm Summicron that had been custom-multicoated by a previous owner. I don't have a picture of my lens but that's the same kind, above, and here's one on Kent P.'s M4: 

The seven-element 50mm Summicron, first available in a collapsible mount and later called the "Rigid" because it was adapted to a non-collapsible mount, was remarkable for two reasons: first, it was the lens that really established Leica as a top lensmaker; Zeiss had a stronger reputation in the '50s and Leica was one of many companies that played catch-up. The 7-element Summicron came along just when magazines were beginning to do lens tests, and it got attention as the best lens ever tested by some big magazines. Its second claim to fame was that it was the preferred lens of Henri Cartier-Bresson for much of his career. He tended to use the latest M camera, whatever it was at the time, but he stuck with his favorite 50mm (I believe, on no other evidence than looking at the pictures, that Leica might have multicoated his lens[es] for him, too). It's often pointed out that Henri carried other lenses, but, regardless of that, almost all of his pictures were made with the 50mm. He only very rarely made a picture with any other focal length. I was told this by Henri's good friend and fellow Magnum photographer Erich Hartmann, who was among the second group to join Magnum after the founders.

All told, I owned five 50mm Summicrons: the collapsible; a rigid; a Dual-Range, which I got cheaply because it was missing the "eyes" and thus of no interest to collectors (best-built lens I ever saw, matched only by a couple of Zeiss Contarex lenses); and two modern ones I bought new. One of those was a German-made 1979–1994 Type 4 and the other was a 1994–2013 Type 5. The last two were pedestrian-but-classic Planar-type designs originally intended to be economical but were very well made. And since construction and QC are half the battle with lenses, both were quite nice.

All my 50mm Summicrons were good lenses, in fact, and I got some exceptional pictures with each of them, but there was a non-Leica, non-M-mount 50mm I liked better than any of them. The collapsible was a bit finicky; it had some spherical aberration and flared a bit more easily than modern lenses (despite the multicoating, which might have been fairly basic and not designed specifically for the lens), and it was poor wide open. Stopped down and used with care it could be almost magical. I never should have sold it, but the way I managed my gear hobby in those days was to sell things to buy something else. That's life.

My other favorite, as many people guessed, was the Minolta 40mm ƒ/2 M-Rokkor for the Minolta CLE. John Kennerdell (whom I haven't heard from in a long time, although he used to write marvelous posts for this site) said he once encountered a Japanese connoisseur who referred to it as "the water lens" because its images were so smooth and liquid. It was the only lens I ever owned that routinely got compliments from non-photographers. (Usually, not to throw any cold water on the enthusiasms of gearheads out there, people just don't care.) It's still available pretty reasonably, but it's not very practical, because of course most M-mount cameras don't have 40mm framelines. The CL (Compact Leica) and later CLE (Compact Leica Electronic, although it was sold only by Minolta) was made for a basic set of 28mm/40mm/90mm.

The, um, king
A special mention must be made of the main lens I bought new when I bought my first M6, the 35mm Summicron-M (1979–1996, called version 4 or the "pre-ASPH" since it was replaced by the first aspherical version). I loved that lens when it was new, and its handling is superb on the M cameras, except for the M8 which changes its effective angle of view. It did have a lot of falloff, but since I edge-burned all my prints anyway I considered that a feature rather than a bug, and it was really only a problem with thin-emulsion films anyway. That's the one I learned how to zone-focus by feel, and the images at first were really wonderful. Although the bokeh at wider apertures and closer in wasn't very good, when stopped down and from middle distances it had remarkably coherent bokeh with beautiful transitions. This isn't how people judge bokeh these days, of course—now it's popular to shoot everything wide open no matter what (see The Dog's Nose). Which to me defeats the whole purpose of buying a good lens in the first place, but oh well. (By the way, I'm the person who originally dubbed that lens "the king of bokeh," and I apologize for that. Who knew the phrase would still be permanently adhering to the lens 25 years later?)

