cwolffensperger Posted July 2, 2014 Share #1 Posted July 2, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Since a couple of months I'm the proud owner of a Leica IIIa with a 5cm 2.0 summar lens. Everything is working fine, shutter etc, and also the rangefinder seems accurate, since my pictures turn out nice and sharp. Just a few days ago I also got myself a 35mm summaron 2.8, which is tack sharp on my digital camera with adapter (Fuji X-E1). However when I mount it on my Leica IIIa, the range on the lens is not always appropriate to the actual range of the subject, and also differs a bit to the summar. With infinity everything works fine, but the differences are largest on a subject about 5-6 metres away, on the lens it says 3-4 meters. Does anyone know if this can be normal or should I have my rangefinder calibrated (even though it works fine with the summar). No time yet to have my film developed, and if it is a problem I should return it within a few days... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Hi cwolffensperger, Take a look here Leica IIIa & summaron 2.8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Michael Hiles Posted July 3, 2014 Share #2 Posted July 3, 2014 I suggest you have the film developed immediately. The most important point is whether your pictures show that the plane of focus is where you placed it when you focused. There may be some other explanation regarding the numbers on the lens - but the important link is the one between the rangefinder and the picture. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 3, 2014 Share #3 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) Just to verify if it's a genuine Summaron for screw mount... which is its shortest focus distance ? 1 meter as must be ? I ask because there are around Summaron 2,8 in SCREW MOUNT which are "half-breed"... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! and give uncorrect RF focusing, though working right at infinity... (and with EVFs, of course) Edited July 3, 2014 by luigi bertolotti 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! and give uncorrect RF focusing, though working right at infinity... (and with EVFs, of course) ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/229860-leica-iiia-summaron-28/?do=findComment&comment=2623359'>More sharing options...
Washington Posted July 4, 2014 Share #4 Posted July 4, 2014 Luigi, That's a problem with mechanical linkage.... chances are if you calibrate for the out-of-focus lens them the other won't be right. I'd just use lenses that work with the camera as is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 4, 2014 Share #5 Posted July 4, 2014 Yea, mech linkage isn't right, and this is due to the fact that the lens I depicted was NOT born as a screw mount.... 0,65m is the shortest distance for "goggled" Summarons for M3... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwolffensperger Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share #6 Posted July 8, 2014 My summaron is as the one depicted, so not original screw mount... I just dropped a film in to be developed, but I'm not able to go check it until Saturday, so gotta be patient... What's your experience with it? Only focussing correct at infinity? And what about other bodies than Leica? I also got a canon 7 RF (also LTM) coming up, so if it's not working with the IIIa, I might use it on that one? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 9, 2014 Share #7 Posted July 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The rangefinder coupling cam is wrongly shaped on those "not original" lenses... You focus at infinity, and in the rest of the range Rangefinder coincidence does not mean correct focus... and this happens on any "leica compatible" rangefinder camera... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwolffensperger Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share #8 Posted July 10, 2014 Hmm..., not the answer I was hoping for ;-), but sounds quite logical. Just got my first roll back, and some still quite sharp... But not consistently.. Anyway, still a great lens! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted July 10, 2014 Share #9 Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Usually the original 2.8/35mm Summarons with screw mount are much more expensive than the M-mount versions, for they are much more rare. So if the vendour didn't make clear that your lens was originally M-mount and changed to "screw mount" you were cheated. So you should try to give back the lens and get back your money. Edited July 10, 2014 by UliWer 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 11, 2014 Share #10 Posted July 11, 2014 In my case, the item in the picture I showed above, the seller was honest (and, of course, me too noticed the oddity at the shop ) and I got it for 100 Euros around (it was several years ago) , just to have an oddity in my collection... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwolffensperger Posted July 13, 2014 Author Share #11 Posted July 13, 2014 So.., I'm afraid I got cheated.. Still it's quite usable on the street (f8-11), and gives sharp images. And I'll use it on my Fuji, just gives a slightly different tone, especially in B/W than my Fuji 35mm. I also tried it on the canon 7, but the same problem as with the IIIa, just as you predicted Luigi. But thanks for all the reactions and thinking! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwolffensperger Posted January 4, 2015 Author Share #12 Posted January 4, 2015 And another question regarding this lens (Summaron 35/2.8, minimal focussing dist 0,65, LTM). Recently I've acquired a gorgeous M3, and I was wondering whether it's possible to use this lens correctly with a m-mount adapter. I've also seen some goggles for the lens, but is it possible to connect them? