35mm f/2.8 Summaron - Need Example Images Please!

[Hoody]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Would anyone who owns one of these lenses be kind enough to upload a landscape photo taken at f/2.8 and set to infinity? Preferably with an object beyond 50 meters in the middle of the frame like the one below. 

I'm having trouble with my copy of this lens in that the background is not in sharp focus at these settings. It seems to focus around 20 meters, so the branches of the dead tree are in focus and the tree behind is out. 

I'm in the process of having the lens repaired and the agent has tried using different shims but it has now been away since March and returned twice and is still no better to my eyes. 

I'd very much like to see if anyone else's copy performs similarly as I'm sure it should be better than it is. 

Cheers, Chris.

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!

[florian.zahn]

I love the Summaron. This good old 35mm lens delivers really good performance, even today

 

These are made with a Leica M(240) and the Summaron 2.8/35:

 

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!

 

 

 

 

[UliWer]

You may expect better results from the Summaron as shown in #1.

Here an example (strong crop) with the Summaron from the front of a building which is approx. 50m away -both at f2.8:

1. Focussed at approx 30m:

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!

2. focussed exactly:

I have seen the same problem as you described with two of my lenses (one Zeiss and one Minolta);people tried to adjust them but in both cases without success.

Did you ask Leica Customer Care if they can help you? (The best you could do would be to travel to Wetzlar and ask at the desk if they can do anything ...)

P.S:Just saw your other thread about this problem:

Can you please show a picture of the bayonet side of your lens? What is the closest focussing distance of your lens? 

Edited June 12, 2024 by UliWer

[Hoody]

Here's a heavy crop of the image above.

Focus turned until at the infinity stop and the aperture at f/2.8.

You can see the dead tree branches are sharp but the tree behind is not. I'd expect the furthest tree to be in sharp focus. 

It's not back focusing so I can't pull it into sharp focus. It's like the infinity point has been brought down to 20m. 

16 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Did you ask Leica Customer Care if they can help you?

I haven't, I live in the UK so there's a few Leica specialist agents I can try first. 

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!

[UliWer]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Hoody:

It's like the infinity point has been brought down to 20m. 

Yes, that's the problem I have as well with two of my lenses. As you were also unsuccessful to get it repaired I fear that some repair "specialists" don't understand the problem and/or havn't the equipment to test the lens at infinity. 

In my P.S. above I suspected that your lens might be originally a version with goggles or a screw mount version and it was changed in an unfitting way. The screw-mount version should have a closest focussing distance of 1m while the M-mount version should have 0.7 m. (I am not sure about the closest distance of the goggled version).

 

[Hoody]

32 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Can you please show a picture of the bayonet side of your lens? What is the closest focussing distance of your lens? 

Here it is. Closest distance is 0.7m or 2'4".

It's definitely M-Mount. Chap I bought it off had the original receipts. He used an M2 (that I also now have) so no need for a goggled version. 

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 June 12, 2024 by Hoody

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With 0.7m it should be an original M-mount version without goggles.

Though i confess that your lenses bayonet looks a little bit weird at the 7'clock-position of your photo.  

[crons]

3 hours ago, Hoody said:

Here it is. Closest distance is 0.7m or 2'4".

It's definitely M-Mount. Chap I bought it off had the original receipts. He used an M2 (that I also now have) so no need for a goggled version. 

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!

Looks very crusty. I would send both for a CLA before I even touch them. Looks gross. 

[Jean-Michel]

Hmm, looks to me as if someone tried to crudely modify a  goggled version of the lens, which would have brought up the 50 mm frame, to a non-goggled version. And probably crudely re-assembled the whole thing. I would ask for a refund, the lens is not salvageable. 

[Hoody]

14 minutes ago, crons said:

Looks very crusty. I would send both for a CLA before I even touch them. Looks gross. 

Thanks for that. This is an old photo before I sent it off. I'd suggest if you don't have anything constructive to add, you don't comment. 

[Hoody]

7 minutes ago, Jean-Michel said:

Hmm, looks to me as if someone tried to crudely modify a  goggled version of the lens, which would have brought up the 50 mm frame, to a non-goggled version. And probably crudely re-assembled the whole thing. I would ask for a refund, the lens is not salvageable. 

What exactly looks crudely modified in that photo? I'm genuinely interested to know.

We've already established it's an original ungoggled version, it does not bring up 50mm frame lines. 

[Maarten]

Can you please also check if the rangefinder patches are overlapping correctly at infinity (= 1 km or > 0.5 m distance)?
If not it can be an infinity stop issue. Internally the lens has a stop when it reaches infinity. This point can be adjusted by a repair specialist.

