Summaron 35/3.5 questions, and pictures...

[fabianoliver]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello, all.

This days, I'm testing a googled Summaron 35/3.5, in good shape at simple view ( I use it with the IR filter for the M8, no hood...).

It has a little haze, just seen with a lamp, and loupe, nothing big, apparently.

I'm having problems wide open (3.5), it flares a lot and has poor contrast.

If I close to 5.6, it starts working, less flare, increased contrast, but anyway with strong lights even out of frame, I need to "dehaze" in photoshop a lot....

I've read a lot about Summarons, and everyone agree that they're sharp, and no special prone to flare...

I need to admit, that when everything is ok, I like the rendering, here some examples, first picture at f3.5, second at f8, straight of the camera, no PS

Color picture of my daughter f3.5, PS contrast corrected.

Other ones, renders I like with PS

I would like to have your comments.

Just a CLA, or bad copy?

Some examples here.

Thanks!!

 

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 March 21, 2020 by fabianoliver

[Advertisement]

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

[TomB_tx]

I’ve used a 3.5 ltm Summaron since 1969 - with a break of a decade or so, and always appreciated its sharpness, but it did seem somewhat veiled, and did have some haze as you described. A few years ago had a CLA done to clear the haze, and it made a significant difference - well worth it.

[stray cat]

I have two M versions of the 35mm summaron f3.5, including one I bought from our dearly missed friend Pico. The other is the goggled version I bought in great condition. Pico complained in a thread here somewhere  that the lens I got from him was useful to him only as a body cap. It looked vaguely hazy when I got it but, like you, I really liked its character. I sent both of them from Australia to Youxin Ye for a CLA ($90) and - bam! - when I received them back they absolutely sparkled - no haze whatsoever. Even the goggled one I’d thought was great came back better. Every bit of the lens’ character is still there, but better in every way. So I can only recommend trying the same.

[fabianoliver]

Thanks Tom, and Stray for your answers.

I'll do it.

Does your copies have wide open, a clear definition difference in the center and in the edges?, subtle or clear difference?

Do you use them with lens hood?

Thanks again!

[luigi bertolotti]

Hum... seems to me that the color pic with the girl has something wrong in the upper area... if it was taken wide open or next to i think that thera could be a problem of lens separation... (Summaron has two cemented groups of 2 glasses).  I don't think it's simply flare... and apparently, from the global illumination, I don't think you had a light source next to the upper edge..

Edited March 22, 2020 by luigi bertolotti

[fabianoliver]

Hi Luigi, this picture was take at 3.5, the only light is the sky.....

 

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My experience mirrors those of Tom and Stray Cat.

Have owned my '54 pre-goggled version since 1980. Didn't notice much wrong with it in all the years of shooting film as I just thought, being an older design of lens, it was simply inherently lower in contrast so used a harder grade of paper when printing my negs. Once Digital came out, though, I realised how different it was and had it CLA'd after which time, in Stray Cat's words, it absolutetly sparkled.

The f3.5 Summaron is a really fine lens even today. Treat the dear old thing to a CLA.

Philip.

[luigi bertolotti]

45 minutes ago, fabianoliver said:

Hi Luigi, this picture was take at 3.5, the only light is the sky.....

 

Hum, I confirm my idea... there is some issue : I took a pair of trivial shots (M240, jpg Out Of Camera) with my lens which is a "twin" of yours : Summaron 3,5 with goggles (s/n 1.555.644) , one at f 3,5, the other at f8  (focus on the Leitz box)

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!

Not great difference, globally.. a bit more of vignetting at 3,5

Edited March 22, 2020 by luigi bertolotti

[luigi bertolotti]

And with an heavy crop, as excpected, detail (drawing onto the box) is sharper at f8 :

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 March 22, 2020 by luigi bertolotti

[Stein K S]

19 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

I’ve used a 3.5 ltm Summaron since 1969 - with a break of a decade or so, and always appreciated its sharpness, but it did seem somewhat veiled, and did have some haze as you described. A few years ago had a CLA done to clear the haze, and it made a significant difference - well worth it.

Hi

Just bought a very nice copy of an 1955 version. With metall cap and hood, smooth focus and aperture ring... but with some haze just behind the aperture blades. The usual place on this lens I believe. And sent it to Leica for a CLA, but they sent it back with the general comment that they to not offer service on those lenses any more. 
 

Any advice on where to go?

[TomB_tx]

27 minutes ago, Stein K S said:

Hi

Just bought a very nice copy of an 1955 version. With metall cap and hood, smooth focus and aperture ring... but with some haze just behind the aperture blades. The usual place on this lens I believe. And sent it to Leica for a CLA, but they sent it back with the general comment that they to not offer service on those lenses any more. 
 

Any advice on where to go?

Look at the Repair Specialists thread in the Collectors forum. Here in the US I’ve used Don Goldberg, Sherry Krauter, and Youxin Ye for old lenses with good results from all. 

[fabianoliver]

Hi, Thanks Pippi, and Luigi! for take the time to upload your test!!

