barnack Posted February 8, 2008 Share #1 Posted February 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I recently acquired a Summaron 35mm f/3.5 #159XXXX for an M2. Would like to know what expereinces people have had with this lens. Thanks for your response. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Hi barnack, Take a look here Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Michael Hiles Posted February 8, 2008 Share #2 Posted February 8, 2008 I have one that was made for the M3 assuming a viewer in the accessory shoe. Someone before my time filed the lug on the bayonet mount so that on my M2 it shows the 35mm frame correctly. It looks highly disrespectful but it works. THe optical performance is fine, but I would not use it at 3.5 unless necessary. I try to use 5.6 or 8 which is around it's optimum, and it is fine for my purposes, which are not stringent for the 35. It has limitations compared to modern designs, but it still makes very good images. And these days the price is usually right. I am sure you will enjoy it! Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted February 8, 2008 Share #3 Posted February 8, 2008 I have one (bought as a replacement for the f2.8 version) The performance isn't up to the 2.8 standards, but it does give a unique look to the image. Here are a few examples: http://www.andybarton.com/2007/mediafiles/l97.jpg http://www.andybarton.com/2006/mediafiles/l74.jpg http://www.andybarton.com/2006/mediafiles/l81.jpg http://www.andybarton.com/2006/mediafiles/l93.jpg I have since bought another f2.8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 8, 2008 Share #4 Posted February 8, 2008 I have a 1.559.XXX, version for M3 with goggles, plus a 2,8 brother 1.629.XXX : personally, I prefer the 3,5, but that maybe for it is perfect in mech and optics, while the 2,8 is really a "superused". It's a typical Leitz old style lens with a medium contrast but very even on the whole FOV, better to use in BW than color: with color, the Summicron 1st version is a definite step-up, but at 8-11 they have (for me) identical crispness. Andy's pic of the running dog illustrates very well how in BW it has a very pleasant OOF. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted February 8, 2008 Share #5 Posted February 8, 2008 I have 2 in M mount 1 181xxx from 1954 & 1258xxx from 1955 they are for M3's for use with a SBLOO viewfinder, used on the M2's they engage the 50mm lines in the viewfinder. same for the ones with the goggles, 1487xxx from 1957 and 1 556xxx from 1958, used without them on the M2's they show the 50mm lines. The first version in screw mount 1005xxx from 1952 used with the M adator gives the good frame in the the M2 naturaly ! Despite to be in different mount the lens inside the 3 version are absoluty the same I liked the warm tones I got using them with slides film KODAK 100. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoombs Posted February 8, 2008 Share #6 Posted February 8, 2008 I have the LTM version of this lens and am very fond of it. In a discussion of 35mm lenses last August I posted a grab shot made with it. It's unedited and I think shows some of the "feel" of the lens. It's less contrasty than most. Doug http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/29670-35mm-lens-post321425.html#post321425 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leitz_not_leica Posted February 8, 2008 Share #7 Posted February 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've had the 3.5, but the 2.8 is superior. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted February 14, 2008 Share #8 Posted February 14, 2008 I have a 35/ 2,8 Summaron s/n 1922727 with the eyes. I purchased it about the same time I bought my M3 (a month ago). I have taken some wonderful images with this lens. Very clean and suprisingly crisp, but not 'cron sharp. It has a wonderful "old shoe" feeling about it. It hides the era of the image if there's no obvious teltale content, like a new model car, store.... I had been searching for a moderately priced (haha) late model Summilux 1.4 pre-ASPH. I got it and love the unique signature of this lens. The bokeh is very special, particulary wide open in B&W. I'm thinking of selling the Summaron as retaining it seems redundant. Is that a good idea? I paid $384 for the Summaron (probably too much) but it's in great shape and got my money's worth from the images. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted February 14, 2008 Share #9 Posted February 14, 2008 I recently paid £350 for a f2.8 Summaron (no eyes) in E++ condition, retail. Just shows what the market is like in the US compared to Scotland... We pay more than double what US customers do. It's a completely different lens from the f3.5, in a totally different league. (I'll post some scans when I get a chance) I wish I'd never sold the first one I owned... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted February 14, 2008 Share #10 Posted February 14, 2008 Andy, as a long time collector I own the 2 version, the one with eyes for my M3's since 1971 and it had take a lot of Kodachrome 25 and Ilford 125 BW. A very good lens for every situation. Hope you will keep this one for ever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted April 22, 2008 Share #11 Posted April 22, 2008 Andy, as a long time collector I own the 2 version, the one with eyes for my M3's since 1971 and it had take a lot of Kodachrome 25 and Ilford 125 BW.A very good lens for every situation. Hope you will keep this one for ever. I probably will, but it's place on my M7 has been taken by the old Summilux, I'm afraid... