Leica 3.5cm f3.5 lens opinions?

[bwieder]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all!

I am interested in getting a 35mm lens for my M2. Is the Leica 3.5cm f3.5 a decent lens? As I understand it, it is an old lens, would it be good for color film? I mainly shoot B/W but also color if the occasion is perfect for it. What are your opinions of this lens?

thanks!

[Advertisement]

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

[Sharpdressed]

As the good old Leitz man said: “Every red dot lens is a good lens!”.

Just kidding, just take a look at Erwin Puts writings.

You can find them here:

https://www.overgaard.dk/LP-Leica-books-by-Erwin-Puts-on-lenses-cameras-and-the-history-of-the-company.html

[earleygallery]

Elmar or Summaron? Try and find a later coated example if you shoot colour and one without haze etc. 

Otherwise a Skopar 35 f2.5 is a great lens with a more modern rendering but not that much different from a later Summaron. 

[UliWer]

You may have a look here:

or here:

 

[bwieder]

Thanks, I’ll check out those posts! Even though it seems like it’s a vintage lens, it’s a good buy today compared to newer 35mm? Or is it the coatings that make the newer lenses better? 

[bwieder]

3 hours ago, earleygallery said:

Elmar or Summaron? Try and find a later coated example if you shoot colour and one without haze etc. 

Otherwise a Skopar 35 f2.5 is a great lens with a more modern rendering but not that much different from a later Summaron. 

I was referring to the Summaron I believe. Still pretty new to Leica 

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 15 Minuten schrieb bwieder:

Even though it seems like it’s a vintage lens, it’s a good buy today compared to newer 35mm? Or is it the coatings that make the newer lenses better? 

Well, the 3.5mm Elmar was designed approx. 95 years ago, the Summaron approx. 75 years ago.

You should not expect that it was only coating which changed the appearance of the results these lenses deliver. There have been several generations of new glass and means of production. Why should any producer of lenses introduce new ones during 75 years or longer if the results wouldn‘t look different? 

 

[UliWer]

141 entries for the 1.3.5/35mm Summaron here:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/search/?q=Summaron 3.5&quick=1&item=268173&type=forums_topic&sortby=relevancy&search_and_or=and

[3D-Kraft.com]

If red dot is not mandatory but compactness is a priority, you could take a look at the new Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f/3,5. Almost a pancake.

[-ph-]

vor 26 Minuten schrieb 3D-Kraft.com:

If red dot is not mandatory but compactness is a priority, you could take a look at the new Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f/3,5. Almost a pancake.

And it is an excellent lens, I am enjoying mine a lot.

[lct]

A point to consider eventually, are you prepared to adjust your pic files in post? These old lenses generally have less contrast than modern ones. They require some work in PP if you don't like low-contrast images. It's no rocket science, the snaps below are just jpegs i edited in a couple minutes with Photoshop.

M11, 1948 Elmar 35/3.5, f/8

M11, 1948 Elmar 35/3.5, f/5.6

[pgk]

Older lenses can be surprisingly effective but its all about expectation really. Older 35mm lenses will have poorer corners, especially at wider apertures. Uncoated lenses will be lower contrast and have less shadow detail and are also likely to flare more depending upon conditions. But they are still capable of taking effective photographs if technical perfection is not the aim. Stopped down the results will be closer to that of a modern lens at similar apertures. I like old lenses personally and use many dating back 120-160 years; sometimes viewers of the resulting images have no idea what they were shot on and seem oblivious to the fact anyway.

[bwieder]

39 minutes ago, lct said:

A point to consider eventually, are you prepared to adjust your pic files in post? These old lenses generally have less contrast than modern ones. They require some work in PP if you don't like low-contrast images. It's no rocket science, the snaps below are just jpegs i edited in a couple minutes with Photoshop.

M11, 1948 Elmar 35/3.5, f/8

M11, 1948 Elmar 35/3.5, f/5.6

Those photos look great! I never thought of that point. That’s good to know,thanks!

[bwieder]

28 minutes ago, pgk said:

Older lenses can be surprisingly effective but its all about expectation really. Older 35mm lenses will have poorer corners, especially at wider apertures. Uncoated lenses will be lower contrast and have less shadow detail and are also likely to flare more depending upon conditions. But they are still capable of taking effective photographs if technical perfection is not the aim. Stopped down the results will be closer to that of a modern lens at similar apertures. I like old lenses personally and use many dating back 120-160 years; sometimes viewers of the resulting images have no idea what they were shot on and seem oblivious to the fact anyway.

I guess my main goal in this stage of my photography is not to be too clinical, if that makes sense. I like a little character in my photos. That’s part of the reason I picked up film photography again as an adult. I don’t think the “shortcomings” of the lens will be a drawback for me. 

[bwieder]

7 hours ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

If red dot is not mandatory but compactness is a priority, you could take a look at the new Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f/3,5. Almost a pancake.

I just looked that lens up and that really is small! 

[nitroplait]

I have two Summaron 35/3.5's in LTM mount (same optics as the M version). They are both CLA'd in recent years and none of them are bad, but I must say there is a noticeable sample variation. Enough to say that I can't generalise much about this lens - It will depend on the sample you get.

Buying a lens of this vintage is not trivial. It takes a bit research and know-how, and sometimes involves returning the lens because it underperforms. Having restrictions due to budget is not advisable - you should buy the best possible sample - the cheapest one may not be the best. 