I would probably still be using that lens today if it weren't for one thing: on mine, tiny paint chips started flaking off the aperture blades and collecting on an inner element of the lens—right in the center of the optical path! Eventually this became quite noticeable, both when looking into the lens and also in the pictures, because all the flecks of dirt in the middle of the lens cut contrast. Not enough for normal people to notice but just enough for me to notice, which made it seem like I was being tormented by the Universe. I can't remember now whether I had it cleaned once or just meant to, but basically it just pissed me off—here I had paid a premium for a well-built lens, from a maker that gassed on and on in a superior way about how they were better at lensmaking than anybody else, and the one I sprung for had a flaw caused by basic incompetence. Just made me irritated is all. It's not like other lensmakers don't make lenses with problems from time to time—the original AF-Nikkor 35mm ƒ/2 had persistent problems with lubricant leaking onto the aperture blades, for instance (corrected in the ƒ/2D version). But that's why I sold it. I'll tell you what I wish—I wish I had shot Tri-X in my M6 with that lens from that day to this. But of course if I had, I never would have been a magazine writer about gear, for one thing (you gotta churn gear if you want to write about it).

I also owned or used several other 35mm M-mount lenses, including the M-Hexanon, a Zeiss, and various Voigtländers. And the one in the Konica Hexar AF, which wasn't shabby.

"The" lens
That said, here's my opinion—just one enthusiast's opinion—: a 35mm Summicron makes so much sense on any M camera that it should be considered the default lens. Of course, many famous Leica photographers (such as Garry Winogrand) preferred the 28mm focal length, and many preferred 50mms, and that's cool. But the standard viewfinder is perfect when using the 35mm framelines, the 35mm focal length is a perfect match for the kinds of photography a Leica is best at, and there are too many drawbacks to lenses much faster than ƒ/2—which make most of them more trouble than they're worth, and you just don't really need 'em. If you want to shoot with a Leica, get a 35mm Summicron or a third-party equivalent, and spend your time, effort and money learning how to use it!

Here's what I'd recommend:

Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm ƒ/1.4 II

Budget options: Voigtländer makes three options of interest—four if you count the two versions of the fast lens—and you should try 'em all for yourself before deciding. There's the wicked sweet tiny little Color-Skopar 35mm ƒ/2.5 P II (I had one of the originals, and it looked great with fast B&W film), the Ultron Vintage Line 35mm ƒ/2 Aspherical Type II VM, and not one but two versions of the Nokton Classic 35mm ƒ/1.4 II, marked SC and MC, for single-coated and multi-coated. (The reason is that some Japanese lens connoisseurs—who put us to shame—think that single-coated lenses are better for black-and-white film.) The Nokton Classic looks like it would handle the most like the old pre-ASPH Summicron, although I don't know firsthand.

Used option: C'mon, if you're going to use the now-garden-variety (did I just say that?) 35mm Summicron-M ASPH., find a used one! Unless you already have yours. These days new ones are too expensive for what you get. Anybody know how much they cost at B&H when they came out in '96? Anyway that pinpoints the year that Leica got too expensive for Yr. Hmbl. Ed.

Zeiss C Biogon 35mm ƒ/2.8 ZM

Zeiss options: Zeiss makes two nifty M-mount 35mm lenses: the C Biogon T* 35mm ƒ/2.8 ZM and the Biogon T* 35mm ƒ/2 ZM. (Well, they make a third, too, but I wouldn't try that.)

Leica Apo-Summicron-M ƒ/2 ASPH.

Top option: If you really want to go balls-out present-day Leica to the manner or the manor born, go all the way: and that means the Leica 35mm APO-Summicron-M ƒ/2 ASPH. You should buy two, so you can casually say, "of course I have a backup that I keep in the box, in case I misplace this one somewhere."

Vintage option: Find one of those v.4 pre-ASPH's I talked about above. They tend to get wobbly in time, and some of the Canadian ones aren't quite as well built as their German counterparts; and they're lenses that got used, so they can be pretty beat. Caveat emptor. Get explicit return privileges on the one you buy, so you can try it before committing.

Maybe I should put the M-Rokkor 40mm on the M10 and see how it does. Like I haven't got enough to do to make me behinder....

Mike

UPDATE: Look what made Apple News this morning! Cool. (Thanks to Dave Richardson for pointing this out.)

