Summaron 35

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

Perhaps the best Summaron you can get. 

I'm quite sure, in my use.

Maybe a bit too modern rendering for some of Summaron nostalgics which I'm not.

Summaron 2.8/35 was very good when they appeared some time ago, but now there are so many challengers in new and sh.

[Advertisement]

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

[4r36]

I recently got my Summaron 2.8/35 from Michael Suck. It looks to be in a very good condition and I look forward to using it on my M3. I just have to wait that the camera comes back from its CLA😬 

 

Before opting for the Summaron, I considered the "new" Summarit 2.5/35 too. In the end I decided for the former as I actually like those weird goggles, which obviously come in handy on a M3😂

[a.noctilux]

41 minutes ago, 4r36 said:

I recently got my Summaron 2.8/35 from Michael Suck. It looks to be in a very good condition and I look forward to using it on my M3. I just have to wait that the camera comes back from its CLA😬 

 

Before opting for the Summaron, I considered the "new" Summarit 2.5/35 too. In the end I decided for the former as I actually like those weird goggles, which obviously come in handy on a M3😂

Good choice for M3, no other alternative.

Then the goggled Summaron can be used on every M and funny old style looking 😉.

here on M4-P , not look bad at all

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!

 

RF focus is as accurate, with a bit lower magnification (0.72/0.91)

a bit flarey viewfinder as the optics of the goggles are far from the M's VF.

[rramesh]

On 2/14/2022 at 3:21 AM, 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.

What is a dual mount version?

[ianman]

14 minutes ago, rramesh said:

What is a dual mount version?

It’s an LTM version with a factory attached M adapter. I write LTM version because that is the primary mount but unlike the real LTM version which has a 1m min focus (I believe) this one has the traditional M 0.7m min focus distance. The adapter is held in place by a tiny screw. I have posted some photos before, I’ll see if I can find them…

edit…. Here is the phot showing the adapter screw

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 ianman

[Jul]

16 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?

It is nice not only with B&W film. It also pairs very well with a M9 and I'm pretty sure it would be the same with slide film.

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, poli said:

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? 

Yes, here are a couple I took on Acros

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!

 

[rramesh]

Thanks to the various posts, this is what I have learnt so far about the 35 Summaron.

There are 2 variants - one with the goggles and one without. For the one without goggles the following apply.

• Earlier version is f/3.5 and LTM. Close focus is 1m. This has no filter thread and one needs to use an optional mount for filter and hood.
• Latter version is f/2.8. The LTM version close focuses to 1m. There is also an M version with an add on Leica adapter and for this the close-focus .7m. The M adapter is removable and hence this is called a dual mount. Comes with a 39mm filter thread.
• Both versions render in similar manner, but some say that the f/2.8 is a little sharper. Maybe it's because it's using a Lanthanum glass element.
• They both come with an infinity lock.

Now I need to check out what's available in my neck of the woods, as I will need to try before I buy.

[Aryel]

21 minutes ago, rramesh said:

Earlier version is f/3.5 and LTM. Close focus is 1m. This has no filter thread and one needs to use an optional mount for filter and hood.

There is one ‘e39’ version of the ltm f3.5 summaron as well. It takes 39mm filters and irooa hood. 1m min focus.  I believe it is the one shown by @Pyrogallol earlier on. 

hope this helps. Have fun hunting!

[tsleica]

Also..the f3.5 SM Summaron stops down to f22..which is actually making this lens a nice tripod option for closeups and macro.Its gonna hold its own better than a faster lens at f11 and down..

Edited February 15, 2022 by tsleica

[pippy]

5 hours ago, rramesh said:

There are 2 variants - one with the goggles and one without. For the one without goggles the following apply.

• Earlier version is f/3.5 and LTM. Close focus is 1m. This has no filter thread and one needs to use an optional mount for filter and hood.

As has been mentioned a couple of times there exists an M-mount version of the 35mm f3.5, introduced in 1954, which comes without goggles. It brings up the 50mm framelines in the v/f. This version takes regular 39mm filters and the usual arrangement of a clip-on hood. Although the IROOA hood is the 'period-correct' hood using one will cause some finder blockage. For this reason use of the 12585 hood is highly recommended.

5 hours ago, tsleica said:

Also..the f3.5 SM Summaron stops down to f22..which is actually making this lens a nice tripod option for closeups and macro.Its gonna hold its own better than a faster lens at f11 and down..

