Summaron 35mm f2.8 M39 advice needed

[michali]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a1952 35mm f3.5 Summaron which I use on my Leica Standard & IIIf. It's a great little lens and delivers amazing results. I've even used it on the M9 with an adapter, with pleasing results.

 

I've been looking for a slightly faster 35mm and found a late 1950s f2.8 35mm Summaron.

 

Does anyone have any experience with this lens and if so is it that different to the lens I already have and is it worth shelling out the EURO600.0 for it?

 

Any advice and opinions would be greatly appreciated.

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

I have had both, in M mount form.

 

The f2.8 is, IMHO, significantly better than the f3.5, but it's not worth 600 Euro.

[jaapv]

For that price you should be able to find a Color-Skopar 2.5/35 which is quite a nice little lens with a low-contrast signature.

[bill]

For that price you should be able to find a Color-Skopar 2.5/35 which is quite a nice little lens with a low-contrast signature.

 

I have one, and also a 3.5 Summaron. They are very different in rendition. The CV lens is sharper, more clinical with a pleasing handling of out of focus highlights. I particularly like it with monochrome (Kodak 400CN) film. The Summaron gives a more rounded, more creamy rendition and is definitely a lot softer in the corners.

 

That said, I like 'em both - they are part of the "palette"

 

P.S. I agree about the price - 600 Euros is far too high. It would be too high for the CV too.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[doubice]

I've been looking for a slightly faster 35mm and found a late 1950s f2.8 35mm Summaron.

 

 

The f2.8 is, IMHO, significantly better than the f3.5, but it's not worth 600 Euro.

 

If it is a thread mount 2.8/35mm Summaron, it may be worth more than 600 Euro.

 

I also agree, that the 2.8 is a far better lens than the 3.5 version.

 

Best,

 

Jan

[UliWer]

There are big differences in prices for the 2.8/35 with screw mount and M-Mount. The screw mount versions are rather rare and therefore expensive. You won't be lucky to find one easily for much less than 600,- €.

 

With M-Mount there are two different versions as well, one with goggles for the M3 and one without. Those with goggles seem to be rather frequent on the second hand market, so you could get one for half of the screw-mount price. The M-mount version without goggles goes in between those two.

 

i

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Prices for the Summaron 35 2,8 in screw mount are determined by collectors : they are indeed rather rare; in user terms isn't a "good buy".

[huubl]

There are big differences in prices for the 2.8/35 with screw mount and M-Mount. The screw mount versions are rather rare and therefore expensive. You won't be lucky to find one easily for much less than 600,- €.

 

With M-Mount there are two different versions as well, one with goggles for the M3 and one without. Those with goggles seem to be rather frequent on the second hand market, so you could get one for half of the screw-mount price. The M-mount version without goggles goes in between those two.

 

i

There's even an M2-type M-mount (without goggles) that has a dedicated LTM to M converter. Removing a set screw in the mount enables it to unscrew it and you end up with an LTM screw mount. Later M2 types had a fixed M mount. I understand less of the earlier removable dedicated M mount versions were made and the fact that they can be used on LTM and M-mount bodies makes them highly sought-after and thus expensive too!

 

In the first photo below left is the dedicated M mount lens with the mount removed. The lens in the middle is a true LTM while the one at right is the late fixed M-mount lens.

In the second photo the two M mount lenses show the differences in the mount (removable M-mount lens at right). There are differences in the distance scales and the position and size of the red dot on the M mount lenses and in the coating too (bottom photo).

 

Oh, and nobody mentioned the over-specified built and heft of these lenses. They are at the summit of lens mechanics (together with the DR and rigid 50 Summicron and 8-element 35 Summicron).

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 29, 2010 by huubl

[andym911]

one of the best IMO, I have both and if in excellent condition then the price is ok.....my advice is buy it and be charmed.

 

best andy

[UliWer]

There's even an M2-type M-mount (without goggles) that has a dedicated LTM to M converter. Removing a set screw in the mount enables it to unscrew it and you end up with an LTM screw mount. Later M2 types had a fixed M mount. ....

 

That's interesting and thank you for your illustration.

 

Though I am not sure how to recognize the version with removable M-mount.

 

If I look at your photos mine (No. 1677xxx from 1959) looks like your example with removable mount: red dot not on the mount, and the screw at the position for f/2.8 at the DOF-marking seems to be bigger:

 

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!

 

 

Same similarities when I look at the mount:

 

 

I can see a small screw in the bayonet mount:

 

Did those with removable mount have 1m as closest focussing distance?

Edited June 29, 2010 by UliWer

[doubice]

If a lens originally left the factory as a screw mount version, it will only focus to 1 m - that is the main identifying feature. If you find a screw mount 35mm f2.8 Summaron or 35mm f2 Summicron with a screw mount and 0.7 minimum distance, it will be a lens like yours - where the bayonet adapter was removed.

 

The small set screw at 6 o'clock holds the adapter in place. If you remove it (or loosen it), you may be able to unscrew the adapter and enjoy your lens on an LTM Leica. Some of these adapters are however, very hard to remove - they may be very tightly attached and some are also glued.

