35mm Summaron/f2.8, Rollei 40mm/f2.8 HFT Sonnar or 11608 ASPH LTM Summicron 35

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am thinking of getting a 35mm lens for use on my various LTM cameras. I have lots of different 50mm LTM lenses including a 11619 Series V Summicron and an f1.5 Summarit plus various Elmars, a Hektor and a Summitar but I actually prefer the 35mm length for general photography. I don't really feel I can justify the cost of the 11608 ASPH Summicron (I already have an M version of this lens), so it probably comes down to a choice between the Leica Summaron or the Rollei HFT Sonnar. I have read mixed reports of the Rollei. Some say it is a poor version of the Sonnar, made in Singapore. Others claim it was made by Cosina in Japan but it does seem to say: "Made in Germany" but by whom? I doubt if it was F&H. Anyone got any experience with this lens? The Rollei has the advantage that it is a lot newer than the newest Summaron, which would now be 54 years old at least. The Rollei is available at slightly less than a good (or so claimed) 2.8 Summaron. 

 

Wilson

[graphlex]

Konica made a 35mm f/2 Hexanon in LTM, given high marks by Dante Stella and others.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

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

[graphlex]

Also worth considering are 35mm LTM Nikkors.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wlaidlaw]

Also worth considering are 35mm LTM Nikkors.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

I looked at quite a number of 5cm/f1.4 Nikkors, before I got my Summarit last year. Every single one I looked at had some degree of fogging and most had some balsam separation. They had all been bought from Japan, where they had spent the majority of their life, so I suspect the heat and humidity of the summers there, may have been a factor. The same argument of age as on the Summarons applies to the 35 Nikkors. You can be lucky, I bought a 1952 5cm/f1.8 "Hiroshi" LTM Serenar from Japan and it is as bright and clean as the day as it was made. Supposedly, the earlier chrome Canon LTM lenses are less fogging prone than the later black barrel models. Thanks for the heads up on the Konica, I had forgotten about those. Any Hexanon lens I have used has been excellent. 

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

I could only find one LTM 35mm Hexanon for sale and it was 3 times the price of the Rollei Sonnar HFT!

[MRTEE]

Hi Wilson, There's also the Canon 35mm f2, and CV 35mm f2.5 to consider. Thought you might like a couple of pics. I recently bought the above lenses and will be trying them out throughout the summer.

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!

[MRTEE]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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!

[michaelwj]

Also the CV 1.7/35 ltm Ultron, but it might be getting a bit big for a Barnack.

But really, the body deserves a period correct summaron! The age argument also applies to the body you are happily shooting.

[MRTEE]

Indeed a good Summaron is no slouch.

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!

[willeica]

My contribution is below. On the left is a 35mm f2.8 Summaron on a IIIf Black Dial (converted from IIIc, you should be able to see the 'shark skin') and on the right there is a Canon 35mm f 2.8 on a IIIf Red Dial. In terms of image quality there is nothing to choose between these two lenses, even when they are tested on a modern digital M. They are not quite as good as a modern 35mm Summicron Asph, but they are not that far off it.

 

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!

 

 

The Canon lens came with the camera on the right as did the SBLOO 35mm viewfinder in the middle. I also got the IROOA hood on the right with the camera and a lovely leather Leica case with a holder for the SBLOO. I already had an IROOA for the Summaron.

 

You cannot go wrong with either of these lenses.

 

William

 

 

Edited April 23, 2017 by willeica

[wlaidlaw]

R0010364-01-1280x853.jpeg

 

I already have a CV 35/2.5 Mk.1. It is even too light to make a decent paperweight   I assume its optical cell must be de-centred. 

 

I know what the Summaron is like but what I really wanted to know was if anyone had used the Rollei Sonnar 40 HFT. I know of a nice one for sale at about 80% of what I would have to pay for a semi-decent and much older 2.8 Summaron. I like the 40mm focal length and use my Summicron C all the time on my CL, especially after Malcolm Taylor waved his magic wand over it. 

 

Wilson

[willeica]

I have no idea what my Canon lens would cost, as I bought it at auction in a 'package', but it should be much less than a Summaron. There is nothing to choose in terms of IQ.

 

William

[wlaidlaw]

Also the CV 1.7/35 ltm Ultron, but it might be getting a bit big for a Barnack.

But really, the body deserves a period correct summaron! The age argument also applies to the body you are happily shooting.

 

Bodies seem to last better than lenses. I gave up trying to find a good Taylor, Taylor & Hobson 2"/f2 Anastigmat to go with my Reid and Sigrist Model III Mk.2 at anything approaching a reasonable price. In the end I bought a mint series 5 LTM 50/2 Special Edition Summicron for less than half what I would have had to pay for an adequate TT&H Anastigmat. However I know what you mean about having Leica lenses on Leica bodies. 

[wlaidlaw]

I have no idea what my Canon lens would cost, as I bought it at auction in a 'package', but it should be much less than a Summaron. There is nothing to choose in terms of IQ.

 

William

William, The Canon 35/2 lenses are about half what a similar condition Summaron 2.8 costs. However I would probably prefer to go for one of the earlier 35/1.8 Chrome lenses, with infinity lock from the aesthetic POV. I have never been a fan of the appearance of the black and chrome Canon LTM lenses. 

