Summaron 35

[rramesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am thinking of getting a Summaron 35 for my Leica 10-P. Would like to consider the non-goggled version.

Need advise on which version to get f/3.5 or f/2.8 and M or LTM. I currently have the Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 so I am not looking at a lens for low light use.

Also what would be an indicative market price to pay for this.

[nocturnal1]

I have both a 3.5 Summaron LTM and a non-goggled 2.8 Summaron M-mount. There is in my opinion a noticeable difference in both build and image quality. Though I enjoy the 3.5 LTM, I think of it more as one of my "vintage" lenses. A minor annoyance of the 3.5, at least on my version, is that the whole lens barrel including the aperture ring rotates as you focus.  I find the 2.8 to be extremely flexible across various approaches to shooting. The build is terrific (among my favorite lenses in this respect) and the images have great detail and contrast. Expect to pay more than 2x for the 2.8 though. Not sure exactly what going rate is today, but maybe if you are patient or fortunate you could find a 3.5 for $4-500 and a 2.8 for $12-1400? There is also a 3.5 M-mount that probably will go for somewhere in between and doesn't have the issue I mentioned with the rotating lens barrel as far as I know. Hope this helps.

[Advertisement]

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

[ianman]

3 hours ago, rramesh said:

Need advise on which version to get f/3.5 or f/2.8 and M or LTM.

The M/LTM mount may not be an issue for the f/2.8… there is a dual mount version, which the one I have. Beware of ungoggled lenses. I don’t recall all the details but some lenses bring up the 50 framelines instead of the 35. Check out the historical section, there are some threads discussing the various issues.

[Pyrogallol]

The first 35mm f2.8 Summaron lenses were made before the M2 camera came out, so the 35mm frame had not been invented. They bring up the 50mm frame, though some might have been modified later.

[Dennis]

39 minutes ago, ianman said:

some lenses bring up the 50 framelines instead of the 35.

 

3 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

The first 35mm f2.8 Summaron lenses were made before the M2 camera came out, so the 35mm frame had not been invented. They bring up the 50mm frame, though some might have been modified later.

Glad I know it, now. Imagine for a second I buy a Summaron, I mount it on camera and realize it brings me the 50mm frame lines ... it gives me an heart attack 💔

So, to bring the 35 frame lines, it has to be from v2 or more, right?

[Jul]

1 hour ago, Pyrogallol said:

The first 35mm f2.8 Summaron lenses were made before the M2 camera came out

I guess you meant the first 35mm f3.5 Summaron.

[archive_all]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the Summaron 35 3.5 ltm and use an M adapter on the M10 series. It's a fun lens, tiny and looks really cool. It's low contrast wide open, sharp enough stopped down for casual or street applications. As stated above zone focusing is a little more challenging because the barrel and aperture ring rotate. I find focus to be accurate at f3.5 with the adapter but there is also little background separation anyway. Mine was/is in mint condition and was $400 when I bought it a couple of years ago. 

[Jeff S]

31 minutes ago, Jul said:

I guess you meant the first 35mm f3.5 Summaron.

Yes…

M2 from 1957…  35 f/2.8 Summaron from 1958.…35 f/3.5 Summaron was introduced in 1945.  
 

Jeff

[pippy]

The non-goggled pre-M2 f3.5 Summaron M-mount can easily be modified to bring up the 35mm framelines instead of those for the 50mm. It merely requires the (careful) filing-down of a small tab at the rear of the lens and this can be accomplished in around 10 mins from start to finish.

There are various places on the www which show the procedure. If anyone needs a few stills to use as a reference instead I can find some which I, myself, downloaded when I was considering the modification for my own lens.

Philip.

 

[Capuccino-Muffin]

The whole summaron line is extremely well made. Once you get one you want them all. The construction is amazing.

I really like the 3.5 LTM for its miniature size. The 3.5M version although exquisitely made, it brings up the 50mm lines. It doesn’t bother me since I like using external finders... but it can also be modified/filed to bring the 35mm framelines (just as with the 40mm summicron). Image quality totally great, old time look. 
The Summaron-M 35mm f2.8 is also so well made, heavenly. Image quality without reproach. Old time look with super sharp center. 
 

And then there is the Summaron 28 old and new, one of my favorites... 

 

Just buy and use. Just great.

