pico Posted December 29, 2016 Share #1 Posted December 29, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Critique 35mm Summaron f/3.5 An attractive body cap that in an emergency can make an image. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 Hi pico, Take a look here Critique 35mm Summaron f/3.5. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted December 29, 2016 Share #2 Posted December 29, 2016 You must have a bad copy. Actually it is quite a nice lens that is not far behind its successors, the Summaron 2.8 and Summicron 35. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted December 29, 2016 Share #3 Posted December 29, 2016 Pico, how is that you are so negative on one of my preferred classics ? Keep in mind... it's a design of 50's... and the first new design of Leitz after WWII... (btw, my personal Christmas gift has been my 6th Summaron 35 3,5... ) 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted December 29, 2016 Share #4 Posted December 29, 2016 I've got an early one too Luigi...with cap and hood. It took me a bit of time to learn how to use it well...now I really like it. all best for next year... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted December 29, 2016 Share #5 Posted December 29, 2016 I've had my LTM version since 1969, and when browsing through some M9 test shot of a variety of old lenses, when the Summaron popped up my wife noted how good it looked. However contrast was low, and it was obviously fogged internally. Since then I had DAG clean it, and was amazed at the improvement. So if my wife liked it before cleaning, I need to show her the improvement. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted December 29, 2016 Share #6 Posted December 29, 2016 (edited) Taken with 35mm Summaron f 3.5 (earlier LTM version) on M9 with adaptor. I find that the 'Summaron family' are generally very nice lenses. 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! William Edited December 29, 2016 by willeica 5 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! William ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267809-critique-35mm-summaron-f35/?do=findComment&comment=3175434'>More sharing options...
platypus Posted December 30, 2016 Share #7 Posted December 30, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Critique 35mm Summaron f/3.5 An attractive body cap that in an emergency can make an image. It's true that comment is negative....but also very amusing. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted December 30, 2016 Share #8 Posted December 30, 2016 (edited) 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! It's a cutie. Number 888109 Edited December 30, 2016 by david strachan 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! It's a cutie. Number 888109 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267809-critique-35mm-summaron-f35/?do=findComment&comment=3175474'>More sharing options...
pico Posted December 30, 2016 Author Share #9 Posted December 30, 2016 (edited) To follow up. During a constantly interrupted sleep I tried to rationalize how the Summaron could perform so badly. Was it the new camera? Not likely. No luck, no joy. So today i photographed the same easy test scenes under the same sky I had done with the Summaron, but this time with a 35mm Summilux V2 at the same aperture, f/5.6, and the same camera settings The outcome was the usual brilliance I have appreciated with the Summilux. So, indeed, as others have suggested I must simply have a bad copy of the Summaron. I'm delighted to know for certain... that I have a new body cap. Thank you all for your gentle corrections. Edited December 30, 2016 by pico 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted December 30, 2016 Share #10 Posted December 30, 2016 Have a look at the rear element of the lens: usually the rear elements of all Summarons (2.8, 3.5 and 5.6) look foggy. Normally this is not a big problem, but with some examples it may be worse. My 5.6/28 mm wasn't usable at first when I had bought it. After the lens was cleaned it is as you could wish. ' Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 30, 2016 Author Share #11 Posted December 30, 2016 Have a look at the rear element of the lens: usually the rear elements of all Summarons (2.8, 3.5 and 5.6) look foggy. Normally this is not a big problem, but with some examples it may be worse. My 5.6/28 mm wasn't usable at first when I had bought it. After the lens was cleaned it is as you could wish. ' I inspected the lens, front and back with a strong light - no fog, haze, fungus. Given how little respect I have for this sample I have brought out my lens tools and will dissect it part by part from the back. Given what a terrible performer it is I have nothing to lose. . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted December 31, 2016 Share #12 Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) What exactly is wrong with it pico? Is it too soft through the whole range? Too low contrast? Doesn't focus properly? Mines pretty low contrast...but I pick up more dynamic range that way.... :-)) Have a healthy year ahead, all best... Edited December 31, 2016 by david strachan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stray cat Posted December 31, 2016 Share #13 Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) Pico, I find your review most perplexing. I have a copy of the M3 version from 1958 and it is an absolutely delightful little lens. I don't like to compare such things as a rule but I would happily use this lens anywhere I'd choose to use my Summicron version IV 35mm - and that is my all-time favourite lens. It might well be that you have a bad copy. Then again, I use mine with film, in the manner for which it was intended, and perhaps you are using yours with digital - that might account for the disparity, although I doubt it, as most lenses seem to perform well either way. Please be sure to update this thread on the results of your further investigation. And if