Book o' the Week

Jay Maisel: Light, Color, Gesture. This was suggested by Moose. I got to meet Jay Maisel once. Everybody should meet him in his books, if they haven't already. Might help; cannot hurt. Jay's is some of the most positive, hopeful, and generous picture-taking advice you'll find.

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

B&H has M lenses galore

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Josh Hawkins: "To this day I appreciate that you taught me zone focusing/pre-focusing on the M glass. Thanks. I still focus while pulling the camera up to my eye. And personally I’m a fan of the 50mm Dual Range and 35mm Summicron from the pre-aspheric days. Now I need a body to use it on. Maybe after the kids finish college."

Cristoph Hammann: "Re 'Leica 35mm APO-Summicron-M ƒ/2 ASPH. You should buy two, so you can casually say, "of course I have a backup that I keep in the box, in case I misplace this one somewhere."' Had to laugh out loud at that! Devilish advice in view of the current supply situation."

Jeff: "Mike, didn’t you already do enough to pump up the price of the v.4? At least you didn’t call it ‘king of vintage.’ By the way, a fine (Double) ASPHERICAL (in caps) can easily run $35k these days. One Leica forum member has several, which he uses."

Mike replies: Arthur Kramer, the onetime lens guru of Modern Photography magazine and the guy who introduced me to Jay Maisel, had a rare 105mm APO-El-Nikkor enlarging lens cast in lucite that he used on his desk as a paperweight. Not sure that counts as "using" it, though!  :-)

hilm: "Not a fan of the 35mm lens, but every once in a while, I read that it is the lens to shoot with on a Leica rangefinder. So I do shoot a few rolls, develop them, and go back to shooting with a 50mm.

"My k-of-b type IV (bought used), developed the same black paint specks in the center axis. Sherri cleaned it up for me. My favorite lens is a pre-asph 50mm Summicron. Also the Dual Range, and I have the matching eyes. But if I had to keep just two lenses, I would keep the DR, because it does so much so well and feels so good, and the 35mm, 'cause you have to have one if you have an M-Leica."

Mike replies: So far, Sherri Krauter and Malcolm Taylor have been mentioned in the comments. Those are some pretty august names among Leica repairpeople! Malcolm was chosen by Leica to service the original Ur-Leica, potentially the most valuable camera in the world. Leica Camera AG will never part with it, of course, but if they did, no doubt it would set an astonishing record at auction—surpassing the 1923 Leica 0-Series no. 122 which holds the current record for World's Most Expensive Camera at $2.97 million. The Ur-Leica, for those who don't know, was Oskar Barnack's prototype of the first Leica that he used himself from 1914. And by the way, Malcolm Taylor has stated that the lens on the Ur-Leica was a 40mm, not a 50mm!

Comments

[Stelios]

I have that pre-asph/v4/bokeh king 35mm summicron. It’s a marvellous lens. It looked new when I got it 12 years ago. The red dot has dropped, one of the hood tabs has fallen off. I’ve been (sadly) very careless with it but it still works like it always has. It’s been through a lot of rain and once drowned whilst taking pictures next to a jet-washer (did I say I was careless?) Malcolm Taylor who fixed it for me after that (the focus seized) was shocked (barnacles!). I didn’t know what I was buying at the time and I got it for a great price. The photographs look lovely. Someone suggested to me it could sell for £2k at which I laughed (I don’t think the state of the lens warrants it). Did I say it work likes it’s new? I am more careful with it now. There’s no point abusing a lens for no reason. If it ever breaks I will first cry and then buy that Nokton Classic. Looks lovely.
I also have that 35 Nikkor which I got for a bargain since it’s not the D version (£90?). I like that one too. Not like the summicron though.

[Michael Wayne Plant]

Mike,
If you still have that Minolta 40mm then you absolutely owe it to yourself to use it with the M10, it would be wonderful, don’t worry about the framelines just get it out there and use it.
I had a Leica 40mm and my copy tended a little magenta for some reason compared to the rest of my Leica lens which is the only reason I sold it on! Otherwise I would still be using it. I get so tempted by 40mm lens as for me they are just right. I have a 40mm on my D850 most of the time. And on my new Leica M11 a 35mm Summicron. If you did use the 40mm that M10 might not be going home anytime soon!

