Any love for the lowly 35 Summaron?

[Smudgerer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, colint544 said:

FWIW, an image taken on an M11 and the 35 Summaron 2.8.

I find there's a touch less of that biting contrast you can get with, say, the 35 Summilux FLE.

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!

With due respect to your post here Colin I think the 35mm Summarons shine more when imagining in B&W...........Or maybe it's my biased way of looking at the world!

[Smudgerer]

9 minutes ago, colint544 said:

Prices for Summarons are definitely creeping up.

Yes...........Your posting this thread will probably nudge them up some more!

[colint544]

2 minutes ago, Smudgerer said:

With due respect to your post here Colin I think the 35mm Summarons shine more when imagining in B&W...........Or maybe it's my biased way of looking at the world!

You're probably right. The Summaron is from the era of black and white, and I might be asking a lot of it on a modern 60 megapixel colour sensor.

That said, that image is largely untouched from the RAW file, and I do have a version somewhere, where I lightly breathed on it with a bit of contrast in Photoshop. It holds a lot of detail.

[Ecar]

2 hours ago, colint544 said:

Really lovely tones there. The Summaron is anything but lowly - I would never sell mine. That thread heading is just having a gentle dig at the guy in the video who is so disparaging of Summarons.

Thank you, Colin. Tonal transitions are what these Leitz lenses (the Summarons and the 8e) are particularly remarkable for IMO, not their oof rendering (contemporary Japanese lenses are arguably more pleasant in this respect) or their contrast (Zeiss designs were bolder/punchier). 60 years on, this offers a broad range of post-processing options depending on the look you are after, although I'm usually happier with B&W (this may just be down to an inadequate colour PP technique on my part). With digital Ms, this is irrespective of the camera/sensor in my experience - only needs different processing.

Faster designs, such as the Summiluxes, are of course an entirely different kettle of fish.

(Regarding the thread heading: yes, got that, my question was also purely rhetorical.😉)

Two more with the 35/2.8 on the M9 and M11P respectively, also previously posted on the forum:

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 September 4, 2024 by Ecar

[wizard]

vor einer Stunde schrieb colint544:

I find there's a touch less of that biting contrast you can get with, say, the 35 Summilux FLE.

Those older lenses definitely have less contrast than modern Leica offerings, but I often tend to think that the older lenses' rendering is somewhat more true to life, i.e., more realistic in that the result matches more with my own recollection of the scene when the shot was taken. If additional pop is needed, it can easily be added in post.

[colint544]

5 minutes ago, wizard said:

Those older lenses definitely have less contrast than modern Leica offerings, but I often tend to think that the older lenses' rendering is somewhat more true to life, i.e., more realistic in that the result matches more with my own recollection of the scene when the shot was taken. If additional pop is needed, it can easily be added in post.

Yes, it's easier to add a little contrast to a flat image, than to reduce it in a punchy image.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both the v1 Summicon 35 and the 2.8 Summaron of the same vintage, and both have been serviced to as-new condition, I prefer the images with the Summaron - they seem at least equally sharp and have a bit more contrast, likely due to the fewer elements,

Even my ltm 3.5 Summaron is a good performer.

Edited September 4, 2024 by TomB_tx

[LocalHero1953]

The only real Summaron is a LTM Summaron.😉

As it happens, I have one on the way.

After the comments here, I'm even more eager to see how it compares with my W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5.

[colint544]

6 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

I have both the v1 Summicon 35 and the 2.8 Summaron of the same vintage, and both have been serviced to as-new condition, I prefer the images with the Summaron - they seem at least equally sharp and have a bit more contrast, likely due to the fewer elements,

Even my ltm 3.5 Summaron is a good performer.

Yes. I bought my v1 35mm Summicron for £400 in 1998, and sold it for £1650 in 2011. Wish I'd hung onto it, but couldn't justify the price they go for now. Aside from the fact the v1 can go to F2, I also didn't see much difference between the two.

If there was anything, it was that the out of focus areas in backgrounds seem a touch smoother on the Summaron, maybe a little more 'nervous' on the v1 at full aperture.

[pippy]

13 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

...I prefer the images with the Summaron - they seem at least equally sharp and have a bit more contrast, likely due to the fewer elements...

I was utterly astonished by how much more contrast was 'available' once my own example came home from its CLA. It's not that it was all that bad before but afterwards it was extraordinary.

I might go and carry out a back-to-back test with that lens shot against my '74 Summilux and 2021(?) LLL '8 Element' recreation. The former seems to be crystal clear and the LLL is practically brand-new so viewing the results from such a comparison might be interesting...

Philip.

[Ecar]

25 minutes ago, colint544 said:

If there was anything, it was that the out of focus areas in backgrounds seem a touch smoother on the Summaron, maybe a little more 'nervous' on the v1 at full aperture.

+1

[elmars]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb colint544:

The slightly lower contrast, I think, helps on the modern, contrasty sensor of the M11.

