35 Summaron f2.8....what to look out for?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm potentially interested in a non-goggled version that I located, but the dealer is not one I've dealt with before.  What questions would you ask in advance of purchasing the lens, and are there specific things to inspect after delivery during warranty/return policy?  It's listed in good condition, but there aren't detailed pics available yet.  Asking price is about $1200 US.  I could of course send it to DAG and have him check it out, but appreciate any advice from experienced users here. I've been using M's since the 80's, but never owned an older, screw mount Leica lens. I'm open to other reputable sources, too, if someone has a lead. 

Jeff

[a.noctilux]

Hello Jeff,

Likely Summaron 2.8/35 in "native LTM mount" ?

One thing is asking the seller if the MFD is 1m ( 0.65m may be "wrong" and 0.7m is acceptable ).

Very good lens that I used to have in goggled "M3" and now "M2" type which can be used on my Barnacks.

[Guest JMF]

Hi Jeff,

I PMed you !

Best, Jean-Marc.

[Jeff S]

56 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Hello Jeff,

Likely Summaron 2.8/35 in "native LTM mount" ?

One thing is asking the seller if the MFD is 1m ( 0.65m may be "wrong" and 0.7m is acceptable ).

Very good lens that I used to have in goggled "M3" and now "M2" type which can be used on my Barnacks.

Thanks, is 1m a problem?  What do you mean by wrong?  I’m unfamiliar with the nuances. 
 

Jeff

[Aryel]

Hello,

There are 3 different 35 f2.8 summaron:

Min focus 0.65: this is the goggled version. You cannot focus it accurately without the goggles. Do not buy it without the original goggles (I think you need to check that the serial number match)

Min focus 0.7: this is the M version

Min focus 1m: this is the ltm version ( I think it is more valuable)

I would definitely ask for pictures, if possible with a light shining through the lens...

I have the M version and really love it!

 

Hope this helps,

Aryel

Edited June 9, 2020 by Aryel

[Ecar]

Jeff,

Just look for what you'd look for in any lens: scratches, fungus, etc. and assume it will require a CLA anyway.

Otherwise - as Arnaud (somewhat cryptically) and Aryel say - just make sure you are not getting a copy from which the goggles have been removed. Unfortunately, there are a number of these on the market these days.

If it's indeed an LTM version and you plan to use it with EVF/LV on the M10, factor in the cost of a good quality adapter that also covers the 6-bit code area.

 

[darylgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jeff, 

The price is good, I had been looking for this lens also and sourced an M mount in Ex++ condition for $1400. I like to ask if there’s haze at the extreme edges of the optic’s. 
 

You mention screw mount lenses, the prospect of putting on an adapter seems simple but I find them to have a major issue that is not easily solved with different bodies or adapters such as the M-L. The issue is the screw adapter often times will not remove with the lens but rather sticks to the body and is not easily removed.  I tried Leica adapters and the cheap knockoffs, no difference in issues. My best adapter required modification, I simply fractured a claw off and polished it up, it works 90% of the time. Perhaps others have found a better solution but this issue has plagued my several attempts at ltm lenses. 
 

Good luck with your purchase,  the Summaron renders beautifully. 

[ianman]

I don't know about issues with adapters. Mine is a dual mount (original from factory, though some will dispute calling this an "official" dual mount for some reason). These versions can be identified by a tiny screw on the mount.

So this is an LTM mount, with 0.7m minimum focus distance with an M adapter attached at birth.

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!

 

 

[mmradman]

16 minutes ago, ianman said:

I don't know about issues with adapters. Mine is a dual mount (original from factory, though some will dispute calling this an "official" dual mount for some reason). These versions can be identified by a tiny screw on the mount.

So this is an LTM mount, with 0.7m minimum focus distance with an M adapter attached at birth.

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!

 

 

Very interesting, it is same as mine, must admit never noticed that tiny screw in exactly the same location - left of the 2.4 ft / 0.7 m focus mark when the focus ring is at infinity. 