[Dave Richardson]

This article showed up in my Apple News feed this morning. Seems like you’re everywhere. Nice.

[William Lewis]

It's posts like this that make me wish we had a simple "+1" upding to give you.

[Tom Duffy]

Actually, the 40mm focal length makes a lot of sense on the Leica M. Frame lines on the viewfinder are very conservative, i.e., the 35mm frame line matches a 40mm field of view. Since the 40mm lens defaults to the 50mm frame line, you need to have a little bit of the 40mm lens mount filed off to bring up the 35mm frame lines by default. I used that setup for years on a Leica M6. I regret selling that lens.

[Casper]

How about the older Leica screw mount lenses? Are they still viable? Some nice glass that still works.

[Lothar Adler]

I would find it very interesting to know if and how the typical image characteristics of M lenses differ depending on whether you shoot with film or digital.
Especially with regard to the representation of the out-of-focus areas in the image / bokeh and the micro-contrast and all the other parameters that you can't measure individually.
That there is increased vignetting with the shorter focal lengths and digital shooting seems to be common, especially with Sony cameras with their thick filter glass over the sensor. With Leica bodies presumably less so, because the microlenses at the edge of the sensor are supposedly tilted slightly inward.
I don't have any original Leica lenses myself, but when shooting with the Nokton 1.2 / 35 mm Asph. (V1) and the Sony AII, I always have the impression that the blur areas are not as smooth and harmonious as on film, rather a bit harsher, rougher, although this lens (despite CAs) is still one of my favorites, especially in black and white.

I assume that especially in your reader community there must be particular experiences on this subject.

[Herman Krieger]

Picture yourself owning the new Leica M-3-

[John Robison]

I had a M4-2 for a decade, and I believe it had the same .72x viewfinder magnification as the M6. But darn if I could ever see, in one glance, the 35mm frame! Even if my eye was scrunched up to the eyepiece as close as possible then I still had to look around to see the edges of the frame.
The M4-2 is long gone, what it taught me was that 3 decades of the glorious OM-1 viewfinder had spoiled me for TTL viewing and focusing.
So….now my 35mm focal length is covered by a $50, slightly ratty f2.8 Zuiko. Talk about pedestrian! Doesn’t hold a candle to the lovely CV 35mm f2.5 P2 but good enough for the likes of me.

A PS; I’ve had 3 of the 40mm f2 Zuiko pass through my hands. Sold every one for 3-5x what I had paid for them to obtain funds for other photo stuff. Had a 35mm f2 Zuiko also. Too big. Sold off.

[Fred Tuman]

Mr. Adler brings up an excellent point. When transitioning from film to digital, most of my M lenses from the 1960's did not perform as well on the M8. Now I am using the Monochrom with Zeiss 35mm f2.8 Biogon...an excellent choice. All the newer Leica lenses have been reworked to to give optimum results on the digital sensor...But you have to pay through the nose to get there.
An alternative choice are the 3 Olympus f1.2 pro lenses on a Olympus micro 4/3 body. Ive been using this combo for the last 3 years and have found the lenses to be perfectly matched to the sensor. All can be used confidently wide open giving very nice bokeh. 24"x18" museum quality prints are easily obtainable and if you need to go bigger, Photoshop has the Enhance feature to go 40"x30". The whole idea is to get an Image that I shot 30 years ago to be consistent with a Image I shot yesterday.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

That collapsible 50mm Summicron is the first Leica lens I owned (it's what came with the M3 body I bought used around 1973). Then I added a 90mm Summicron and then a 35mm Summicron to it, and I was happy. I wanted f1.4 for small lenses on my SLRs, but f/2 was good on the rangefinder, and it was nice matching all 3 at f/2. I don't think the faster options existed yet, in any case (the last of them, the 35mm, I bought in 1975).

I did shoot them wide open mostly, though, except when shooting flash. Covering events for the college alumni magazine was usually flash, and with that I was around f/5.6 or at least f/4 (on PLUS-X, bouncing the flash; I had a good flash, a Braun RL-515). Other stuff was available light, often pushing the TRI-X to EI 1200 or so.

