Screw Mount Summaron f2.8 goggles removed

[colin_d]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for all the thought provoking feedback, fascinating stuff. When it arrives I'll check for the screw mark and anything else that might give it away as a goggled lens, as well as test the focusing distance and take some test shots at various distances. I suppose one option is to ask the seller to provide a set of goggles, but will they work on the ME or is that another blocker for me using it, I think this has already been decided.

 

It's a very frustrating thing, when I found the lens everything was going to plan until I noticed the discrepancy with the focus distance. I've notified the seller about the lens making it clear it most likely won't work but no answer as yet. Stay tuned.

 

Colin

Edited March 21, 2017 by colin_d

[earleygallery]

The proper LTM version of this lens typically sells for higher prices and sells very much more quickly than the goggled version, not surprising considering it's going to appeal to a wider set of users. Could be a reason for someone to pass it off as such.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[colin_d]

The proper LTM version of this lens typically sells for higher prices and sells very much more quickly than the goggled version, not surprising considering it's going to appeal to a wider set of users. Could be a reason for someone to pass it off as such.

I'm not going to write the lens off completely just yet, but the weight of evidence at this stage is against it being usable. If it turns out as expected that it is indeed a goggled lens, then two things surprise me about this episode. Firstly the seller is a Leica specialist who has built up a large successful business dealing in Leica gear it would seem, it surprises me then with their experience they would not realise the lens is not in original state. Secondly given they have established a good well earned reputation, surely they wouldn't jeopardise it with something as obvious as this. It's all a bit weird under the circumstances. 

 

The lens wasn't cheap but it wasn't exorbitant compared to other similar lenses so that didn't worry me so much at the time.

 

Colin 

Edited March 22, 2017 by colin_d

[wizard]

... then two things surprise me about this episode. Firstly the seller is a Leica specialist who has built up a large successful business dealing in Leica gear it would seem, it surprises me then with their experience they would not realise the lens is not in original state. Secondly given they have established a good well earned reputation, surely they wouldn't jeopardise it with something as obvious as this. ...

 Well, mistakes happen when humans are involved. Do keep us posted on whether the lens focuses correctly or not. One questions, however, remains: If you intend to use that lens with an ME (or any other M-Leica for that matter), why did you go for an LTM lens?

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[earleygallery]

I'm not going to write the lens off completely just yet, but the weight of evidence at this stage is against it being usable. If it turns out as expected that it is indeed a goggled lens, then two things surprise me about this episode. Firstly the seller is a Leica specialist who has built up a large successful business dealing in Leica gear it would seem, it surprises me then with their experience they would not realise the lens is not in original state. Secondly given they have established a good well earned reputation, surely they wouldn't jeopardise it with something as obvious as this. It's all a bit weird under the circumstances. 

 

The lens wasn't cheap but it wasn't exorbitant compared to other similar lenses so that didn't worry me so much at the time.

 

Colin 

 

I'm not saying the dealer mislead you but it's possible that the lens was sold to them as a normal LTM lens (dealers don't spot or check everything, there's plenty of examples on the forum of dealers sending out faulty gear to prove this point!).

 

I had the goggled version but use an M2 and got tired of the weight and the dimmer/distorted viewfinder image through the goggles after buying a Skopar to compare with - I found the results very similar in fact. It took me quite a while to find a buyer for the Summaron and it was a near mint/boxed example which I sold for average money.

 

Anyway, wait to get the lens then check it out and see what the answer really is!

Edited March 22, 2017 by earleygallery

[luigi bertolotti]

...dealers don't spot or check everything, there's plenty of examples on the forum of dealers sending out faulty gear to prove this point!)...

Time ago I posted the hilarious story of a faulty lens than I had to return TWICE to one of the best known dealers (they fixed once - reassembled badly - then finally fixed all... by chance, was a Summaron...)

[George Furst]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An aside to this thread, didn't Tom Abrahamsson take the googles off the Summaron 35 and mount them on a 21mm screw mount and it made a wide angle built in viewfinder for the M2 camera. In that way one could avoid using the expensive and easily lost 21mm slide on Viewfinder in the flash shoe. I can be corrected on this but I remember that he advertised to make this modification for Leica owners who preferred the extreme (at the time) wide angle perspective. Maybe that is where your googles went!

