Jump to content

35mm Summicron v1 with goggles and digital compatibility


mdg1371

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am toying with the idea of picking up a 35mm Summicron v1 with goggles. (M3 version)

 

I would swear I read something about incompatibility with digital M bodies, and the necessity of removing the goggles, but cannot find anything concrete.

 

Any have a definitive answer? I'm shooting an M10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, you can use the 'goggled' lenses on any M body. I use the 35 Summicron on an M9 and MP.

 

There was an issue with back-focusing; Leica NJ was not able repair it for some reason (parts no longer available) but DAG was able to adjust the lens. It is my most used lens. Now, the reason I purchased the lens way, way back was to use it on an M4 and and M3.

 

I wear glasses and cannot readily see the 35 mm frame on any M body, so the goggles work best for me. If I did not wear glasses I would much prefer the regular lens. 

 

Please note that there is a marked difference in contrast between f/2 and f/2.8 and on. Not an issue.

 

Jean-Michel 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goggles will reduce viewfinder magnification and focusing accuracy. No problem with the M3 thanks to its 0.91x VF magnification but with a 0.72x or 0.73x body like your M10 you'll end up shooting at 0.50x magnification more or less. Some people do like that. I don't personally and i've never used my goggled Summaron 35/2.8 with M4, M4-2, M240 or M8.2 bodies. YMMV. BTW beware that the lens will bring up 50mm instead of 35mm frame lines and that focusing will be off if you remove the goggles. My advice would be to use a regular 35mm lens instead unless you cannot view the regular 35mm frame lines due to spectacles or eyesight issue.

Edited by lct
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got one for my M3, and have used it on my M9 without functional problems, but the added optics of the goggles add reflections and lower contrast in the FV, and make viewing and focusing less enjoyable.

I also have a non-goggled 2.8 Summaron for my M2, and it is a pleasure to use on the M9, and I prefer the images as well (except at f2.0!).

In general the Zeiss ZM 35/2 is indeed cheaper than a v1 Summicron 35, and it gives excellent results on my M9. (My 35 Summarit 2.5 comes close, and has great handling, but in low light the Zeiss has an edge.)

(It sounds like I have too many M-mount 35s, but not if you compare to my 50s!)

Edited by TomB_tx
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Microview,

 

Is there an advantage to focusing on a screen with a 0.73 X image & never being able to focus with a range/viewfinder with a 0.49 X image now or in the future? What if there is a new camera in the future?

 

Also:

 

The camming system in the 35mm lenses with "goggles" is calibrated to properly measure the movement of the range/viewfinder "patch" viewed thru the "goggles" of a 35mm lens when focusing from (approximately) 0.65 meters to Infinity.

 

These "goggles" expand the angle of view of the movement of the "patch" being seen thru the range/viewfinder system by by 50% to 1.5 X the angular movement seen thru the range/viewfinder mechanism alone..      

 

This means that while the "patch" appears to move over a certain angle, it is, in fact, only moving 2/3d's of that arc. 

 

This means that the angle of movement that appears thru the range/viewfinder to be reflective of (approximately) 0.65 meters is actually producing an arc of movement reflective of moving the cam in the lens to measure to (approximately) 1 meter.

 

That is to say that when the distances on the focusing mount we look at & the range/viewfinder we are looking thru say (approximately) 0.65 meters & the lens barrel moves the correct distance: The cam in the lens mount tells the roller to tell the range/viewfinder mechanism to move the "patch" to (approximately) 1 meter.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am toying with the idea of picking up a 35mm Summicron v1 with goggles. (M3 version)

 

I would swear I read something about incompatibility with digital M bodies, and the necessity of removing the goggles, but cannot find anything concrete.

 

Any have a definitive answer? I'm shooting an M10.

 

I saw a nice 35 Summaron with goggles, I figured I'd like to use on my M2. 

 

The distorted viewfinder image wasn't as clear or bright as without the goggles and it made the camera heavier and larger of course. Whilst the lens was very nice, I tired of the goggles and bought a Voigtlander Skopar instead, which I much preferred using. 

 

My advice is, unless you have an M3, don't buy a goggled lens (and yes, you do need to use the goggles). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, having all that encumbrance on the front of the camera, with the viewing disadvantages entailed would much reduce the pleasure of taking pictures. With the v1 35 Summicron, however, an ungoggled lens is almost twice the cost (to judge from current listings at one London dealer's)!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted by a few members, using a goggled lens has number of disadvantages. The 'goggles' were designed for use on an M3. However, for the eyeglasses wearer a 'goggled' 35 allows being the view trough the 50 mm frame – you get used to deal with that. Focusing, while mathematically much less accurate, has not been a problem in the last 47 years that I have used that lens on M3, 4, 6, 9 an now MP bodies. In film days, I rarely printed larger than 8" by 12"; I could be quite cavalier about quick zone-focusing and still get 'sharp' prints. Now that my 'small' prints are 12 by 18 and that I regularly print to 20 by 30, more attention is needed for exactly where I focus. The 'goggles' do not make that easier!

 

I read that the new M10 has a longer eye relief, perhaps that would let me see the 35 mm frame more easily; if that is so, I may be tempted by it and a regular 35 (my most used lens).

 

The extra weight is negligible; the viewfinder distortion is equally negligible; contrast is definitively lower.

 

Removing the goggles is a non-starter. You will lose the ability of focusing with the RF. I suppose that you could get it modified so it would work, but the cost of the job wold certainly make the lens rather expensive.

 

So my take is: if you wear eyeglasses and are wiling to put up with some of the disadvantages of using a goggled lens, then go for it. But if you do not wear eyeglasses (and don't use an M3), I would avoid a goggled lens and buy a regular lens. 

 

And for those you want to hide the Leica red logo, the goggle attachment hides it quite nicely  :D

 

Jean-Michel

Edited by Jean-Michel
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main reason people choose goggled version is the cost difference. A M2 version fetches double or more than M3 version.

If it is not the cost, no one would ever choose goggles. Even with my M3, I use the M2 version Summicron v1 anyway, using the full viewfinder view may lose some view but the weight and easier to use is definitely a bigger plus. However, pairing up a M2/M4 with it is the ideal combo, so I bought a M2 for the 35mm and the 50mm lives on M3

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I tried my goggled 35mm Summicron on a Leica M10 at a Leica shop. I'm sorry to say that the VF frame borders were off significantly from what was captured by the lens. I believe this is because the M10 lens coupling ring protrudes from the body a couple millimeters more than any other Leica body, pushing the goggles further away from the VF than they had been designed for.

 

I bought the lens originally for use on my M3. However, it works perfectly on all other Leica models I have tried, including the M4, M6, M7, and M240. The lens chooses the 50mm VF frame. This is great if you wear glasses and use any Leica other than the M3, because it is difficult to see the entire 35mm frame at .72x or even .85x without moving your eye around the VF hole.

 

The M10 is a bit of a deal-breaker for me, because I cannot use my goggled 35mm Summicron or 35mm Summilux lenses, both of which I use frequently and love. 

Edited by sbleistein
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...