I notice a set of precision screwdrivers in the background of your picture, kind of a teaser, have you actually ever removed the M mount and exposed the LTM mount underneath?

[pippy]

...and, if so, do you know whether the mount can be used as an LTM-to-M adapter for other lenses (because I cannot see why not)?

Philip.

[a.noctilux]

8 minutes ago, pippy said:

...and, if so, do you know whether the mount can be used as an LTM-to-M adapter for other lenses (because I cannot see why not)?

Philip.

Philip, yes and no, depending on the lens,

the adapter has a "groove" which would not accept "larger mount" LTM 35mm lens.

This is not intended to be removed, and a plain Leitz LTM-M adapter would be easier to find.

 

[pippy]

Thanks, Arnaud! That makes sense.

I only asked because although my Summaron (f3.5) is M-mount my '59 21mm f4 Super-Angulon has the factory-fitted adapter so can obviously be used with a Barnack and I wondered if the adapter could double-up with other lenses. I'll have a look at my old LTM stuff just in case!

I do already have an adapter but if it happened to work as well it might have been a bit of fun going out with my M's and an old lens fitted on each body!

Philip.

[ianman]

45 minutes ago, pippy said:

...and, if so, do you know whether the mount can be used as an LTM-to-M adapter for other lenses (because I cannot see why not)?

LTM to M adapters are different depending on the focal length in order to bring up the correct framelines on the M.

[colint544]

That's interesting, re the tiny screw. I have a 1960 copy of the Summaron 2.8, and it has that tiny screw as well. Didn't know that it meant anything.

Jeff, it's a fabulous lens, would recommend all day long. It's built like a tank, the aperture ring clicks between the stops in the most solid and precise way (unlike the modern Leica lenses), and it should be very sharp indeed. Background blur is super smooth, better than the eight element Summicron. 

I'd just watch for the usual things on an old lens - fungus, separation, scratches.

They used to be dirt cheap, and aren't any more. But it'll be one of those that the price will just continue to climb and climb.

[a.noctilux]

Philip,

I used sometimes my Super-Angulon 4/21 on Barnack Leica.

40cm use is fun, I can rely on the custom "calibrated" strap ( in 10cm gaps from 30cm to 60cm )

RF coupling to 1m of course (not really useful in real life when closed down a bit) and very nice compact combo.

[ianman]

1 hour ago, mmradman said:

I notice a set of precision screwdrivers in the background of your picture, kind of a teaser, have you actually ever removed the M mount and exposed the LTM mount underneath?

Well spotted. Yes I did try once, hence the screwdrivers, I removed the screw but the adapter itself was too tight to be removed. I guess it has not been moved in over 60 years. I don't have any tool to remove it so I didn't want to force anything. I don't have a usable LTM camera anyway so there was no point other than curiosity*

* the cat is ok luckily.

Edited June 9, 2020 by ianman

[ianman]

Here you go... @handgun managed to remove the adapter and fit the lens to a IIIc.

 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, ianman said:

LTM to M adapters are different depending on the focal length in order to bring up the correct framelines on the M.

Yes. I do have one already!

But thanks for the thought just in case, Ian. Clearly if I can use the mount from the S-A on any lens it will not do as you mention.

Oddly enough I use the frame-lines more for checking horizons etc. than actual framing - especially with wide-to 50 lenses. My M2 framelines 'disappeared' about 30 years ago and ever since I've just gotten used to thinking "This is the 35mm" or whatever was bolted to the front and got used to seeing in terms of whatever was appropriate. I couldn't even tell you which pairs of frames appear with each lens. Additionally the 35 Summaron I have was pre-M2 so doesn't bring up the correct frameline anyway. I have found that they DO become useful for framing with the 75 and 90, though.

Philip.

Edited June 9, 2020 by pippy

[Jeff S]

Thanks to all who have responded thus far. I have discovered another possible candidate for purchase, so the issues raised here (and in linked discussions) should prove useful as I consider my options.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Pyrogallol]

I have read other postings on the subject of the f2.8 Summaron.