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 5, 2015 Share #13 Posted January 5, 2015 With an M adapter things are the same as on a LTM body... focus uncorrect... the goggles re-establish the original status of the lens, but seems difficult, to me, that such a work can be done easily... better to find an original goggled Summaron, which is not difficult nor too costly to find. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted January 6, 2015 Share #14 Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Wait a tick, back the truck up. IIRC early M-mount Summarons were born as LTM and fitted with bespoke M adapters attached with transverse fixing screw(s), that when the adapter is removed render the lens an LTM lens, and these should be fully compatible with Barnack bodies. Goggled M-lenses do not focus correctly with the goggles removed, but (again IIRC) only the f/3.5 Summaron had removable goggles. And, again IIRC, all goggled M-lenses were born as M lenses and do not have LTM threads underneath the flange. At least this is what I recall from reading, but perhaps I'm not remembering correctly. Edited January 6, 2015 by bocaburger Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
huubl Posted January 6, 2015 Share #15 Posted January 6, 2015 Wait a tick, back the truck up. IIRC early M-mount Summarons were born as LTM and fitted with bespoke M adapters attached with transverse fixing screw(s), that when the adapter is removed render the lens an LTM lens, and these should be fully compatible with Barnack bodies. Goggled M-lenses do not focus correctly with the goggles removed, but (again IIRC) only the f/3.5 Summaron had removable goggles. And, again IIRC, all goggled M-lenses were born as M lenses and do not have LTM threads underneath the flange. At least this is what I recall from reading, but perhaps I'm not remembering correctly. That's what I thought also. There are true M- mount summarons with shortest focus distance of 0.7m with non removable mounts, true LTM-mount Summarons with 1.0 m shortest distance and early M2 type Summarons (0.7 m) with removable M flange that when removed have LTM screw mounts. The last two both work fine on LTM cameras. Only the dedicated M3-type Summarons with 0.65m shortest distance when "treated" (to remove the goggles) to have an LTM mount don't focus properly on LTM cameras. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitz Posted January 6, 2015 Share #16 Posted January 6, 2015 Luigi, I'm also confused. The rangefinder, regardless of LTM or LBM body, does not know the focal length of the lens, whether it is an LTM or LBM lens, or what lens type it is (Summaron vs Summicron vs whatever). Thus all lenses MUST have the focus surface at infinity at the correct starting point and MUST have the same focus tab/surface movement to get to any focus distance. Also the goggles can only affect the viewfinder, not the rangefinder. The 3.5 Summaron exemplifies this as its goggles are removable for use on M3 or any other M that is not an M3. I have measured the 135mm f4 Tele-Elmar and the f2.8 Elmarit; the focus mount movement for any distance is exactly the same. Can it be that Leitz found that the goggles on the 35mm lenses created enough "distortion" to affect the rangefinder and that the 35mm f2.8 Summaron for M3 does have a different thread pitch than for the M2? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeswe Posted January 6, 2015 Share #17 Posted January 6, 2015 Luigi, I'm also confused. The rangefinder, regardless of LTM or LBM body, does not know the focal length of the lens, whether it is an LTM or LBM lens, or what lens type it is (Summaron vs Summicron vs whatever). Thus all lenses MUST have the focus surface at infinity at the correct starting point and MUST have the same focus tab/surface movement to get to any focus distance. Also the goggles can only affect the viewfinder, not the rangefinder. The 3.5 Summaron exemplifies this as its goggles are removable for use on M3 or any other M that is not an M3. I have measured the 135mm f4 Tele-Elmar and the f2.8 Elmarit; the focus mount movement for any distance is exactly the same. Can it be that Leitz found that the goggles on the 35mm lenses created enough "distortion" to affect the rangefinder and that the 35mm f2.8 Summaron for M3 does have a different thread pitch than for the M2? It is nicely explained here Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeswe Posted January 6, 2015 Share #18 Posted January 6, 2015 Wait a tick, back the truck up. IIRC early M-mount Summarons were born as LTM and fitted with bespoke M adapters attached with transverse fixing screw(s), that when the adapter is removed render the lens an LTM lens, and these should be fully compatible with Barnack bodies. Goggled M-lenses do not focus correctly with the goggles removed, but (again IIRC) only the f/3.5 Summaron had removable goggles. And, again IIRC, all goggled M-lenses were born as M lenses and do not have LTM threads underneath the flange. At least this is what I recall from reading, but perhaps I'm not remembering correctly. The early production f2.8 Summaron that used the M-adapter with set screw exists as M2 version as well as M3 (goggled) version. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 6, 2015 Share #19 Posted January 6, 2015 Luigi, I'm also confused. .... the goggles can only affect the viewfinder, not the rangefinder.... They DO, that's the problem... the link provided by joeswe (2nd post in the page) points exactly to the issue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwolffensperger Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share #20 Posted January 6, 2015 So - just for the clarity, because I'm a bit confused - using the goggles with my 'LTM' 0,65m summicron on a M3 should focus properly? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.