[Trevor Johnson]

Malcolm Taylor restored, which is probably the correct verb, my Leica M4. He replaced the shutter, sorted out the loose elements in the rangefinder and did a general CLA.

Malcolm was a very interesting person to talk with and had high regard for people who used Leica Ms, which was one reason, he said, he liked to fix their cameras. Certainly, after Malcolm's work, my M4 continues to work as new and is a joy to use. I prefer it to my 'classic' M6 Leitz, although the meter in the M6 can come in useful on occasion.

[Dan Khong]

Gosh! You just reminded me that I have the 35 Summicron-M (ver 4) somewhere which I must take out to use again after being in hibernation for >20 years.

[Earl Dunbar]

How close are the DR and the Rigid? At one point, for reasons I can’t remember, I thought they were (nearly) identical in formula, maybe construction.

Same question for the Minolta and Leica 40/2 lenses? I can’t imagine them being “the same” but their similarities and differences would be interesting, as I have the Cron but not the Rokkor. As if I need to feed my GAS …

[Gordon R. Brown]

The original Leica f/1.2 Noctilux introduced in 1966 has been selling at auctions in the $35,000 range. A Leica web page states 1,757 were made between 1966 and 1975.

Leica recently introduced a remake of the original, selling for almost $8,000.

[Mani Sitaraman]

If Mike will permit a slight digression, it's wonderful to see that amusing picture posted by fellow commenter Herman Krieger. Mr. Krieger is only a year younger than Leica cameras are, as he was born the year after the original "Leica" miniature format was introduced to the world.

His biographical web page of photographs, put together long before the era of Facebook and blogging websites, is a fascinating look at a slice of the last American century. From it, I learned that he was an employee of a photo store a full eighty years ago.

https://members.efn.org/~hkrieger/bio.htm

[Markus]

... and if you can't go the full (manor) Leica way, a Sony A7 (or Nikon or Canon) allows you to use those lenses without drawbacks.
My personal experiences with a Voigtländer 35mm VM lens on Sony lived up to my expectations, as far as I've read lenses of 35mm and longer focal lengths won't suffer from filter stack induced degradations.

Of course this won't get you the original rangefinder experience, but you can do all that zone focusing that often lets you react better than depending on auto-focus decisions, as well as manually handling f-stops and/or shutter speed. And you can get that for a quite minimal investment - nice if you have other obligations, too.

[Dennis Ng]

Voigtländer 50mm collapsible :

Heliar_50_mm_f_3_5 I have and too sharp. There are others http://dankerinphotography.com/voigtlander-50mm-f2-heliar-classic and I guess this non-m lens is for leica body for some. But it is quite good.

[Chuck Albertson]

I recall that when it was introduced, Leica planned to sell about 2,000 of the 35 Summicron Aspherical, but only made about half that number.

[Henning]

The collapsible 50mm Summicron was probably my favourite lens in the 60's, as my 35mm Summaron didn't grab me as much, and with slow films the extra stops were quite useful.

While both the collapsible Summicron and the rigid in both its forms were 7 element, there was a reshaping of the elements that made the rigid a noticeably 'better' lens, in terms of resolution across the field, especially in the outer zones and at larger apertures. Rumour had (has) it that the dual range lensheads were selected as the better ones from the inevitable sample variations. The performance of the dual range always impressed me, except for flare.

[Oskar Ojala]

I liked the Zeiss Biogon 35/2. It may not win comparisons, but it has strong contrast and "pop", handy size and the design ensures very minor distortion. On the flip side it has aberrations and the bokeh can act up, but a lens shouldn't be too easy to use either.

[David Goldenberg]

Like Henning, I have heard the rumor that the optical units used for the DR Summicrons were picked out from the production as the better ones. But, I have never heard any credible verification of this. This myth is discussed here:
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/173504-dual-range-summicron/

In both the DR and the fixed version, the optical unit is removable. Because of variation in the focal length, the optical units were matched with the focusing mount. This can be an issue when buying a used rigid or DR Summicron. (like any that anyone here is likely to see!)

