35/2.8 Summaron contrast

[hankg]

How does the contrast of the 35/2.8 Summaron compare to the 35/2 Summicron IV or the current 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH when stopped down to f/5.6 - f/16?

I'm looking for a low to medium contrast 35mm lens with modern resolving power and nice smooth tonality when stopped down. Wide open performance is not so much an issue, I have the 35 Lux ASPH for that. It's the 5.6 to 16 range I'm interested in.

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

Originally Posted by hankg

How does the contrast of the 35/2.8 Summaron compare to the 35/2 Summicron IV or the current 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH when stopped down to f/5.6 - f/16?

I'm looking for a low to medium contrast 35mm lens with modern resolving power and nice smooth tonality when stopped down. Wide open performance is not so much an issue, I have the 35 Lux ASPH for that. It's the 5.6 to 16 range I'm interested in.

I don't have a 35 Lux ASPH, as I bought the ASPHERICAL when it was issued. On slides
(Kodachrome 25 and 64) the 35/2.8 Summaron at the f stops you mention draws most similarly to the Summicron 35/2 ist version, possibly even a tad sharper. Both the 4th version of the 35/2 and the 35 ASPHERICAL have higher contrast. This statement is based on my experience and my own lenses. Presume that performance on the M8 will be similar.
Teddy
P.S. Forgot to mention that my 35/2.8 is a late version

[Philippe D.]

Originally Posted by hankg

How does the contrast of the 35/2.8 Summaron compare to the 35/2 Summicron IV or the current 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH when stopped down to f/5.6 - f/16?

I'm looking for a low to medium contrast 35mm lens with modern resolving power and nice smooth tonality when stopped down.

Well, i made some pictures for you.

All @ f/5.6 - 1/360s
M8 - JPG Basic - B/W

Summaron35-3.5.jpg
Summaron 3.5

Summaron35-2.8.jpg
Summaron 2.8

Summicron35-IV.jpg
Summicron IV

Summilux35.jpg
Summilux asph

The wall and part of the chair are at bright sun.

[Philippe D.]

and here, others @ f/11 - 1/125s

Summaron3.5.jpg
Summaron 3.5

Summaron2.8.jpg
Summaron 2.8

Summicron.jpg
Summicron IV

Summilux.jpg
Summilux asph

[hankg]

Thanks Philippe,

It's interesting the Summilux ASPH and the Summaron 2.8 are holding the same values at the extremes. The higher contrast Summilux is not clipping either end and the Summaron isn't flatter with less tone in the deepest shadow.

The big difference that sets the Summaron 2.8 apart is it puts more tone into the middle quarter tones and it's a very visible amount. It's got a fatter curve. So you won't really be able to 'get an extra stop' from a high contrast scene because of lower contrast in the Summaron 2.8 as it's recording the same values at the extremes as the current ASPH.

35mm-compare.jpg

These are from you f/5.6 shots:

summaron35-2.8x.jpgsummilux35x.jpg

[j. borger]

Hank,

You should have a look at the 35/3,5 Summaron in LTM mount .... i use it as my sunny day 35mm on the M8 .....
Here are a couple of snaps to give you an impression how it renders in the sun...

[hankg]

Yes Han, I was just looking at the f/11 comparisons from Philippe and it's the same outcome - the Summaron 2.8 and the Summilux are holding the same detail at the end of the scales only the Summaron 3.5 is holding a bit more shadow detail.

I have done a tone curve adjustment to see how much information there is in the shadows:

f11.jpg

My concern with the 3.5 is it's propensity to develop haze/fog which I understand is because of the glass used. If I found a clean, clear sample how does one go about the prevention of haze developing?

[Philippe D.]

Hi again,

Originally Posted by hankg

My concern with the 3.5 is it's propensity to develop haze/fog which I understand is because of the glass used.

I'm quite keen with 35mm lenses, so i have a small collection of them and three Summaron f/3.5.
One Screw Mount from 1952, the one M, for this picts, is from 1955 and other one with googles for M3 from 1956. All optics are very clean without fog or haze.
Very nice lenses.
(for the picts, the Maron 2,8 is from 1959, the Cron 1982 and the Lux 1997)

[Philippe D.]

and last,

Originally Posted by hankg

how does one go about the prevention of haze developing?

here an article about Lens fogging Leica FAQ - Lens fogging - causes and cures?

