Summicron ver. I with goggles on m7

[Franek_]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

 

In fact, I'm on this forum for some time and have read many topics there, but this is my first topic, so first of all - hi there

 

 

I've got a question, because I adore classic look of that older lenses, especially on black and white film - how exactly works goggled lenses? As far as I'm concerned, 35mm goggled lens brings up 50mm framelines and enlarge it so that something like 35mm frames is visible in the finder. My question is - what would I see in the finder of my M7 (0.72) when I mount goggled 35mm lens? What framelines and focus path? Is there any difference (I mean the difference within the finder) between goggled 35 lens and standard lens which brings 35mm framelines?

 

regards

Maciej

[luigi bertolotti]

Hello,

 

In fact, I'm on this forum for some time and have read many topics there, but this is my first topic, so first of all - hi there

 

 

I've got a question, because I adore classic look of that older lenses, especially on black and white film - how exactly works goggled lenses? As far as I'm concerned, (1) 35mm goggled lens brings up 50mm framelines and (2) enlarge it so that something like 35mm frames is visible in the finder. My question is - what would I see in the finder of my M7 (0.72) when I mount goggled 35mm lens? What framelines and focus path? Is there any difference (I mean the difference within the finder) between goggled 35 lens and standard lens which brings 35mm framelines?

 

regards

Maciej

Welcome to the Forum, Maciej !!!

 

(1) Right : a goggled 35 lens will bring up the 50mm frame on your M7 too

 

(2) Not exactly : it's the view that, thanks to the lens of the goggles, is reduced (larger field of view) so that a 35mm scene fits into the 50mm frame  (with a goggled Elmarit 135 is opposite : the 90mm frame encompasses an enlarged - reduced field of view - image , to say a 135mm scene)

 

So if you mount a goggled 35 on your M7, you will see a frame that, correctly, encompasses a 35mm field of view... you can forget it is the "native" 50mm frame... it's confusing...  : for you, it is a 35mm frame, period.

 

You have only advantages using a "native-ungoggled" 35mm lens...: the lens is lighter and easier to carry, the handling is better, the Viewfinder is brighter (and , often, you have a newer better lens...  )

 

There is only ONE Leitz 35mm lens that can cause further confusion...  ... the very first Summaron 35 f 3,5 for M3:  it brings up the 50mm frame... but is ungoggled

[Franek_]

Hello and thank You for Your kind response.

 

I was thinking about 1st version of Summicron, 35/2 with goggles. Please tell me one more thing - what about the focusing path? Is it the same with goggled lens? The speed of focusing is for me main reason why I still use Leica, otherwise I would go for autofocus or different rangefinder, but that path is so bright, contrast and easy-to-focus in m7 that for me it cannot be matched by anything different. So, how that path will look like with googled lens?

 

And please correct me if I'm not right - mounting the goggled 35/2 lens would bring up 50mm frames, but in the finder it would be just as standard 35mm frames, right?

[adan]

Mounting the goggled 35 lens does bring up 50mm lines. The goggles are divergent lenses, so they then "shrink" the actual world in front of the viewfinder so that 35mm worth of scenery fits inside the 50mm viewfinder lines, for correct framing.

 

Like this: http://pre04.deviantart.net/8919/th/pre/i/2008/335/4/a/diverging_lens_by_rdza_na_reno.jpg

 

In terms of brightness and contrast of the viewfinder, that will depend on the condition of the goggles, all of which are over a half-century old. If they are hazy, cloudy or dirty, your M7 view will also be lower-contrast and/or dimmer than normal. You'll just have to try a specific unit and see how it looks.

 

In terms of the focusing light path geometry, it changes due to the "shrinkage" or de-magnification of the scene being viewed. The cam or machined surface on the back of the lens, that presses on the camera's focus lever, is machined differently for goggled 35 lenses, to compensate for the changed optical geometry, so focusing should feel and look the same. But a 35mm lens made to be paired with goggles will NOT focus correctly if the goggles are removed. It must be used as originally designed - with the goggles in place and the original cam in place.

[TomB_tx]

I have the goggled 35 for my M3. The googles are pristine after a trip to DAG, but even so I find the finder view more flare prone and affected. I much prefer a non-goggled 35 view on an M2 or later M.

The pictures from the goggled v1 35 are very nice anyway, but on my M6 I prefer my v2 35 Summicron for its higher contrast. The v2 is a relative bargain on the used market. 