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik van Straten Posted April 28, 2008 Share #12 Posted April 28, 2008 Since 2002 I own a screw-mount version of the Summaron 35mm f3.5. I was truly impressed by the quality of the pictures it rendered. I used this lens, fitted with a the screw/bayonet adapter, also on my 2003 MP. I loved it's compactness and it's optical qualities. Eventually, I picked up a 4th generation Summicron-M 35mm and started to use it instead of the Summaron, mainly because it was faster. As I am a two lens shooter, 50mm and 35mm, it's very convenient to use the same model shade on both lenses, because they do accept the same lenscap wich, on my cameras, is connected to de camera with a cord. My favorite 50's are both the collapsible and first model rigid Summicrons. On these lenses the tiny shade of the Elmar-M 50mm f2.8 fits perfectly. On the 4th generation Summicron this shade also fits, but it cuts off the corners of the picture. Just because I was curious, I tried this shade on the Summaron 35mm f2.8. To my suprise it gave no vignetting at all! The viewing angle of the 4th generation Summicron must be larger than the viewing angle of the earlier 35mm lenses. In fact it's great to use this shade on the 1st generation (8element) 35mm f2 Summicron, the 35mm f 2.8 Summaron and the 35mm f 3.5 Summaron with 39mm filter thread. Recently, I bought a 35mm f3.5 Summaron no 1179135 (1954) in an absolutelely mint condition. It was made for the M3, wich must be equipped with a 35mm viewfinder in its accessory-shoe to use it. Mounted on my MP it caused the 50mm frames to appear in the viewfinder. A little filing on it's bayonet mount brought it into the condition that it gave the 35mm frames into the viewfinder. The optical qualities of this lens are fantastic, as good as the Summaron 35mm f2.8 (wich I have with the eyes for the M3) or even better. I can use it with the shade of the Elmar-M 50mm f 2.8 (of wich I have 2) so I can easely change lenses while using the same lenscap. By the way, since I have the 35mm f1.7 Ultron made by Voigtländer, I don't use the 4th generation Summicron anymore. This version of the Summaron 35mm f3.5 must also work great on the M2 and it is, I think, more commonly available than the "real" M2 version of this lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pelikan1931 Posted May 4, 2008 Share #13 Posted May 4, 2008 the f3.5 is better made though, like a little jewel. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 4, 2008 Share #14 Posted May 4, 2008 the f3.5 is better made though, like a little jewel. Agree at all: the engravings on the metal front,and the solid compactness of the lens body make it belong to the "little jewel" breed, like the Super Angulon 21 f4. Here is my item... 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! (pic taken with M8 and Summicron DR) Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! (pic taken with M8 and Summicron DR) ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/44776-summaron-m-35mm-f35-for-m2/?do=findComment&comment=551468'>More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 5, 2008 Share #15 Posted May 5, 2008 No body wants to buy them though Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 5, 2008 Share #16 Posted May 5, 2008 Recently, I bought a 35mm f3.5 Summaron no 1179135 (1954) in an absolutelely mint condition. It was made for the M3, wich must be equipped with a 35mm viewfinder in its accessory-shoe to use it. Mounted on my MP it caused the 50mm frames to appear in the viewfinder. A little filing on it's bayonet mount brought it into the condition that it gave the 35mm frames into the viewfinder. Either you use the goggles and the 50 mm framelines are the correct ones for the lens, or you remove the goggles and the focussing will be off at all distances except infinity. The lens will lock at infinity without the goggles for this very reason.In other words: you destroyed the functionality of the lens by filing off the frameline lug....Reduced the value to zero too. Btw, the goggles for the m3 version do not go into the accesory shoe; they fit on the lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 5, 2008 Share #17 Posted May 5, 2008 Either you use the goggles and the 50 mm framelines are the correct ones for the lens, or you remove the goggles and the focussing will be off at all distances except infinity. The lens will lock at infinity without the goggles for this very reason.In other words: you destroyed the functionality of the lens by filing off the frameline lug....Reduced the value to zero too. Btw, the goggles for the m3 version do not go into the accesory shoe; they fit on the lens. Jaap, this isn't completely exact... Summaron 35 3,5 had a complex story... a) The VERY FRIST version of 1954 (the 1.179.xxx quoted by Erik, so as my depicted 1.180.xxx) where indeed for M3, but intended for use with the SBLOO shoe VF; these items bring up the 50mm frame on M8, M3-2-4 (and I think MP too) Then (1956) the goggled version appeared (I have a 1.555.xxx); in the first version of this, goggles where removable : brings up 50mm frame on M3-2-4 etc... c) Then again (1958 - M2 introduction) a version for M2 appeared: no goggles, brings up the 35mm frame on M2-M4... M8 too (and I haven't it... maybe someday, when haven't more to think of equipping my M8...) Agree that filing the bayonet lug is a pity... better to set manually the frame when one likes to use this pleasant oldstyle lens Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 5, 2008 Share #18 Posted May 5, 2008 I did not know that Luigi. That makes it all the more of a pity to file the lug off a mint lens. There cannot be many mint examples left.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 5, 2008 Share #19 Posted May 5, 2008 I did not know that Luigi. That makes it all the more of a pity to file the lug off a mint lens. There cannot be many mint examples left.... MINE for sure ! look at my pic ! And be myself damned if I file and/or sell it ! btw, I think that the rarest is the last version, for M2 (had also a slightly different mount), for it went on the market the same year that the 2,8 version was announced... the 3,5 was built also into the "Postkamera" - fixed focus version. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik van Straten Posted May 6, 2008 Share #20 Posted May 6, 2008 Hello Jaap, You should read my story on the 35mm f3,5 Summaron again. I know, it's a complicated story. I do not speak of the "goggled" version of this lens, but of the very first M-version for the M3, before there were any goggles. The same one Luigi shows. 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.