Feedback on a review: The Summaron 35mm 2.8 (on film)

[f8low]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Long story short, I’ve spent some time thinking on lens reviews, especially those of vintage/classic lenses. The result is a review of my trusty Summaron 35mm 2.8 which you can find here: https://www.f8low.com/a-closer-look/summaron-35mm-f2.8

 

Now this post is really about two things: The lens and the format of the review. So first of all, I hope the article brings across a few things about the Summaron you didn’t know yet 🙂

But second, and maybe more importantly so, I’d be really keen to discuss the format. My intention was to deviate a bit from what a lens review looks like and feels like and so I am curious to learn how the article comes across. Any problems, improvements, suggestions?

I am currently taking a ‘closer look’ at another lens, so it’s the right point in time to factor in your feedback.

Let me know what you think!

[LocalHero1953]

Thank you for this. I have the Summaron (LTM); it's only a recent acquisition (I owned it before and sold it without using it much), and I don't have the knowledge to argue with your technical content. But since you're looking for critique..........

I am not an avid reader of lens reviews, so I don't know how you deviate significantly from other reviews. It didn't startle me by being different!

When looking for a review, as opposed to technical facts (dimensions, weight, variants), I usually want to cut to the chase of what the lens is like to use. You start well by saying "Let's mount the Summaron and hit the streets", but then almost the first half of the review is its history and what the lens looks like. My interest starts in the section you call "The Look". I realise, of course, that not everyone is looking for the same thing in a review - that's just my view. Perhaps tell people to jump to that section if that's where their interests lie.

I am ambivalent about the side-by-side Summaron/Summilux photos. In principle they ought to be very helpful, but I find the differences difficult to assess at laptop screen size. I'll try on my large monitor later.

You describe the lens as affordable - of course that's relative, but good copies are now going for around £1000 now.

On a more practical matter, the text could do with being run through a spell checker and maybe a grammar checker as well.

I'm curious how others will see it! 

Edited September 27, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[martin]

love it, very good and wow what an effort you've done

[pgk]

I'm not sure that you answer the question you begin with.

[f8low]

@LocalHero1953 Thanks for the honest feedback, that's excellent! You're so right about the typos - trusted the wrong tech there. Did a quick pass to mitigate the situation a bit 😂

And yes, the text is long. Probably too long. At least for some visitors. I'll think about structure (and maybe order?) to make things more 'skippable'.

PS: Price is definitely relative!

[f8low]

46 minutes ago, pgk said:

I'm not sure that you answer the question you begin with.

You mean What makes a lens a classic lens?

Well, that's a good point. I should probably clarify. My idea was (but it got diluted over time) to provide material (side by side photographs, notes on handling, etc) so that it becomes easier for the readers to answers that question themselves. Which is a funny mix of saying that question is subjective and that question should be answered with evidence. 

However, over the course of the project I probably added an amount of text that suggests that I will give an answer... With the conclusion I sort of *did* given an answer... That's an interesting point, I'll think about it!

PS: What would you need to answer the question? Is the question relevant to you?

Edited September 27, 2024 by f8low

[KFo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like it!  In particular I like the way you've illustrated differences with the sliding windows in the images.  I also really appreciate the manner in which you've shown the timeline of the lens as well as the focus throw illustrations.  Graphics like those make easy interpretation of the information rather than a paragraph of blah, blah.  The clicky lens hood images are cool.

To top it off the images are quality and well selected to illustrate the points.

Well done!!

[derleicaman]

Wonderful review, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Appreciated the side-by-side comparisons.

Fortunately I read it on a large screen monitor. It would be very difficult on my iPhone. I'll give it a try on my iPad and see how it goes.

I understand being able to view things properly, especially when evaluating lens performance, as I am the editor of the LSI Viewfinder, and presentation is always very important. We just upgraded our viewer on our website, but nothing beats a high quality printed magazine you can hold in your hands!

[pgk]

4 hours ago, f8low said:

PS: What would you need to answer the question? Is the question relevant to you?

Well I do own some 'classic' lenses including TTH Cooke, Dallmeyer and Grubbs, all from long ago. And I'm still trying them out and the interesting thing is that some seem to het used most so are more effective than the others. I've also owned so called 'classic' Leica lenses. But to be a true 'classic' a lens has to be more than just an effective performer, it has to have a status invoked by other factors such as being a first of its type or haing a very specific characteristic which was thought an advance in lens design (the Rapid Rectilinear for example). Its a difficult question to answer.

[Jeff S]

I couldn’t bond with the infinity lock and ultimately sold the lens, instead sticking with my 35 Summicron ASPH v.1.

Jeff

[Mute-on]

I am very fortunate to have acquired two 35/2.8 Summaron lenses early in my Leica journey, over 20 years ago. Neither was expensive, in fact one I purchased locally was AUD$350. I had both overhauled at Kanto Camera in 2019 and use then unreservedly on my film and digital Leicas.

@f8low I thoroughly enjoyed your review. Certainly not a copy and paste of other reviews, either by way of scope, content or style of expression. A very informative and approachable piece of writing. Well conceived and executed. 

[shirubadanieru]

One of the most interesting reviews I’ve read! Despite knowing the lens well and having used it myself I enjoyed reading it and had details that I’ve never seen in other places. Thanks for all the work you put into it. 