[Maarten]

Hi Maciej,

 

As an alternative I can recommend the 2.8 Summaron 35mm without goggles.

Affordable and from the same period as the 35mm Summicron (1) and a stellar performer on B&W film.

You give in some of the magic of using the Summicron, but you don't have the bulk of the goggles.

Once you get used to the Summaron you won't sell it anymore, I promise!

 

Maarten

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree - if you are not firmly set on a Summicron the Summaron 2.8 is a great lens. Mine seems to have more contrast than the v1 Summicron also. The build and handling are identical.

[Jean-Michel]

Hi,

I have and use a 35 Summicron with 'goggles' (built in 1962). That lens was back-focusing on my M9  and was amazingly well adjusted by DAG. Leica no longer services this lens but Dan Goldberg does.

 

I originally purchased it for use on an M4 or M3, mainly because I wear glasses and I find it difficult to see the outer parts of the M viewfinders, the 50 mm frame is the best one for me to see out. If I did not wear glasses I would not have a googled version as it does make the focusing patch smaller and therefore perhaps a bit more difficult to focus accurately, but after well over 40, years of using that lens that is not an issue for me. 

 

There are many comparisons between all the versions of 35 lenses on this forum and on other sites, all very helpful. All I know is that I now print 20 by 30 inches (50 by 76 cm)  images made with this lens and they are quite stunning. I see no reason at all for getting the newest lens as my old one is more than good enough for me.

 

So, if you wear glasses this lens may be for you, but if you don't I would suggest to get one without 'goggles'.

 

Jean-Michel

[james.liam]

I agree - if you are not firmly set on a Summicron the Summaron 2.8 is a great lens. Mine seems to have more contrast than the v1 Summicron also. The build and handling are identical.

 

Different creatures living in the very same mechanical container. Some even prefer Summaron ƒ/2.8; relatively higher contrast and just a different look. Not a Mandler design, in contrast to the Summicron. Both are great on B&W film and the Monochroms. Haven't shot them with color and from what I've seen, not what they were meant for (personal aesthetic).

[Franek_]

Hi Maciej,

 

As an alternative I can recommend the 2.8 Summaron 35mm without goggles.

Affordable and from the same period as the 35mm Summicron (1) and a stellar performer on B&W film.

You give in some of the magic of using the Summicron, but you don't have the bulk of the goggles.

Once you get used to the Summaron you won't sell it anymore, I promise!

 

Maarten

Thank You! Maybe the 35/2.8 is worth trying. In fact, 90% of situations worth to photograph takes place during the day. And, it's very rare to see a really good photo taken with the lens opened more than f/4.

[tobey bilek]

even crystal clear goggles cause loss of contrast.  I have had several.  

 

If you remove the goggles,  the lens will not focus properly.

 

Using digital and film Leicas and Nikon AFS lenses,   a properly set up professional lens is nearly instantaneous and perfect focus.  Even the older screw drive lenses are almost as fast.    

[Franek_]

So, even a lens in such nice condition as f.e. this one: will make the finder less clear and harder to focus?

[gyoung]

Yes,as a natural consequence of having more elements of glass to look through.

I have an M3 and a mk 1 Summicron with goggles and an M6ttl with an aspheric Summicron and the only advantage of the M6ttl viewfinder is the nice clear (approximately) 35mm frame, although its not so accurate, being pretty close to a 40mm angle of view.

 

Gerry

[earleygallery]

I had a goggled Summaron I used on my M2. Nice lens but I bought a Skopar & sold the Summaron - makes perfect sense on an M3 but it's just extra weight and an impaired viewfinder on the other M's.

[spydrxx]

Years ago I had the opportunity to use a goggled lens on my M film body for about a month, while I was deciding what lens to get for my newly purchased M4. While the goggles certainly did their job well, there was an additional factor of weight and flare, so I bought a 35 Summaron 2.8 and it served me exceedingly well for over 20 years. Stupidly I sold it for a more modern 35 Summilux which, although a much crisper lens, lacked the "look" I had grown accustomed to. These days I'm using a VC Color Skopar, which renders much more like a Summicron, but I still miss the old Summaron 2.8, I'm just too cheap to spend the money on one these days.

[Franek_]

So, I finally bought the goggled 35/2.8. And I have to say that there is no problem with focusing, the viewfinder is very clear, in fact it's hard to see any difference within viewfinder between the goggled lens and the standard one. I need to test the lens right now, but I'm quite confident, that performance will be just fine.