The OP is hoping to use a Summaron on an M10-P in which case it will be worth bearing in mind that unless maximum depth-of-field is an absolute must then shooting at f22 will result in less-sharp results than using either f11 or f16 because of diffraction.

Philip.

Edited February 15, 2022 by pippy

[4r36]

I seize the occasion to ask the owners of the goggled version whether they store it in a dark place. Is there the chance that the goggles view-finder deteriorates over time if left in daylight? 

[a.noctilux]

5 hours ago, rramesh said:

Thanks to the various posts, this is what I have learnt so far about the 35 Summaron.

There are 2 variants - one with the goggles and one without. For the one without goggles the following apply.

• Earlier version is f/3.5 and LTM. Close focus is 1m. This has no filter thread and one needs to use an optional mount for filter and hood.
• Latter version is f/2.8. The LTM version close focuses to 1m. There is also an M version with an add on Leica adapter and for this the close-focus .7m. The M adapter is removable and hence this is called a dual mount. Comes with a 39mm filter thread.
• Both versions render in similar manner, but some say that the f/2.8 is a little sharper. Maybe it's because it's using a Lanthanum glass element.
• They both come with an infinity lock.

Now I need to check out what's available in my neck of the woods, as I will need to try before I buy.

Much more than two variants of this one in Leicadom lens (Summaron 3.5cm/35mm),

random corrections 🙃:

- f/2.8 no add-on for close focus (as 50 DR ! ), fixed optical devices so-called "M3 type" but usable as is on every M.

here we know that the focus is 0.65m comparing to 0.7m of "M2  type" (no goggles) which can be used on M3 showing 50 frame lines and aux 35 VF.

- f/3.5 can be with or without E39 filter thread, this last type doesn't rotate while focussing

- first f/3.5 can have removable goggles

In Wiki we can see these variants :

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Summaron_f%3D_3.5_cm_1:3.5

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!

 

 

[a.noctilux]

23 minutes ago, 4r36 said:

I seize the occasion to ask the owners of the goggled version whether they store it in a dark place. Is there the chance that the goggles view-finder deteriorates over time if left in daylight? 

Mine has no removable goggles.

No daylight deterioration ... ,

but fragile, care when carrying it, a case was provided to carry safely.

 

Nice leather case a bit too big 😉.

Even the removable goggles type has it's case for carrying the lot

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!

from here

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by a.noctilux

[Keith (M)]

On 2/14/2022 at 7:02 AM, 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? 

It does indeed render very nicely    1967 35mm f2.8 Summaron on M7 & Tri-X.

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!

 

[rramesh]

23 hours ago, UliWer said:

Perhaps the best Summaron you can get. 

When I checked, the price of a Summarit 35 is less than that of the Summaron 35 2.8. Seems that nostalgia is worth more.

[Capuccino-Muffin]

4 hours ago, pippy said:

As has been mentioned a couple of times there exists an M-mount version of the 35mm f3.5, introduced in 1954, which comes without goggles. It brings up the 50mm framelines in the v/f. This version takes regular 39mm filters and the usual arrangement of a clip-on hood. Although the IROOA hood is the 'period-correct' hood using one will cause some finder blockage. For this reason use of the 12585 hood is highly recommended.

The OP is hoping to use a Summaron on an M10-P in which case it will be worth bearing in mind that unless maximum depth-of-field is an absolute must then shooting at f22 will result in less-sharp results than using either f11 or f16 because of diffraction.

Philip.

Using f22 over f16 or f11 would probably be related to favoring a targeted shutter speed rather than depth-of-field. 
 

 

[Capuccino-Muffin]

57 minutes ago, rramesh said:

When I checked, the price of a Summarit 35 is less than that of the Summaron 35 2.8. Seems that nostalgia is worth more.

Haptics alone is worth it. Touching and using such a perfect object is totally worth a few dollars more, which you totally recoupe when you (never) sell it on...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[oldwino]

Of course, the best of these older 3.5cm LTM lenses is the Nikkor f2,5. Tiny, just as sharp as the Leitz, with better coatings and contrast. And no fogging issues. 

[a.noctilux]

There is no best of Summaron,

only variants and each is good as expected if in good shape.

 

I don't know why I think of my less use lens Serenar 3.2/35mm, old LTM Canon lens.