[Raskolnikov]

I enjoyed reading your review on the Summaron. You obviously know this lens very well. The comparison to the Summilux was of particular interest to me, because I consider buying this lens, to use besides my (goggled) Summaron (which I love btw). I shoot film and could use two extra stops of light. I was surprised to see that the old Summaron performs so similar at smaller apertures. I’d say that the question ‘what makes a classic lens’ could translates to ‘what makes a modern lens’. Maybe I should stick with the Summaron and underexpose two stops… 

[f8low]

@KFo @Jeff S @Mute-on @shirubadanieru @Raskolnikov thanks a lot for your kind words. Definitely keeps the motivation up 🙂

@KFo Thanks for the detailed feedback. Great to hear someone used the buttons.

@derleicaman Indeed the sliders aren't very effective on mobile. Just checked the viewfinder's viewer 👍 Would need to combine the pinch-to-zoom with the slider. 

@pgk Point taken, thanks!

@Mute-on Two? 🤩 I haven't seen price statistics of the years but it's certainly true that the Summaron used to be a steal until about 5 - 10 years ago. Nevertheless, I don't think it increased in price more than Leica analog gear generally did on average. So in that sense, I see it as less hyped than, say, the v1 Summicron 35mm.  
 

Edited September 28, 2024 by f8low

[f8low]

1 hour ago, Raskolnikov said:

The comparison to the Summilux was of particular interest to me, because I consider buying this lens, to use besides my (goggled) Summaron (which I love btw). I shoot film and could use two extra stops of light. I was surprised to see that the old Summaron performs so similar at smaller apertures.

To be frank, I was also a bit surprised. The most dramatic advantage I experienced with the Summilux (but not during the time I wrote the review) is wide open performance for shooting color at night. In that setting the two stops really help and the modern aspherical design can shine.

When heading out with the Summaron, the biggest advantage is compactness. When heading out with the Summilux, the biggest advantage is that I feel prepared for any situation 🙂

[hansvons]

18 hours ago, f8low said:

I’d be really keen to discuss the format.

Nice test! It's well designed and structured, and the focus on film is a unique touch. Keep going!!

However, lens tests and comparisons without people in the image tell only a fraction of the story. I worked for a decade as a DoP (cinematographer in advertising), and we conducted many lens tests. Naturally, to the genre, we were most interested in how the lens renders medium close-ups or what you call in stills-land environmental portraits. We always set up the test shoots against the light in a background-up scenario. That way, we could evaluate the skin's sharpness, the rendering of highlights and bokeh, colour, chromatic and spherical aberrations, and most importantly, how the lens renders faces in terms of dimensionality. We could also assess curvature in medium distances and how it interferes with subjects at the images’ edges (furniture, people, etc). We shot all of that from open aperture to f/8, focusing on f/2.8 for interior shots and f/8 for exterior shots. Also, we thoroughly tested the lenses’ handling and looks of flaring, as this is of utter importance in cinematography. And then, of course, whether the lens was collimated correctly for a particular camera.

I know that stills photography has different rules, but many people photograph people from time to time, so I thought I would give my feedback.

[UliWer]

I don’t think it is very helpful to use small f-stops like f/8 or even f/11 comparing different lenses. With small f-stops diffraction will become prominent and equalize the results. So when you used small f-stops and found that results from the Summaron do not differ much from those by a modern Summilux FLE this was to be expected as caused by diffraction and does not really tell much about the lenses. 

When you state that a good copy of the 1:2.8/35mm Summaron is easy to find I’d like to add a caveat: many Summarons (f/3.5 as well as f/2.8) show deterioration of the rear glass elements. This does not always affect the results but it can do so. Therefore my recommendation is to inspect a Summaron by trying it on a camera before acquiring it. 

 

[f8low]

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

I don’t think it is very helpful to use small f-stops like f/8 or even f/11 comparing different lenses. With small f-stops diffraction will become prominent and equalize the results. So when you used small f-stops and found that results from the Summaron do not differ much from those by a modern Summilux FLE this was to be expected as caused by diffraction and does not really tell much about the lenses. 

Combining your input with what @hansvons said: I am surely a bit limited with my 'comfort' zone which is roughly street. I tried to cover 2.8 here and there but for the street shots I felt anything below 5.6 is unrealistic use. Some portraits at 2.8 are definitely on my todolist 😄 

@UliWer Uh, never head about the rear element warning. That sounds like a trap for sure...

Edited September 28, 2024 by f8low

[BernardC]

2 hours ago, UliWer said:

I don’t think it is very helpful to use small f-stops like f/8 or even f/11 comparing different lenses. With small f-stops diffraction will become prominent and equalize the results. So when you used small f-stops and found that results from the Summaron do not differ much from those by a modern Summilux FLE this was to be expected as caused by diffraction and does not really tell much about the lenses. 

I partially agree, however small f-stops can help show other aspects of performance that can be harder to discern at wider apertures. Flare and stray light handling are two of these: is an area unsharp because of depth of field, or is it unsharp because it is flooded with non-image-forming light? Also, a lot of lenses have different personalities wide-open and stopped-down.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[TomB_tx]

Very nice review. I appreciate the evaluation at common "stopped down" apertures, as I only use wide apertures when the light level requires it. I almost bought the 2.8 Summaron when shopping for my first 35 for my new M4 in 1969. However, I decided to stretch my budget and got a Summicron instead - which turned out to be the new v2 6-element when it arrived. I used it for 40+ years. Finally got a 2.8 Summaron as well as a nice 8-element Summicron after I retired, and found I liked the Summaron images better. It seems to me to often appear sharper than the v1 Summicron as it seems to have higher contrast.

I like its infinity lock - the best design of that feature on Leitz lenses.