I see a big difference in contrast, with my copy with both diaphragms.... and I don't see a big difference in contrast between 3.5 and 8 in your tests ( as mine has).

I think the best I can do is a CLA, and seen what happens then....I hope just a CLA resolves all the problems...

I keep in touch!, and thanks again to all of you! thanks Luigi!

Fabian

[bayernfan]

I have two versions: M-mount without goggles, and M-mount with goggles.  (I like that the goggled version is able to achieve closer focus)

Anyways, one of my lenses is CLA'd, the other is not.  The difference in contrast is easily seen.  A quick CLA will fix your issues.

Edited March 23, 2020 by bayernfan

[bayernfan]

14 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

And with an heavy crop, as excpected, detail (drawing onto the box) is sharper at f8 :

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!

The infamous Elmarit V1 Wetzlar ! 

It's been so long since I've used mine.... not a 28mm guy.  Maybe that will change one day.

[luigi bertolotti]

16 hours ago, bayernfan said:

The infamous Elmarit V1 Wetzlar ! 

It's been so long since I've used mine.... not a 28mm guy.  Maybe that will change one day.

Funny enough, by pure chance, my V1 (and the above box... 😎) has been, just today, the protagonist in another thread in this section (we are reclused at home... so good to have time for our passions... even if the photographic set is limited...)

Edited March 23, 2020 by luigi bertolotti

[Ko.Fe.]

Lens in OP obviously needs CLA.

Then I asked ex-Leica technician about these lenses, he told me "they are not expensive lenses, they made many of them".

I had goggled and just M mount, before I got digital M. They are more "alive" lenses than 35 2.5 Color Skopar, but not any better than Jupiter-12.

I don't think even 35 2.8 is very special. I prefer Summarit 35 2.5 which is super lens on film and prints and no slosh on digital. But LTM 35 3.5 version makes sense on LTM Leica, because it doesn't block RF.

Or if it is for economy reasons and still want Leica 35mm lens.

 

 

[fabianoliver]

Thanks Ko.Fe for your opinion, i'll read about the Summarit 35, an unknown lens by me.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said:

...They are more "alive" lenses than 35 2.5 Color Skopar, but not any better than Jupiter-12...

With the greatest of respect, Ko.Fe., I disagree.

The J-12 is a very fine lens and I like mine very much indeed but in almost all regards the Summaron is the better performer. Both are pretty-well rectilinear; contrast is good and centre-to-middle definition is similar but in terms of sharpness the J-12 drops-off markedly quicker toward the edges and corners than does the Summaron. For 'street-shooting' either is a fine choice but for architecture (say) the Summaron would be a clear favourite.

Philip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ko.Fe.]

17 hours ago, pippy said:

With the greatest of respect, Ko.Fe., I disagree.

The J-12 is a very fine lens and I like mine very much indeed but in almost all regards the Summaron is the better performer. Both are pretty-well rectilinear; contrast is good and centre-to-middle definition is similar but in terms of sharpness the J-12 drops-off markedly quicker toward the edges and corners than does the Summaron. For 'street-shooting' either is a fine choice but for architecture (say) the Summaron would be a clear favourite.

Philip.

I'm not architectural photog. If I would be then it is call for call for LF camera with moving back standard. Or SLR with T&S lens.

But here, if I'm not mistaken, we are talking about rangefinder used lenses. 

From this perspective and after owning of two versions of 35 3.5 Summaron and numerous Jupiter-12 lenses, I can't take your remarks as valuable.  Well made, correctly shimmed Jupiter-12 has same sharpness at f3.5 as Summaron. At least.

At f5.6, f8 I can't see any significant difference between J-12 and Summarit 35 2.5 ASPH. Except, Summarit has much visible distortions in the far corners. The real downsides of J-12 is more tendency to flare sometimes, some needs re-shimming and some are just bad copies. But none of them has haze and separation issues which is typical with Summarons. 

Again, after owning two 35 3.5 which never impressed me on film and DR prints, I switched to J-12 and Summarit 35 2.5. 

I don't miss too slow 35 3.5 and J-12 is often hard to distinguish from Summarit-35 2.5. Even with M-E 220, I switch these lenses from time to time and hardly see any significant difference.  

J-12 on M-E 220:

f8

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!

f2.8

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by Ko.Fe.

[pippy]

27 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

......after owning of two versions of 35 3.5 Summaron and numerous Jupiter-12 lenses, I can't take your remarks as valuable.  Well made, correctly shimmed Jupiter-12 has same sharpness at f3.5 as Summaron. At least..

No offence taken, thank-you.

As I said earlier; "I think the J-12 is a very fine lens and I like mine very much indeed" but being someone who also has multiple examples of the J-12 and has owned a 35mm f3.5 Summaron for 40 years I think we'll have to agree to disagree. My Summaron has better edge- and corner-performance than any of my J-12s. I have done tests specifically to evaluate these lenses on my M-digital bodies and the results are incontrovertible.

If your examples and experiences are different from mine then that's perfectly fine by me.

Philip.

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by pippy