 

[shirubadanieru]

I've had both, in terms of build quality the summaron f3.5 is as solid as it can get. Much better than the 2.8 in this regard, as the 3.5 is solid brass (therefore heavier by about 100g). If weight is a consideration the f2.8 is a better option. In terms of rendering the f3.5 is more vintage, but to my eyes that allows it to have a better bokeh than the f2.8...of course it's a 35mm f3.5 so you won't get crazy bokeh, but it's still interesting, whereas the f2.8 despite being an old lens it's actually quite well behaved and sharp. 

The other big difference if you get both non-goggled is that the f3.5 only goes down to 1m and the f2.8 to 0.7m. 

And lastly, the f3.5 is well known for being one of the Leica lenses that fogs the most, so most, if not all, copies on sale have haze in them. 

Price wise the f2.8 is more than double probably than the f3.5. I'd still go for the f2.8 for the 0.7m, being half a stop brighter, 100g lighter, and also being a solid performer even wide open. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by shirubadanieru

[UliWer]

3 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

The first 35mm f2.8 Summaron lenses were made before the M2 camera came out, so the 35mm frame had not been invented. They bring up the 50mm frame, though some might have been modified later.

I think it was the 1:3.5/3.5cm Summaron with M bayonet which had an early version to be used with the SBLOO viewfinder on the M3 which activated only the frames for 50mm. Later versions - after the introduction of the M2 - activated the 35mm frames. I am not sure about the serial number when this later version startet, but for sure my 1595xxx (unaltered!) works with 35mm frames. The ungoggled version of the 1:2.8 always activated the 35mm frames. 

Though perhaps luigi bertolotti should look at this problem. He usually can tell you anything about them. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by UliWer

[rramesh]

5 hours ago, ianman said:

The M/LTM mount may not be an issue for the f/2.8… there is a dual mount version, which the one I have. Beware of ungoggled lenses. I don’t recall all the details but some lenses bring up the 50 framelines instead of the 35. Check out the historical section, there are some threads discussing the various issues.

So, if one got an LTM version without goggles, it can be used with an M-LTM adapter that brings up the 35 framelines?

[shirubadanieru]

2 hours ago, rramesh said:

So, if one got an LTM version without goggles, it can be used with an M-LTM adapter that brings up the 35 framelines?

Correct, as long as you have a 35mm adapter   Also the LTM lens looks much cooler than the M lens (and half the size almost), so if you do want the f3.5 the LTM to me is the best model.

[Aryel]

Just one additional point to note is that the f2.8 ltm is rarer (more expensive) and minimum focus distance is 1m (as far as I recall). 

I am hunting for a f3.5 ltm to try 🙂

[poli]

I am also thinking to get the 2.8 summaron. For me the 1mtr minimal focus distance of the 3.5 felt a bit limiting. I sold it a few years ago and regret it now

Now looking at the 2.8 solely for B&W film. I understand it renders very nice with film. Anyone having experience with this? 

[Pyrogallol]

9 hours ago, Jul said:

I guess you meant the first 35mm f3.5 Summaron.

Yes, I should have said f3.5

This is the one I have that brings up the 50mm frame. The distance engravings are at 90 degrees different to other models.

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 February 14, 2022 by Pyrogallol

[Aryel]

3 hours ago, poli said:

Now looking at the 2.8 solely for B&W film. I understand it renders very nice with film. Anyone having experience with this? 

Not sure how useful this will be for you, I am not really a tester. Was very happy with mine for a few years especially in b&w. Low contrast, high resolution, reliable. Love the ergonomics too. For me it is a perfect match with my favourite 50 the summicron rigid. 

I only let it go as part of an exchange with a summicron v1 for the extra stop indoor.  The v1 went straight for cla so not the best GAS move ever 🙈.

. 
 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Aryel

[a.noctilux]

I don't want to deny these Summaron 3.5cm/35mm which served me well for so long, I still have them of course, no need to sell.

I know them quite well, so if I can use more modern lenses, I use these with more confidence.

Of course, the old Summaron 35 lenses are "lovely" but need some cares in use.

I don't care to see these "flaws" as limiting factor, but in real life, so many lenses I have in 35mm can be simply "better choice"

for general use and not precise use (for character, ...or whatelse).

 

Nowaday my choice is Summarit-M 2.5/35 or Summicron (I to IV 35mm ) I have to choose 😇

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[UliWer]

3 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

Summarit-M 2.5/35

Perhaps the best Summaron you can get.