[j. borger]

Originally Posted by hankg

If I found a clean, clear sample how does one go about the prevention of haze developing?

I have no i dea Hank .... i bought a version from 1950 about 8 months ago and it looks like it left the factory yesterday .....
My guess is that if you can get yourself a minty version ...... it will take quite some time to have it develop fog or haze .... but it depends on were you live of course ....... i am in the Netherlands so i do not worry but i see you live in Florida ......that sure is a tough enviroment for this...
Another lens you might look into is a Canon 35/ 2,8.also in LTM . (it's the 35 version of Winogrands famous 28/2,8 and draws about the same .. the 35 is just a bit sharper than the 28) ... i consider the Summaron better however.
The older Canon lenses have far less problems with fogging as far as i know... Sean Reid has one for sale at the moment

Here are some samples of the Canon 35/2,8

[Philippe D.]

Hello again,

Originally Posted by j. borger

Another lens you might look into is a Canon 35/ 2,8.also in LTM .

Oh yes, i agree.
The Canon is maybe the one Hank is looking for, seems to give less contrast.

Here some comparisons:

Summaron3.5-b.jpg
Summaron 3.5

Summaron2.8-b.jpg
Summaron 2.8

Canon2.8-b.jpg
Canon 2.8 (v.1 chrome 1951-56)

[hankg]

Problem with the Canon's is the 34mm filter size. The Leica's take E39 either directly or with the Leica push on adapter. I already have E39 IR/Cut filters and the little E39 screw on hood made for the 50/2.8 (which I also already have) that would work for a E39 35mm on the M8.

Adapting the lens and buying additional filters, etc,. starts to make the cost a lot more. Just an IR/cut filter is adding about a third the price of the lens, then if you need a custom 34 to 39 adapter...

[hankg]

Here's a handy link to all the Canon LTM lenses with specs:

Canon Camera Museum | Camera Hall -Lenses

[hankg]

Originally Posted by j. borger

Hank,

You should have a look at the 35/3,5 Summaron in LTM mount .... i use it as my sunny day 35mm on the M8 .....
Here are a couple of snaps to give you an impression how it renders in the sun...

This image is just what I'm looking for from this sort of lens: detail all over, very smooth tonal transitions and lower contrast. It allows you great flexibility in post. Very easy to get as much contrast as you want globally or just in select areas and you can always choose to loose detail if you want. It makes for the perfect digital 'negative' for high contrast scenes that exceed the M8 sensors dynamic range.

Here a simple global tone curve adjustment and USM with a very large radius:
girl.jpg

Original:
58497d1192964397-35-2-8-summaron-contrast-sum17.jpg

[Philippe D.]

Originally Posted by hankg

Problem with the Canon's is the 34mm filter size. I already have E39 IR/Cut filters

If that's the only problem Hank, adapter ring 34>39mm do not cost much.
(Heliopan "made in Germany" #293 = $17 - €12)
(made in China maybe 1/4 ?)

[hankg]

Originally Posted by Philippe D.

If that's the only problem Hank, adapter ring 34>39mm do not cost much.
(Heliopan "made in Germany" #293 = $17 - €12)
(made in China maybe 1/4 ?)

Thanks, no one stocks 34 > 39 rings here. Special order for about $24 + shipping. 34 > 46 are readily available for around $6. That would do for testing.

In your last group there was no difference in shadow or highlight detail among the 3 lenses. Once you aligned the end points and midtone they wasn't much difference between them. The Canon is faster, usually cheaper and has a more resilient hard coating. What is your opinion of the imaging differences between the Canon 2.8 and the 3.5 Summaron?

[Philippe D.]

Originally Posted by hankg

In your last group there was no difference in shadow or highlight detail among the 3 lenses.

Oh, i guess i know why.
I used f/11 on all lenses, but i forgot to put a speed and took the pictures on "A".

It's good news for the accuracy of the metering system anyway.