It also looks as if your lens has been opened, look at the outer black ring at 11 hours. So it could also be an incorrect repair job.
A goggled version of this lens focusses correctly at infinity, actually that is the only distance it will focus correctly on!
The discussion whether this lens is converted is therefore moot. I would say it isn’t converted, the flange looks like an original bajonet.
The only question is why the flange seems damaged at 6 o’clock. 

Like some others I recommend a CLA as well. Van Manen comes to my mind, he has a proper optical bench to check the infinity setting as well.

Edited June 13, 2024 by Maarten

[Hoody]

11 minutes ago, Maarten said:

Can you please also check if the rangefinder patches are overlapping correctly at infinity (= 1 km or > 0.5 m distance)?

It also looks as if your lens has been opened, look at the outer black ring at 11 hours. So it could also be an incorrect repair job.

The only question is why the flange seems damaged at 6 o’clock. 

Like some others I recommend a CLA as well. Van Manen comes to my mind, he has a proper optical bench to check the infinity setting as well.

It does line up on my M2, but I want to use it primarily on my SL with the M adapter. All my other lenses, including screw mount with adapters work fine. 

It could have been opened before I sent it in. Apparently the front elements were loose in their housings. Even after a CLA and shims added the problem persists. Sharp focus at infinity appears to be around 20m. I've been given the option of different shims to improve focus at infinity, but it may then lose close focus ability, so I'm not sure what to do. 

What appears damaged on it? I've uploaded a current photo of it (post CLA). 

Unfortunately Van Manen appears to no longer accept work from the UK. 

 

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!

[Maarten]

The bayonet of your lens looks much healthier on this picture. The cleaning did him well.
Somehow there is an issue internally in your lens. You need a real expert to get that solved.
It’s a pity Van Manen no longer accepts work from the UK. Sending packages over the Channel has become a bit of a hassle nowadays.
In the end it might be easier and more rewarding to find a healthy copy of this lens.

[crons]

On 6/13/2024 at 2:08 AM, Hoody said:

Thanks for that. This is an old photo before I sent it off. I'd suggest if you don't have anything constructive to add, you don't comment. 

The comment is to send it in to resolve the issue since it looked like it was dumped down a garbage shoot. Aparently you're still having issues with it. Before buying a used lens get detailed photos. If it looks that bad and crusty don't buy it. The aperture blades for example still look terrible. 

This isn't a good example of a lens. I wouldn't have touched it. 

So you can sell it off to someone else and get rid of it, which is what I would do,  or keep trying to repair it. 

Edited June 13, 2024 by crons

[Hoody]

10 hours ago, crons said:

The comment is to send it in to resolve the issue since it looked like it was dumped down a garbage shoot. Aparently you're still having issues with it. Before buying a used lens get detailed photos. If it looks that bad and crusty don't buy it. The aperture blades for example still look terrible. 

This isn't a good example of a lens. I wouldn't have touched it. 

So you can sell it off to someone else and get rid of it, which is what I would do,  or keep trying to repair it. 

Thanks for the "advice". 

[Jean-Michel]

On 6/12/2024 at 3:16 PM, Hoody said:

What exactly looks crudely modified in that photo? I'm genuinely interested to know.

We've already established it's an original ungoggled version, it does not bring up 50mm frame lines. 

Hi again,

Yes, your post CLA image show abetter looking mount. I am not a technician but the inner ring of the mount appears to have been worked on for some reason. Is it also possible that someone installed a 35 mount, so it brings up the 35 frame, and the 35 mm optical cell from a goggled version – the goggled version's mount is a 50 mm mount. And that in doing so some other problems were introduced. The lug at 3 o'clock, when facing the camera, is the one that varies by a mm or so as it pushes the small tab of the frame selector. 

[crons]

7 hours ago, Hoody said:

Thanks for the "advice". 

You're welcome. It is really the best advice so far. Put it on ebay and say goodbye to this one. This lens is a can of worms. 

[nxko]

1. Any experience with the 35mm summaron 2.8 goggled version on the Leica M11? Can I choose this lens from the menu on the M11? 

2. What about framelines on the M11 with the goggles?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jean-Michel]

4 hours ago, nxko said:

1. Any experience with the 35mm summaron 2.8 goggled version on the Leica M11? Can I choose this lens from the menu on the M11? 

2. What about framelines on the M11 with the goggles?

Re # 1. Never owned a Summaron, so no opinion.

Re #2: on any M the goggles will bring up the 50 mm frame lines. The viewfinder magnification is therefore lower and the rangefinder patch is also smaller. You trade an easier view, especially if you wear glasses, for a smaller rangefinder patch.  Since I wear glasses I used a goggled version one 35 Summicron on everything form an M3, M4, M6 and M9 until I stupidly let it go.