Summaron 35 2.8 with goggles: how much vertical misalignment is acceptable?

[4r36]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everybody,

I would need some advice about a Summaron 35 2.8 with goggles that I bought a few months ago. The lens is in good condition, but I had to send it back due to strong horizontal and vertical alignment of the rangefinder. Yesterday I got the lens back from the seller, who had the goggles repaired, but there is still a good amount of vertical misalignment. I did my best to take a shot of it, but, ironically, I really suck. This is the best I managed to get with my phone. Please ignore the horizontal alignment, and just pay attention to the vertical. The depicted package of masks was at 1. 5 meters from me.

Since I'm aware that on this lens it is very difficult to achieve a perfect match, I would like to ask you your opinion: should I keep the lens or send it back and ask a refund? 

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 July 10, 2022 by 4r36

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

Hello @4r36

Sorry for that misalignment which for me is not acceptable.

I had many years ago same lens but now "replaced" with M2 type.

Very nice lens indeed.

Still have one version 1 Summicron with goggles which is fine, nothing to complain.

I keep it for my M3 when I fancy to use 35mm lens.

You are the only one who can decide if this can be managed in real use.

Edited July 10, 2022 by a.noctilux

[105012]

I have one of those Summaron 35/2.8 lenses with goggles. Just had a look at it fitted to one of my M3’s and I don’t see any misalignment vertically (or horizontally). I rarely use it so not sure if there is some way to see/provoke what you are seeing? …putting a 50mm back on…

[4r36]

Thank you both for your replies.

The misalignment depends on the goggles, which apparently cannot be fully repaired. The seller is serious, so he'll give me a refund if I'm not happy about the lens. I paid a premium price for it, ans since you confirm that there are perfectly focusing exemplars, I'll send it back!

[spydrxx]

2 hours ago, 4r36 said:

Thank you both for your replies.

The misalignment depends on the goggles, which apparently cannot be fully repaired. The seller is serious, so he'll give me a refund if I'm not happy about the lens. I paid a premium price for it, ans since you confirm that there are perfectly focusing exemplars, I'll send it back!

Good decision!

[qqphot]

Sometimes mine seems perfectly aligned, sometimes it seems off vertically, and I don't know what's different other than maybe the angle at which I'm looking through the finder.

Edited July 10, 2022 by qqphot

[rfaspen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Checked mine.  I don't see any misalignment....nor do I ever remember seeing that with any other goggled lenses I've tried.

Don Goldberg (DAG repair) would be the last word regarding whether it could be repaired or not.  Is that who your seller used?

[dkCambridgeshire]

Mine was fully serviced by Newton Ellis in Liverpool including lens stripdown / reassembly ...  & goggles / rangefinder realignment ... now it's perfect ... They're usually very busy and have a long-ish backlog ... took several months but worth it. Goggles service is a specialist job. 

dunk

[ernst_leitz]

DIY? I managed to adjust misalignment in a 2,8/135 and a 2/35 with the help provided here: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/74547

Good luck! 

[4r36]

Thank you all guys. No, I'm located in Europe and the seller, as far as I know, had the goggles repaired in Germany. I sent back the lens already. I paid a premium price for it, so it won't be difficult to find another copy in good conditions, or so I hope. 

To be honest, to this point I wonder whether it's not actually better to sell my M3 and get a M4-P. I wouldn't need lens with goggles for the 35mm anymore, plus I'd also gain the 28mm framelines. But in no way I'm letting my M3 go away for the "ugly" M4-P 😂...Of course, the perfect solution would be getting the M-A, so if any of you happen to have 5k to spare, just drop me a DM

 

Best,

Nicola

[qqphot]

3 hours ago, 4r36 said:

To be honest, to this point I wonder whether it's not actually better to sell my M3 and get a M4-P. I wouldn't need lens with goggles for the 35mm anymore, plus I'd also gain the 28mm framelines. But in no way I'm letting my M3 go away for the "ugly" M4-P 😂...Of course, the perfect solution would be getting the M-A, so if any of you happen to have 5k to spare, just drop me a DM

If you get a camera with a wider viewfinder you can always add a magnifying eyepiece to narrow it back to M3 proportions when you use 50mm lenses. If you add a 1.45x magnification to an M2, the 35 lines disappear and the 50 lines take up the whole view, with the rangefinder patch magnified accordingly.

[Pyrogallol]

Keep the M3 and use a separate 35mm finder.

[willeica]

2 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

Keep the M3 and use a separate 35mm finder.

One possible solution, but there are perfect examples of the lens with goggles out there, like my one.  I also have the lens without goggles in both LTM and M bayonet formats. They are all great, but the goggled version is perhaps the best of all.

William 

[Pyrogallol]

I have the f3.5 version that I bought in the 1970’s and that is aligned correctly.

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!