As reported in the link above, only a single version of the DR focusing mount was made, and the optical units were chosen to match that focal length. That seems quite plausible to me.

If anyone wants to compare, the barrel of the optical unit of mine is marked 51.9, consistent with the account above.
David

[AN]

Last night, I think I had a dream based on this blog post: Johnny Depp loaned me his Leica camera, with the collapsible 50, so that I could photograph the grounds of an old hotel. The camera was shaped more like a Bessa Voigtlander than a Leica, and it was very lightweight, made of plastic. I enjoyed using it very much, but I woke up before I got to develop the film. Johnny Depp was somewhat off-putting, but I appreciated that he let me borrow his camera.

[Pak-Ming Wan]

I've been following this blog for years, so you've definitely biased my purchases in this regard. What you say is a good summary of my experience as well. Maybe I should share a little more about other experiences.

I did try the vintage 7 element Summicron 50 which I bought for a song, but I couldn't get along with it at all. It has a grease problem so is hard to focus and the aperture stops are non-linear - usability is a huge black spot. It would randomly turn and collapse as well, so I taped it fixed with gaffa tape. Front element was heavily scratched, so I hand polished it clean and image quality is better than I imagined. On a M9 sensor (which was very contrasty), the low contrast of this lens was actually a good pairing. I got some great images from this lens and the low contrast and softness wide open gave it character. A shame I couldn't get along with it. Maybe I'll open it up and regrease it and retry.

I have a modern 50/2 non-asph special edition in E39 screwmount, which I added a M mount adapter to make it work. Except that it doesn't work because focusing was a pain because it was slightly forward focused. The front element was strongly convex, hard to clean in the field and would collect a lot of dust because the dust cap is unusable because it falls off easily (can't put a cover cap due to the built in hood). Also, these modern 50s also have a front element that loosens over time - so you have to tighten it yourself (accessible on the back. Compared to the 35/2 asph it is a pain to focus because there's no focus tab. I put up with a lot of these problems and used it a lot, and even dropped it and got it repaired. The images it gave were spectacular. But it doesn't see much time on my camera now because modern sensors gather enough pixels that cropping is acceptable for me.

I had a Canada Leitz 35/2. It was soft, sharper when stopped down. But the aperture ring was tiny and somewhat loose so I couldn't feel set it easily (i.e. I had to look at it). And it had a slightly oily aperture blades and I think also a slight scratch on the front element -- didn't ever impact image quality, but I kept thinking that it might have. It was a perfectly fine lens actually, but I never really liked it compared to the modern ASPH.

[Pak-Ming Wan]

I did some googling: slight correction on the Ur Leica lens, it was a 42.5mm.

"The first stage of work on the Ur Leica was to look on the lens which to my surprise, and that of Dr Wangorsch, was a 42.5mm, f4.5. It was a wide field Summar (a 6-element variant of the original Zeiss Planar) that had been designed by Carl Metz."

https://www.worldphotoadventure.com/in-conversation-with-malcolm-taylor/

[scott kirkpatrick]

The collapsible 50 Summicron was my first and for a long time my only real Leica lens. Lots of glow and probably a need for a little expert care, but it has produced a few pictures that I treasure. Recently I was in the right place at the right time and got your "top choice." The designation is justified:
https://flic.kr/p/2njExr9 -- here's just a snap. It's a surprisingly oldfashioned design, tiny and even has a hint of moustache distortion. No digital tricks (to be cleaned up in post-processing; this is a film lens!

[Julian]

Slightly late to the party here but I own both the 35 Summicron v4 and the Voightlnder 35 1.4 Nockton II, both of whic I use on an M6 TTL. Of the two, the Summicron is much better handling lens. The aperture ring on the Nokton is controlled by two tabs set 180 degrees apart, whereas the Summicron has a ridged ring that runs almost all the way around the lens. The problem with the Nokton is that changing the aperture while the camera is to yuor eye is very fiddly as the tabs are at different positions depending on what aperture you atre set to - infuriating! Whereas the ribbed ring of the Summicron is always at your fingertips...