If that sounds like a fun challenge - you should definitely pursue this.

However, it is much easier to get a great new lens from Voigtlander if above doesn't sound fun - and it will objectively perform better.

[pippy]

The suggestions regarding modern Voigtlander lenses should be considered quite fully as they are excellent performers.

As far as your original question goes? The 35mm f3.5 Summaron can be a truly wonderful performer. I bought one - a 1954 example in M-Mount - back in 1980 and was completely happy with the images which it could produce during my 'film-shooting' days. Once I started using digi-M cameras (much later) I was less than happy but it turned out that all it required was a good CLA; thirty four years of use / existence had taken its toll. When it came back to me I was amazed by its performance so if a Summaron is going to be on your shopping list it might be a good idea to factor-in the price of a CLA.

Whether it is the right lens for you will depend on a few personal preferences. Optically (understandably!) it loses out to some newer designs in corner and edge sharpness when used wide open but IMX there are areas where it wins-out. One of these is its nigh-on perfect rectilinear quality; neither barrel- nor pincushion-distortion worth the mention are present. Being a relatively 'slow' design means that despite losing-out in ultimate edge / corner performance in comparison with modern designs when used wide open by the time one has stopped-down only one stop any such differences can only really be descerned with very close examination of large high-quality wet-prints or when pixel-peeping.

It is a surprisingly small lens and takes the 'normal' (for the time) 39mm filters and 12585 style clip-on hood. It also dates to what has often been called Leitz' "Golden Period" where engineering excellence was as high as it ever was to become. As such these lenses will last a lifetime.

You mention in post #12 that;

"...my main goal in this stage of my photography is not to be too clinical, if that makes sense. I like a little character in my photos. That’s part of the reason I picked up film photography again..."

As such I seriously doubt that you would find anything about the f3.5 Summaron that you will not like.

In case there is any suspicion that there is any "confirmation bias" going on here I should add that I also have a number of other M-Mount lenses yet I will still take the Summaron out if I don't need f1.4 / f2.0 / f2.8 simply because I get great pleasure using the little jewel and the results in terms of IQ are easily every bit as good as I could ever require.

I can't show any examples at the moment (away from home) but if you wish I could look some out on my return?

Best of good fortune in your quest.

Philip.

Edited April 14 by pippy

[jaapv]

On 4/13/2025 at 5:39 PM, bwieder said:

Hello all!

I am interested in getting a 35mm lens for my M2. Is the Leica 3.5cm f3.5 a decent lens? As I understand it, it is an old lens, would it be good for color film? I mainly shoot B/W but also color if the occasion is perfect for it. What are your opinions of this lens?

thanks!

For your M2 you probably want  one without goggles. Take care that you do not get sold one that should be goggled, the helicoid is different and it will misfocus. I really like the lens - it has a nice vintage character but still renders a quality image.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bwieder]

8 hours ago, pippy said:

The suggestions regarding modern Voigtlander lenses should be considered quite fully as they are excellent performers.

As far as your original question goes? The 35mm f3.5 Summaron can be a truly wonderful performer. I bought one - a 1954 example in M-Mount - back in 1980 and was completely happy with the images which it could produce during my 'film-shooting' days. Once I started using digi-M cameras (much later) I was less than happy but it turned out that all it required was a good CLA; thirty four years of use / existence had taken its toll. When it came back to me I was amazed by its performance so if a Summaron is going to be on your shopping list it might be a good idea to factor-in the price of a CLA.

Whether it is the right lens for you will depend on a few personal preferences. Optically (understandably!) it loses out to some newer designs in corner and edge sharpness when used wide open but IMX there are areas where it wins-out. One of these is its nigh-on perfect rectilinear quality; neither barrel- nor pincushion-distortion worth the mention are present. Being a relatively 'slow' design means that despite losing-out in ultimate edge / corner performance in comparison with modern designs when used wide open by the time one has stopped-down only one stop any such differences can only really be descerned with very close examination of large high-quality wet-prints or when pixel-peeping.

It is a surprisingly small lens and takes the 'normal' (for the time) 39mm filters and 12585 style clip-on hood. It also dates to what has often been called Leitz' "Golden Period" where engineering excellence was as high as it ever was to become. As such these lenses will last a lifetime.

You mention in post #12 that;

"...my main goal in this stage of my photography is not to be too clinical, if that makes sense. I like a little character in my photos. That’s part of the reason I picked up film photography again..."

As such I seriously doubt that you would find anything about the f3.5 Summaron that you will not like.

In case there is any suspicion that there is any "confirmation bias" going on here I should add that I also have a number of other M-Mount lenses yet I will still take the Summaron out if I don't need f1.4 / f2.0 / f2.8 simply because I get great pleasure using the little jewel and the results in terms of IQ are easily every bit as good as I could ever require.

I can't show any examples at the moment (away from home) but if you wish I could look some out on my return?

Best of good fortune in your quest.

Philip.

I would love to see some examples whenever you have time, thanks! 

[bwieder]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

For your M2 you probably want  one without goggles. Take care that you do not get sold one that should be goggled, the helicoid is different and it will misfocus. I really like the lens - it has a nice vintage character but still renders a quality image.

Thanks for the tip! I’ll be sure to look out for that