 

Best,

 

Jan

[huubl]

That's interesting and thank you for your illustration.

 

Though I am not sure how to recognize the version with removable M-mount.

 

If I look at your photos mine (No. 1677xxx from 1959) looks like your example with removable mount: red dot not on the mount, and the screw at the position for f/2.8 at the DOF-marking seems to be bigger:

....

Did those with removable mount have 1m as closest focussing distance?

That's right. LTMs with 1m minimal are original screw mounts and I believe only 5000 or so were made and therefore, in addition to being excellent lenses (that can be used on screw mount cameras and with a regular adapter on M-mounts), have some extra collectors value. Mine is from 1960.

The 0.7m screw mounts were originally M-mounts with the dedicated converter removed. Also these have a higher (users) value as both LTM and M-mount lenses. I don't know how many were made. Probably less than the M-mount only lenses. M-mount only lenses were the latest incarnation (mine is from 1966).

 

Yours is indeed a dedicated M-mount lens. It's the same vintage as mine (1695...) from 1959. If you can unscrew the set screw (use a well-fitting screwdriver as you don't want to damage the head) it should be possible to unscrew the converter. Mine was easy to remove.

 

Oh, and these lenses are recently rapidly increasing in price. Must have something to do with the M4/3 cameras or the populaity of the digital Ms, but €600 and higher for a nice looking lens seems to be the going rate nowadays.

Edited June 30, 2010 by huubl

[luigi bertolotti]

My one is also as the above posted : screw-fitted M adapter (I can remove it rather easily) and 0,7 min. distance: me too think that the "fully bayonet" M2 version is probably rarer (so as its brother f 3,5 "for M2").

[earleygallery]

I too would suggest the Voigtlander Skopar as a better alternative. The Summaron is indeed more expensive in LTM mount - you have to find one first, then it has to be in good condition or you need to factor in a CLA, many will be a little hazy etc.

 

I have a very nice M goggled version but use the Skopar on my M in preference.

 

The Skopar lenses sit on the LTM cameras very nicely and the LTM 'classic' version has the focus tab which I prefer.

[michali]

Thank you all very much for the feedback, it's really appreciated.

 

The price is rather steep, in fact when I called the dealer today he said there was a mistake and it's now EUR710.00 I'm quite sure it will need some CLA as James has said & of course there's the issue of haze, as with most of these lenses.

 

The Skopar sounds like a good option, I've found several new ones available for around

EUR260.00.

Best

Mike

[Kusanagi]

Boy I was looking at this lens as the price becomes around $2k usd now. Leica lenses are expensive but they don't lose value, they go up instead. I wonder if the OP regretted not buying this lens when it was ONLY around 600 euro. Well if you reading this, are you?

[andybarton]

€600 was 11 years ago.

Yes, lots of Leica lenses do appreciate in value, but that's only realised if you sell them.

And the first rule of "Leica-Club" is...?

[willeica]

35 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

Boy I was looking at this lens as the price becomes around $2k usd now. Leica lenses are expensive but they don't lose value, they go up instead. I wonder if the OP regretted not buying this lens when it was ONLY around 600 euro. Well if you reading this, are you?

That seems to be on the high side. I have these 3 below and they have appreciated in value since I bought them, but not by as much as you indicate. Prices at auction fluctuate, of course, depending on the amount of activity at a particular auction. Activity at used camera/lens auctions remains high, however, despite the pandemic.

https://collectiblend.com/Lenses/Leitz/35mm-f2.8-Summaron-(BM,-chrome,-w-eyes).html

https://collectiblend.com/Lenses/Leitz/35mm-f2.8-Summaron-(BM,-chrome).html

https://collectiblend.com/Lenses/Leitz/35mm-f2.8-Summaron-(SM).html

As for your point about buying for appreciation, I bought these lenses for use and my collection, not to make money out of them. There is an old 'dictum' which advises 'never sell a Leica lens'. If I was buying Leicas for profit, I would have long since become a dealer, which I have no intention of doing.

William

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Kusanagi]

My point was not about getting profit but not to lose the value on something you put so much money on. A lot of people buy Leica to use, as you said. But something could happen anytime, like this pandemic and so people have to sell their gear...Or maybe you want to upgrade to another Leica lens. 
Especially the last decade we got way too many digital camera on the market and the gear you bought 5 years ago lose half of the value already. 
Thanks for your replies

Edited February 3, 2021 by Kusanagi

[willeica]

1 minute ago, Kusanagi said:

My point was not about getting profit but not to lose the value on something you put so much money on. A lot of people buy Leica to use, as you said. But something could happen anytime, like this pandemic and so people have to sell their gear...Or maybe you want to upgrade to another Leica lens. 
Especially the last decade we got way too many digital camera on the market and the gear you bought 5 years ago lose half of the value already. 
Thanks for your replies

I agree about the digital cameras which lose value as soon as you take them out of the box. Generally Leica equipment holds its value better than that of other manufacturers and that is particularly true of Leica lenses. Most of my Leica lenses are worth at least as much and probably more than I paid for them. That applies both to the few new purchases I have made and to the majority which were second hand purchases.

William