[Guest]

An aside to this thread, didn't Tom Abrahamsson take the googles off the Summaron 35 and mount them on a 21mm screw mount and it made a wide angle built in viewfinder for the M2 camera. In that way one could avoid using the expensive and easily lost 21mm slide on Viewfinder in the flash shoe. I can be corrected on this but I remember that he advertised to make this modification for Leica owners who preferred the extreme (at the time) wide angle perspective. Maybe that is where your googles went!

 

Yes, but with respect to the regrettably deceased Tom Abrahamsson, his Leitz-Canada-technician would be expected to have adjusted such constructed ltm-Summarons exactly before a sale.

 

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!

[luigi bertolotti]

They were even adapted to the Super Angulon 3,4 (btw, they also modified the bayonet to bring up 28mm frame on M6... indeed it's the right one for goggle : the "goggled view" of 35 mm frame is around 24/25mm)

 

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!

 

I hadn't thought of a relation with Abrahamsson and Muller works... but can be... they had surely had a discrete success with their 21s with goggles... can be that many of the "goggles deprived" Summarons do come from there... and maybe, for some reason, they didn't care about the Summarons after rework, unless on specific request...

Edited March 22, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[colin_d]

Hi Jan nice to hear about you

There are some with BM mount with a little screw on the side, removing this little screw the BM part can be unscrewed and so the lens can be used as an LTM one

even they are scaled to 70 cm you stop adjusting the range finder at 1 meter btw in this kind of lens there is a small hole in the threaded part of the lens where the little screw sit.

I confirm if necessary that the one coming from the googled for M3 does not work without googles mounts on LTM cameras

 

 

Colin,

 

The one obvious sign that this is not an original LTM lens is the distance scale with 65cm closest focusing point. That is a dead giveaway.

 

It could have been an M lens designed for the M2 or M4, which had the mount removed (M2 and M4 had finders with 35mm frames and did not need the goggles; only M3 models did). If that is the case, it will focus correctly on LTM cameras, from infinity to about 1m but not any closer. LTM cameras had a shorter rangefinder base than the later M bodies - this affected close focus accuracy. Because of this, closest focusing limit on LTM lenses was 1m.

 

You should look at the lens mount threads in the 6 o'clock position of the lens - directly opposite the triangle focusing mark. If you can, post a close-up photo of the area. In the depths of my hard drive I found a photo of the identical mount that could have been a part of your lens - you will see the tiny screw I am referring to. This would have been a Summaron 2.8/35mm which I sold years ago.

 

Cheers,

 

Jan

Today the lens landed. And it hasn't taken too long to find the tell tale signs that it should have the goggles. On the outside ring before the thread there is a small hole, I'm guessing it is the one where the screw mentioned in your messages would sit to hold the goggles in place on the lens. it's not big but going by the photo Jan supplied it looks to be in the right position. Also of some concern there seems to be traces of oil coming from the back of the thread mount area where there is a space. It's not much but it is visible and I can get some on my finger nail if I run it around the ridge inside the thread mount. Can't see any on the aperture blades though. Also, on the inside of the screw thread in one 2cm section, not on the thread itself, there are signs of gouging as if something has been forced over the metal which might indicate work done to it by an amateur, like removing the goggles perhaps?

 

Apart from no goggles, the oil and the gouging it is in remarkable good condition cosmetically and the glass, damn shame. When I get a chance I'll post photos to show what I'm looking at.

 

So now to raise a dispute with the seller, this should be interesting given they are a leica specialist.

Edited March 28, 2017 by colin_d

[wizard]

...

 

So now to raise a dispute with the seller, this should be interesting given they are a leica specialist.

 

Colin,

Before raising a dispute, you may want to check whether the lens focuses correctly. It may have been modified to do so, although I doubt it.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[colin_d]

Colin,

Before raising a dispute, you may want to check whether the lens focuses correctly. It may have been modified to do so, although I doubt it.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

Hi Andy, Did a few tests with a tape measure set out to one metre from a subject, focused through the view finder with camera on kitchen bench top for stability and took a few shots. Images were out of focus on the screen when I zoomed in. Did more at .8m and .7m with same result. When looking at the lens barrel focus scale it didn't match the tape measure distance the camera was from the subject, which seems to confirm what people have said on here about the cam being set for the goggles being attached to the lens. 