I share this assessment. It is an almost modern-rendering lens with excellent sharpness, especially considering its age. The lens is also beautiful, just as beautiful as the Summicron 8 elements, but much cheaper. However, there is one major limitation for me: the lens locks at infinity. Although I love the lens otherwise, this bothers me so much that I will probably sell it again.

[TomB_tx]

56 minutes ago, elmars said:

However, there is one major limitation for me: the lens locks at infinity.

I like infinity locks, as with arthritic hands they help leverage when mounting/removing the lens,

[LocalHero1953]

I also like infinity locks - they stop me accidentally going shorter when I want to stay at infinity.
I can see a forum war developing over this matter.

Edited September 4, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[Scrapbook]

If I were a sober-minded person, I would only need 2 Leica lenses, a Summaron 35mm 2.8 and a Summilux 50mm Asph. Fortunately, I am not a sober-minded person.

Claus😁

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!

[Jeff S]

I had a nice copy of the 35 f/2.8 Summaron that had been serviced by DAG. IQ was sufficient, but I didn’t like the infinity lock and eventually sold it. The 35 Summicron ASPH v.1 still serves well for my B&W digital work.

Jeff

Edited September 4, 2024 by Jeff S

[RexGig0]

The f/3.5 Summaron versions do not seem to be as loved as the f/2.8 Summarons. A Summaron 3.5cm f/3.5 was my second Leica M lens acquisition. I was unimpressed, largely because the “look” that had lured me to add the Leica M system was that provided by  the Summilux-M 50mm ASPH. The vintage Summaron did not “pair” well with my Summilux 50 ASPH, and, still does not, but, now and then, I find a use for it.

[pippy]

Interesting to read the comments from so many experienced photographers whose opinions I rate highly.

On the matter of Infinity Locks I'm another in the 'Pro' camp but perhaps that's simply because I've been using lenses with them since I was 15 although I must admit to having a slight preference for the style used on the 35 8-Element to the more traditional push-button.

Contrast! I did carry out the comparison test as mentioned in post #30 and it was useful. Results were compared, firstly, as uncorrected DNG files; then uncorrected JPEGs and finally as 'Auto-Corrected' JPEGs.

As expected the LLL '8 Element' had - as DNG RAW files - the greatest 'tonal-capture' range. Next up was the v2 Summilux which was giving away a couple of percentage points at either end of the Relative Log-E Curve. Lastly was the Summaron which lacked perhaps 5% at either end in comparison to the LLL. Just for fun I also tested my 1975 Jupiter-12 35mm f2.8 which actually had a greater contrast range that did the LLL!

In practice, mind you, none of this makes too much difference, in my case, to the finished image once it has been processed-out. For one thing both of my Digi-M cameras 'need' to be used as 'RAW Capture' and, as such, will always require some sort of post-prod work. For the Monochrom this is because of the need to underexpose in order to preserve the highlights and with the M-D, it not having a screen/menu, there is no alternative but to shoot in DNG with the resultant PP work.

In any case as mentioned a bit earlier simply by hitting the 'Auto-Levels' button in Ps brought every image to within a hair's breadth of all the rest. The Summaron does capture a slightly narrower range of tones but, possiby perversely, I almost always use it with either a Yellow, Orange or Red contrast-filter fitted.

Lastly on the subject of rendering / matching other lenses of a similar vintage...

For 40 years the only two lenses I had for the M2 was the Summaron and a 50mm f2.8 Elmar of a similar age. Not being one who really likes shallow DoF the OOF Boke thing was - and remains - of almost no importance. I say almost because my tastes have changed very slightly over the last few years - hence my acquisition of the Summilux. Still; I'm much more often to be found down at the f8 - f11 end of the scale so, as I say, rendering is as near a good match as might be wished.

Philip.

Edited September 4, 2024 by pippy

[wizard]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb elmars:

However, there is one major limitation for me: the lens locks at infinity.

Although I am not a very big fan of infinity locks, I must say I DO like the infinity locks on the Summaron 2.8/35 and Summicron 35 v1. Due to their particular construction, they are very intuitive to use and do not hinder me in any way. Once your finger is positioned in the tab for focusing, it rests on the little lock button anyway, and unlocking it if needed becomes second nature. Things are different with the traditional push-button type locks on, say, the Summicron rigid or the various Elmar 50mm lenses. I don't find them as intuitive to use, and rather prefer a non-locking lens instead.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[spydrxx]

23 hours ago, elmars said:

I share this assessment. It is an almost modern-rendering lens with excellent sharpness, especially considering its age. The lens is also beautiful, just as beautiful as the Summicron 8 elements, but much cheaper. However, there is one major limitation for me: the lens locks at infinity. Although I love the lens otherwise, this bothers me so much that I will probably sell it again.

I've removed the locking button on many of my infinity lock lenses (and placed the parts in plastic bags in case I want to remount them or are contemplating a sale at a later date. It is a simple job and makes quick focusing much more pleasant.