Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have this lens (a non-goggled late LTM version) and use it with a M10.

Wide open is sharp in the central 50-60%, mid-frame to corner is smeared soft by asph standards, stopping down increases central sharpness portion slowly outwards, but the extreme corner is never quite sharp. Contrast is nicely low and character is typical of its age (closer to Summaron 28 than cron pre-asph), there's nearly no glowing. 

I don't know how it is on film, the weaknesses may be less prominent. I definitely like the 28 Summaron much more than the 35, but the 35mm options are a compromise minefield so will keep using this although I'm not sure I would be happy with it as my daily 35 driver.. However, ymmv, so it depends on what you found unhappy with the new cron asph. 1.5 stops aside, what you gain in lower contrast and some vintage rendering you also lose in optical qualities, especially if you like to frame pictures not in the centre. 

I attach an example with the 35/3.5 (corners slightly cropped out), if the whole lens behaves like the centre, this would be the perfect lens.

 

 

Edited by Panda2
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wiki is there,

Summaron 3.5cm 1:3.5

 

mine is lighter than stated in Wiki, only 144g.

Even wide open, this lens is quite good considering it's age.

the aperture opening is round so closing down is even better.

 

Strange I have also the so "loved" 2.8/3.5cm and I prefer the f/3.5 rendering, not the sharpest, but lovely rendering

comparing to other 35mm that I use.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the summaron 35mm f3.5 in M mount. Its construction is amazing: super solid and compact and suuuper smooooth.

It is my go to lens whenever I feel the more expensive lenses are at danger of being soaked, stolen, bumped.  All in all, I really like it.

 

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!

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Little India, Singapore.

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!

ltm Summaron 3.5 wide open.  M Monochrom.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

35 Summaron f3.5 LTM on M9

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Summaron 35mm on film,  Kentmere Pan 400 in R09 Stand Dev.

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!

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

For many years the 35/2.8 Summaron (in a M mount) was my most used lens. Foolishly I sold it a couple of years ago. Recently I came across a 35/3.5 LTM Summaron at an affordable price and decided to give it a try. I'm very pleased with it. I've only used it on digital so far, expect to use it on film in the next few weeks. If you like classical rendering rather than ultra sharp corner to corner photos, I think you will enjoy it. I tried the LTM CV Color Skopar 35/2.5, but it didn't turn me on like the 3.5 Summaron.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Summaron 35 mm/2.8, a wonderful lens. Sharp already at open aperture in the center (there it can almost keep up with modern lenses), a little weaker at the edge, no overexposure. It is quite cheap, about 1/3 of the price of the Summicron 2.0 (8 elements).

I do not know the Summaron 3.5. But from the photos, it seems to me that the 2.8 is a bit easier to deal with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

35mm Summaron f3.5 on M9p 

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!

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the answers, comments and opinions about the lens. I am becoming more and more fond of it. I definitly like classical rendering more rather than ultra sharp. Are there any differences between the Summaron 35mm 3.5 LTM and the M-mount?

@costa43 Looks stunning. Did you do a lot to the colors or is this the original color rendering?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 01maciel said:

Thank you for the answers, comments and opinions about the lens. I am becoming more and more fond of it. I definitly like classical rendering more rather than ultra sharp. Are there any differences between the Summaron 35mm 3.5 LTM and the M-mount?

@costa43 Looks stunning. Did you do a lot to the colors or is this the original color rendering?

Thank you. I can’t remember, this was a while ago but I’ll look for the original dng shortly and post it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 01maciel said:

Thank you for the answers, comments and opinions about the lens. I am becoming more and more fond of it. I definitly like classical rendering more rather than ultra sharp. Are there any differences between the Summaron 35mm 3.5 LTM and the M-mount?

@costa43 Looks stunning. Did you do a lot to the colors or is this the original color rendering?

Thank you. I can’t remember, this was a while ago but I’ll look for the original dng shortly and post it. 
 

edit: original straight out of camera file below

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 by costa43
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 01maciel said:

...I definitly like classical rendering more rather than ultra sharp. Are there any differences between the Summaron 35mm 3.5 LTM and the M-mount?

The optical design is the same. It was produced from circa 1946(or 48) to 1960 and may well have seen small improvements, but individual lens sample variations may have more influence on potential differences than age.

I own two samples of the LTM version. One from 1951 and one from 1954: There is a distinct difference in the periferi of the image between the two. Both would make perfectly useable lenses on their own, but the difference can be significant - and depending on your pickiness/preferences; one may excite you while the other may leave you lukewarm.

From Erwin Putts Leica Lens Compendium (available free online without illustrations):

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 by nitroplait
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

One of my first photos with my new (for me) Leitz Summaron f=3.5cm 1:3.5 mounted on the M10.

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!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the LTM f/2.8 version some years ago to use as a pocketable setup with the TL2 and CL. I sold it when they were sold, which I regret now that I have Barnacks - I use the Nikkor 3.5 f/2.5 in its place. I won't comment on IQ, other than to say that I agree with the preceding comments, and examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...