 

The seller is indicating they will take it back with a full refund at this point, so maybe no damage done and I'll start looking again for another lens.

 

Colin

[luigi bertolotti]

Giving it back is the best choice : as is it's next to unusable (*) and with no value... to have it fixed doesn't Worth the cost imo... let's say, the seller has been careless, but honest too.

 

(*) unless... on a Leica SM with accessory RF....

Edited March 29, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[colin_d]

Giving it back is the best choice : as is it's next to unusable (*) and with no value... to have it fixed doesn't Worth the cost imo... let's say, the seller has been careless, but honest too.

 

(*) unless... on a Leica SM with accessory RF....

I've returned the lens and the seller has given me a full refund so nothing lost with that enlightening experience.

[romualdo]

Hello from Australia & a newbie to this forum as a poster (have been viewing for a number of years though)

 

I'd just like to continue with this Summaron 35/2.8 LTM thread

 

I purchased one of these (35 f2.8 LTM serial # 1808066) this week locally (ex Sydney) - it appears to be a genuine LTM as it came from a IIIg.

The easiest way to tell is that the distance/focusing scale only goes down to 1m (there are no smaller numbers etched into the scale)

 

I'm wondering if there were versions of this lens that were actually "true LTM's" but had the later version scale that went down to 0.65 or 0.7m (but still only focused to 1m).

 

It appears that some of the pics you see online claiming to be LTM's are actually disassembled "goggled" versions as you can see the scale going down to 0.7 (unless they did occur with the later scale as I have queried above)

 

 

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!

Edited June 7, 2017 by romualdo

[UliWer]

The early 1:2.8/35mm (no googles) had the bayonet flange only screwed on the original LTM thread. You see the little screwhead on the side of the bayonet flange. Some people removed the flange to use it with an LTM body - or sold it for a higher price since the LTM-versions are rarer. Though you always notice whether it is an original LTM version, or a "con"-version looking at the metering scale: original LTM lenses never go down to 0.7m.

[romualdo]

The early 1:2.8/35mm (no googles) had the bayonet flange only screwed on the original LTM thread. You see the little screwhead on the side of the bayonet flange. Some people removed the flange to use it with an LTM body - or sold it for a higher price since the LTM-versions are rarer. Though you always notice whether it is an original LTM version, or a "con"-version looking at the metering scale: original LTM lenses never go down to 0.7m.

So, would one of these "non Goggled" M mount (that can be removed) lenses still effectively work on a Barnack camera ie focus accurately?

[UliWer]

I din't try as I don't dare to remove the very little screw, though I think those lenses will work properly with a LTM body - down to 1m. Most early lenses for the M where original screw-mount versions with a fixed bayonet flange - same design as an LTM to M - adapter.

[a.noctilux]

So, would one of these "non Goggled" M mount (that can be removed) lenses still effectively work on a Barnack camera ie focus accurately?

 

Yes, just like a plain LTM mount lens.

I have tried Summicron 35 and Summaron 2.8/35 (M mount removed of course) on LTM Leica, and focus is spot on ( IIIg, IIIf, II).

In this case SBLOO is a must for framing, even better view than M cameras.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wlaidlaw]

When I bought an LTM 35/2.8 Summaron a few weeks ago, some very kind and knowledgeable members of the forum warned me about this very problem. I bought mine from Peter Coeln at Leicashop. It was described as "Mint" and turned out to be exactly that. Before I bought it, I had it confirmed to me that its focus ring was only graduated to 1m, which meant it was defintely an original LTM lens, not a de-goggled M3 lens. It was a long way from cheap but still about half what folks are asking for the LTM version of the 35 ASPH Summicron. The Summaron has astonished me with its performance. Even wide open on the digital SL, it performs nearly as well as my 35 ASPH Summicron-M. The Summaron is a lot lighter than the Special Edition LTM Summicron ASPH 35. I have the 50mm version of the S.E. lenses, the LTM Summicron 5 and for its modest size, it is amazingly heavy.

 

Wilson