35mm frame not showing up when mounting summaron 35 to M2

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello rodluvan,

 

You don't have to wait to get your film back:

 

If the goggles are simply widening the field & are not altering the position of the movable rangefinder patch:

 

You can:

 

Put your M3 on a tripod.

 

Put your 35mm lens w/o goggles on the camera.

 

Focus on something with the range/viewfinder at a marked distance such as 1 or 1.5 meters.

 

Measure the distance from the back of the accessory shoe to the object with a measuring tape.

 

The measured distance, the range/viewfinder distance & the marked distance should all be the same.

 

PUT THE GOGGLES BACK ON.

 

Repeat all of the above.

 

All 3 distances should once again be the same.

 

Repeat what you did with the M3 with the M2. All should be as above EXCEPT: The projected M2, 50mm frame, within a miniaturized viewfinder image, should always be in view.

 

All 3 distances should be the same each of the 4 times.

 

Let us know what happens & if ANY of the 3 measured or marked distances does not always agree with the others.

 

You don't need film to do this part of the test.

 

But you do need a tripod or you need the camera to be in EXACTLY the same spot on a solid table.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael.

[rodluvan]

Ok, Michael, I will try and muster the energy for that this weekend.

The reason I wanted the film was to see if it focused correct at all. Sure I could do it comparing to my 50 'cron in a roundabout manner, but I wanted it black on white (no pun intended).

 

Anyway, the results came back and the lens is just smashing!!!! What surpriced me most is that it doesn't seem to have any barrel-distortion at all, nothing I'm use to with this wide a lens.

 

A few just because I'm so happy about it

[luigi bertolotti]

A happy end... ; Summarons ARE fine lenses, and b&w on film is probably the best field in which they can prove this... : on this media, I doubt that a modern Summicron 35 asph, at 4 or 5,6 can show something better.

[Falstaff]

Lovely shots.

Are these with or without goggles?

I also have the 35/2.8 with goggles and while the lens renders beautifully, I find the goggles a pain.

 

Falstaff

[rodluvan]

Lovely shots.

Are these with or without goggles?

I also have the 35/2.8 with goggles and while the lens renders beautifully, I find the goggles a pain.

 

Falstaff

 

With the googles, but I use about ƒ/11- ƒ/8 as often as I can and rely on zonefocus most of the time as time to focus is scarce, also the lens need lubrication, as focus is VERY stiff.

 

Coming from a d3x with huge Zeiss lenses (1.4/35) the googles are a small distraction

 

And thanks!

[Falstaff]

With the googles, but I use about ƒ/11- ƒ/8 as often as I can and rely on zonefocus most of the time as time to focus is scarce, also the lens need lubrication, as focus is VERY stiff.

 

Coming from a d3x with huge Zeiss lenses (1.4/35) the googles are a small distraction

 

And thanks!

 

Reason I find it a pain is because I find that the goggles dim the viewfinder by a little - at least for me.

Have you taken any without the goggles?

Thanks

Falstaff

[rodluvan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Reason I find it a pain is because I find that the goggles dim the viewfinder by a little - at least for me.

Have you taken any without the goggles?

Thanks

Falstaff

 

I actually was surprised how little the googles infringed on the viewing experienced, try as I could, I could not tell that the googles were on. But remember, I haven't used Leicas much before, so I don't have much to compare with.

No, I haven't tried the 35mm with googles off as I'm not sure it'll focus correctly.

 

I've used the 50 cron without the googles obviously.

[fsprow]

A question:

 

Could the "goggled" lenses have their goggles removed and focus correctly using the EVF on the Leica M?

[rodluvan]

A question:

 

Could the "goggled" lenses have their goggles removed and focus correctly using the EVF on the Leica M?

 

I'm guessing the EVF looks trough the lens directly, so googles on or off doesn't matter in that case. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

[luigi bertolotti]

I'm guessing the EVF looks trough the lens directly, so googles on or off doesn't matter in that case. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Exactly : EVF = reflex, in practice... of course, as usual, removing the goggles would result in uncorrect frame in the optical Viewfinder.

[Falstaff]

Exactly : EVF = reflex, in practice... of course, as usual, removing the goggles would result in uncorrect frame in the optical Viewfinder.

 

So just to spell it out (for me), on any M, goggles off and the incorrect framelines come up BUT the focusing is ok.

Or is that the case only for the latest digital M?

 

Falstaff

[earleygallery]

Going on what I was told and read elsewhere when I bought a goggled Summaron, no it will not focus correctly without the goggles.

 

I've not tried it (mine are the fixed type) and as I use the Skopar I'll sell my Summaron though it's a lovely lens. I don't mind the goggles but they add some bulk/weight.

[rulnacco]

As there was quite a bit of inaccurate information bandied about in some posts earlier in this thread, let's summarise this (no pun intended!):

 

Goggled Summarons (and similarly goggled 35 Summicrons and Summiluxes--I've handled both but never owned either) are not designed to be used without the goggles. Not only do the goggles shrink the 35 field of view down to fit the 50 frame line on the M3 (and other M bodies), they ensure correct focusing. If you remove the goggles, your rangefinder will not focus properly--while the image may appear to be in focus in your viewfinder, the actual focus point will not match what you see.

 

It is possible to use the Summaron (or the other 35 lenses mentioned above) without the goggles, but you will have to either estimate the distance and scale focus, or stop down and use zone focusing. Some of the Summarons (particularly, I think, the 3.5s--I'm not entirely sure, as mine is the 2.8) were designed to have their goggles removed relatively easily, but this was simply for storage--they were still not intended to be used without them.

 

The goggles on the Dual Range 50 (5cm) Summicron were a different thing altogether. It didn't need them at normal ranges, but they allowed accurate focusing and framing at less than 1 metre, which was the minimum distance that Leica lenses could focus during that era. (Except for, besides the DR Summicron...the goggled 35s! One nice thing about the goggles is that those versions of the 35s can focus down to 0.65 metres or even slightly closer, which is even nearer than modern Leica lenses which can only focus to a minimum distance of 0.7 metres.)

[joeswe]

The goggles on the Dual Range 50 (5cm) Summicron were a different thing altogether. It didn't need them at normal ranges, but they allowed accurate focusing and framing at less than 1 metre, which was the minimum distance that Leica lenses could focus during that era. (Except for, besides the DR Summicron...the goggled 35s! One nice thing about the goggles is that those versions of the 35s can focus down to 0.65 metres or even slightly closer, which is even nearer than modern Leica lenses which can only focus to a minimum distance of 0.7 metres.)

 

Just for the record and to avoid confusion, of course apart from the DR Summicron and the goggled 35mm lenses, the non-goggled M-mount versions of the 60s Summaron 35 and Summicron 35 would also focus down to 0.7m -- just not fully rangefinder coupled on an M3, for that you have to have an M2 etc or the goggled versions!