possible, perhaps try to beg, borrow or steal another example to compare the performance. I hope it is OK to quote this here - I forget where I found it, and it might mean nothing, but this is came from internet wisdom when I was researching before I bought my copy: I just compared in equal conditions three double-Gauss-type lenses: the Summaron 35mm f2.8, the Summaron (2 items) 35mm f3.5 (both with eyes, coated, 6e/4g), and the Summicron 35mm f2.0 (the first version of 1958, 8 elements in 6 groups). The film: Kodak 100 Pro, cameras: two M3 and the M4P. All three lenses are in perfect condition, absolutely clean and clear with no any cleaning marks, spots and fog. The conditions of shooting: 1) sun shining, slightly cloudy, F-stop: full open, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 16; lens shade; 2) interior, F-stop: full open only, lens shade, the heavy Linhof tripod, no flash.All three films were developed and printed in the same pro lab on format 15 X 21.5cm.Results of expertise by three (including me) independent experts made: there is no any flare at all on the pics having either the sun or its water reflections in the frame along with full resolving of fine details in deep shadows. There is no any* difference between shots made with ‘cron and both (+1) Summaron’s: a very crisp rendering with subtle color saturation, high contrast and resolving power either wide open or stopped down. *The Summicron shows very slightly less contrast in any conditions, as two experts (including me) do notice (issue of 12 borders air/glass vs 8 ones). The pics taken with Summaron’s full open have no any difference between them, while they differ a bit from the ones taken with the Summicron full open: the last make slightly less contrast. All three lenses make a good-looking bokeh. The pics made in the interior have less contrast than ones taken in exterior, while they still show a very good resolving of fine details and color rendition. The bottom line: all three lens are great performers. (Edit: I found the original link - http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007KmD). Edited December 31, 2016 by stray cat Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lucan Posted December 31, 2016 Share #14 Posted December 31, 2016 Taken with 35mm Summaron f 3.5 (earlier LTM version) on M9 with adaptor. I find that the 'Summaron family' are generally very nice lenses. Rhodo 1.jpg William Lovely photo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universalb50 Posted December 31, 2016 Share #15 Posted December 31, 2016 By coincidence I recently had a 1955 production Summaron 35/3.5 LTM undergo a CLA: it's now in fine, about as new condition. I compared with my Summicron 35 ASPH, using tripod, M9, accurately adjusted ranger finder, and generic daylight non artistic photography. Yes, the ASPH is a tiny bit better in "sharpness", but I'd also think your Summaron may be defective if your so dissatisfied? The Summaron might be a nice addition for someone doing touristic, snapshot level photography who wants a very small lens but who can't afford something like the Elmarit 28 ASPH? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 1, 2017 Share #16 Posted January 1, 2017 (edited) I inspected the lens, front and back with a strong light - no fog, haze, fungus. Given how little respect I have for this sample I have brought out my lens tools and will dissect it part by part from the back. Given what a terrible performer it is I have nothing to lose. . Pico... one of my Summaron 3,5 was a terrible performer when bought it... it resulted that had been "dissected part by part" as you plan to do... and badly reassembled after cleaning... after excuses by the dealer, it was again disassembled and reassembled perfectly, and all is OK now.... I have the feeling that is a lens (I refer to the E39 BM version) that has some "strategic" shims that MUST be correctly positioned... Edited January 1, 2017 by luigi bertolotti 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted January 9, 2017 Share #17 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) Hello Pico, Some of the 35mm F3.5 Summaron lenses came with detachable "goggles" that were required in order that the lens focus correctly. Which version of this lens do you have?There were: Screw mount. A screw mount to bayonet mount adapted could make it usable on an "M" camera. Bayonet mount made w/o "goggles" for use on the M1 & M2. Or for use on an M3 w/ a separate viewfinder in the accessory shoe. M3 model w/ detachable goggles which were REQUIRED for the lens to focus accurately. Permanently attached goggles. Best Regards, Michael Edited January 9, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted January 9, 2017 Share #18 Posted January 9, 2017 Hello Everybody. A correction to my Post just above:There appears to be no version with permanently attached goggles. Just the add on goggles. And: The M version w/o goggles is actually 2 versions; 1 version brings up the 50mm/75mm frames in the range/viewfinder. The 2nd version brings up the 35mm/135mm frames in the range/viewfinder. Best Regards, Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted January 10, 2017 Share #19 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) Hello Pico, Another thought:Does your 35mm F3.5 Summaron have its red index dot for attaching the lens to the camera at (or near) F16 or at F22.? If the red index dot is at F22 then that lens needs the add on "goggles" in order to focus properly. Best Regards, Michael Edited January 10, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
finarphin Posted January 28, 2017 Share #20 Posted January 28, 2017 I have one, and I like it a lot. Mine is from 1954, in an M mount. It's one of the better lenses I've had the opportunity to use. 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! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267809-critique-35mm-summaron-f35/?do=findComment&comment=3198547'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.