Welcome to the Leica Camera Forum!

barnack · February 8th, 2008, 12:31 AM

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.

Michael Hiles · February 8th, 2008, 04:17 AM

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

andybarton · February 8th, 2008, 05:43 AM

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

luigi bertolotti · February 8th, 2008, 07:38 AM

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.

jc_braconi · February 8th, 2008, 10:14 AM

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.

dcoombs · February 8th, 2008, 01:41 PM

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-...tml#post321425

leitz_not_leica · February 8th, 2008, 04:32 PM

I've had the 3.5, but the 2.8 is superior.

roguewave · February 14th, 2008, 09:46 PM

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.

andybarton · February 14th, 2008, 10:07 PM

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...

jc_braconi · February 14th, 2008, 10:17 PM

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.

andybarton · April 22nd, 2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc_braconi

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...

Erik van Straten · April 28th, 2008, 01:51 AM

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.

pelikan1931 · May 4th, 2008, 05:08 PM

the f3.5 is better made though, like a little jewel.

luigi bertolotti · May 4th, 2008, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelikan1931

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...
Summaron35_f35.jpg
(pic taken with M8 and Summicron DR)

andybarton · May 5th, 2008, 08:27 AM

No body wants to buy them though

jaapv · May 5th, 2008, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik van Straten

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.

luigi bertolotti · May 5th, 2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaapv

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)
b) 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

jaapv · May 5th, 2008, 03:37 PM

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....

luigi bertolotti · May 5th, 2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaapv

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.

Erik van Straten · May 6th, 2008, 10:43 PM

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.

February 8th, 2008, 12:31 AM	#1 (permalink)
barnack Neuer Benutzer Join Date: October 20th, 2007 Posts: 15	Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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.

February 8th, 2008, 04:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
Michael Hiles Erfahrener Benutzer Join Date: November 11th, 2006 Location: Montreal Posts: 229	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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

February 8th, 2008, 05:43 AM	#3 (permalink)
andybarton Moderator Join Date: June 21st, 2006 Location: Airstrip 1 - 53:17:00N 03:04:00W Posts: 6,471	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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 __________________ Cheers, Andy ___________________________ 2008 Spring Collection now released

February 8th, 2008, 07:38 AM	#4 (permalink)
luigi bertolotti Erfahrener Benutzer Join Date: January 24th, 2007 Location: Brescia Posts: 2,095	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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.

February 8th, 2008, 10:14 AM	#5 (permalink)
jc_braconi Erfahrener Benutzer Join Date: March 20th, 2004 Posts: 372	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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. __________________ regards JC Last edited by jc_braconi : February 8th, 2008 at 10:35 AM.

February 8th, 2008, 01:41 PM	#6 (permalink)
dcoombs Benutzer Join Date: December 3rd, 2006 Posts: 90	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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-...tml#post321425

February 8th, 2008, 04:32 PM	#7 (permalink)
leitz_not_leica Erfahrener Benutzer Join Date: December 13th, 2002 Location: Where My Hardhat Hangs Posts: 133	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 I've had the 3.5, but the 2.8 is superior.

February 14th, 2008, 09:46 PM	#8 (permalink)
roguewave Erfahrener Benutzer Join Date: January 13th, 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 2,065	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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. __________________ Ben ~~~~ _/) ~~~

February 14th, 2008, 10:07 PM	#9 (permalink)
andybarton Moderator Join Date: June 21st, 2006 Location: Airstrip 1 - 53:17:00N 03:04:00W Posts: 6,471	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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... __________________ Cheers, Andy ___________________________ 2008 Spring Collection now released

February 14th, 2008, 10:17 PM	#10 (permalink)
jc_braconi Erfahrener Benutzer Join Date: March 20th, 2004 Posts: 372	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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. __________________ regards JC

April 28th, 2008, 01:51 AM	#12 (permalink)
Erik van Straten Neuer Benutzer Join Date: April 28th, 2008 Posts: 27	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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.

May 4th, 2008, 05:08 PM	#13 (permalink)
pelikan1931 Erfahrener Benutzer Join Date: July 2nd, 2004 Posts: 174	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 the f3.5 is better made though, like a little jewel.

May 5th, 2008, 08:27 AM	#15 (permalink)
andybarton Moderator Join Date: June 21st, 2006 Location: Airstrip 1 - 53:17:00N 03:04:00W Posts: 6,471	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 No body wants to buy them though __________________ Cheers, Andy ___________________________ 2008 Spring Collection now released

May 5th, 2008, 03:37 PM	#18 (permalink)
jaapv Erfahrener Benutzer Join Date: September 14th, 2004 Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands Posts: 4,976	Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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.... __________________ Jaap MY GALLERYAt RFF My NEW gallery: http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/brow...r&imageuser=50

May 6th, 2008, 10:43 PM	#20 (permalink)
Erik van Straten Neuer Benutzer Join Date: April 28th, 2008 Posts: 27	AW: Re: Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5 for M2 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.