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

The other thing I am worried about with buying a Summaron, is that some of the so called LTM lenses are the front part of a DR outfit unscrewed from the goggles. There is one of Fleabay at the moment and you can see the grub screw hole in the thread. These will not RF couple properly I understand. 

 

Wilson

[willeica]

I have many Leica lenses, enough to fit all of my many Leica cameras and then some. This f2.8 lens from Canon gives away nothing to anything similar from Leitz. In my SLR days I was a true Nikon man. Yes, the Summaron looks nicer, but if this is about image quality and 'value for money', I can give the little Canon 35mm f2.8 a definite recommendation. I have a friend who has a massive collection of cameras, including many Japanese Leica copies; he has a fabulous looking black paint Canon 6 with a matching lens that is nicer than any black paint M3 that I have seen. He tells me that early Canon lenses can vary greatly in quality eg. he says that the spectacular looking Canon 50mm f 0.95 is not a good lens in terms of image quality. It will look mighty spectacular to walk around with, however.

 

William

[willeica]

The other thing I am worried about with buying a Summaron, is that some of the so called LTM lenses are the front part of a DR outfit unscrewed from the goggles. There is one of Fleabay at the moment and you can see the grub screw hole in the thread. These will not RF couple properly I understand. 

 

Wilson

You need to check minimum focus distance. If it is 1 metre, it is a genuine LTM and will focus properly on an LTM camera. If it is 0.7 metre it is an M model with the mount removed and will not focus properly on an LTM camera.

 

William

Edited April 23, 2017 by willeica

[a.noctilux]

You need to check minimum focus distance. If it is 1 metre, it is a genuine LTM and will focus properly on an LTM camera. If it is 0.7 metre it is an M model with the mount removed and will not focus properly on an LTM camera.

 

William

 

 

William,

 

May I have another theory then:

- if Summicron 2/35 or Summaron 2.8/35 LTM (or adapted one) has  0.70m minimum focus distance  the lens should focus coupled well on LTM Leica

 I have tried those on my Leica II /III/ IIIg it's correct

- if the minimum focus is 0.65m then it's the lens that was equiped with goggles (but removed ) this will not couple well to LTM body focus

- if this is 1m then that's the genuine LTM mount from the factory

 

...

Wilson,

May I suggest trying "8 element Summicron 2/35" that one is superb but rare and expensive in "real LTM , 1m".

Less expensive like mine in "adapted LTM, 0.7m coupled to 1m" for me the best 35mm in LTM with Leica character

 

Best regards,

 

Arnaud

[wlaidlaw]

William,

 

May I have another theory then:

- if Summicron 2/35 or Summaron 2.8/35 LTM (or adapted one) has  0.70m minimum focus distance  the lens should focus coupled well on LTM Leica

 I have tried those on my Leica II /III/ IIIg it's correct

- if the minimum focus is 0.65m then it's the lens that was equiped with goggles (but removed ) this will not couple well to LTM body focus

- if this is 1m then that's the genuine LTM mount from the factory

 

...

Wilson,

May I suggest trying "8 element Summicron 2/35" that one is superb but rare and expensive in "real LTM , 1m".

Less expensive like mine in "adapted LTM, 0.7m coupled to 1m" for me the best 35mm in LTM with Leica character

 

Best regards,

 

Arnaud

 

Arnaud, 

 

Who adapted your Summicron for you? I assume this was adapted from an M2 non-goggles Summicron 35. The Summicron (either 8 element or Special Edition ASPH/LTM) would be my first choice but I had ruled them both out because of the price. It is all a bit of an indulgence to get an LTM 35mm lens, as I can use my 35 ASPH Summicron-M and 35 ASPH Summilux-M on my film M cameras (M4 and CL). In fact I have been out this morning with the CL and 35 Summicron. I was hoping to be able to photograph some French politicians hanging around the poling booths, as they do in the UK but nobody in evidence and polling looked very light. During the half hour I was there, only three people went in to vote. 

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wlaidlaw]

I have many Leica lenses, enough to fit all of my many Leica cameras and then some. This f2.8 lens from Canon gives away nothing to anything similar from Leitz. In my SLR days I was a true Nikon man. Yes, the Summaron looks nicer, but if this is about image quality and 'value for money', I can give the little Canon 35mm f2.8 a definite recommendation. I have a friend who has a massive collection of cameras, including many Japanese Leica copies; he has a fabulous looking black paint Canon 6 with a matching lens that is nicer than any black paint M3 that I have seen. He tells me that early Canon lenses can vary greatly in quality eg. he says that the spectacular looking Canon 50mm f 0.95 is not a good lens in terms of image quality. It will look mighty spectacular to walk around with, however.

 

William

William,

 

Certainly my 1952 50/1.8 Canon Hiroshi Serenar blows my later (1957) Summarit out of the water for contrast and resolution (both at f2). Maybe a bit unfair to the Summarit, as it has not been serviced yet and the Serenar is mint but I suspect the Summarit will never match the Serenar. I am afraid I cannot get to like the black barrel Canons on LTM cameras. It just offends my eyes for some reason. I agree about the Canon 5cm f0.95. It makes even my Summarit look high contrast. I sold mine about 10 years ago, when I bought an f1 Noctilux. 

 

Wilson