Upgrade to Summaron. (Not many can say that!)

[Don'tknowmuch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Morning all.

I have just one lens for my M2; an Elmar 35mm. I'm wondering about a Summaron 35mm. If anyone would be kind enough to respond to a couple of questions I'd be grateful.

Question 1. Does the front of a Summaron rotate with focussing in the same way it does with the Elmar? Reason for asking; the lens hood I have also rotates and I have modded it (with nothing more permanent than PVC tape) to be rectangular as I shoot into the light a lot and benefit from as much shielding as possible. This rotating is a complete pain and it would be good if the hood stayed square to the camera.

If the Summaron's front also rotates, what is the earliest 35mm lens that accepts a hood that doesn't rotate in this way?

Question 2. Is the f3.5 Summaron as good at f3.5 as the f2.8 is at f3.5? I can live with f3.5 but wondered if there was any penalty for not buying an f2.8.

Many thanks all,

Jim.

[richam]

Based on my 35mm f2.8 Summaron, sn 2218xxx, the front does not rotate with the focusing. Don't have the f3.5, so I can't elaborate or answer question 2. All I can say is that mine is not for sale. It's a great lens. You'll have to find one elsewhere.

[andybarton]

The front of a Summaron does not rotate

 

The f3.5 isn't a patch on the f2.8 (I have had both, and can link to some examples of both, if you want them)

 

I recently sold a f2.8 via the B&S section. It sold within 24 hours of me putting it up. I should have asked for more money . IMHO, the f2.8 Summaron is the greatest bargain lens around. Mine, in excellent condition, went for £250. You might save £50 if you can find a f3.5, but you will regret it. The f3.5 doesn't bring up 35 frame lines, btw.

 

There is a hood for a Summaron on there now

[john_s]

 

...................

Question 2. Is the f3.5 Summaron as good at f3.5 as the f2.8 is at f3.5? I can live with f3.5 but wondered if there was any penalty for not buying an f2.8.

Many thanks all' date='

Jim.[/quote']

 

I had a Summaron 35mm f3.5 and I was quite disappointed in its sharpness. I'm talking about ISO=400 film and hand holding in daylight, not hi-res tests on tripod. It was immaculate physically, and I loved the infinity lock. I got a Summicron and it was totally different (better!). I have never owned the 35mm f2.8 Summaron but it has been reviewed as a much better lens than the f3.5.

[RITskellar]

There are two different versions of f3.5 Summarons. The first is the screw mount version where the whole lens turns when you focus and would not work as you require it. However, the second 3.5 version is a M (bayonet) mount and has a fixed barrel. This latter M mount Summaron is an excellent lens and I enjoy it very, very much.

 

The size and handling is incredibly useful, and there really is little need for a hood, as it gets so much protection already from the recess of the surrounding barrel. Also, this lens pulls up the 35 frame lines just as it should. I've attached a picture of it mounted to my MP just for reference. The image quality, though not as sharp (obviously) as the more modern lenses, it has a very nice tone and smoothness to it. I can also point you to images taken with it, but I also know that there has been a couple threads on this lens on RFF if you do a search.

 

[Michael Hiles]

I have a Summaron f3.5, which I like very much. It was made for the M3, and needs an external viewfinder for that camera. The barrel does not rotate. Mine originally brought up the 50mm frame, but a prior owner filed the lug on the M-mount (a shame and disgrace - but it works) and it now brings up the 35 frame on my M2.

 

I believe everyone above who say that the f2.8 is better. But I have never been disappointed with the quality of my f3.5. The pictures are sharp and the "look" is very nice. Specific to your second question, I suspect that at 3.5 the f2.8 version is still better, but I don't know.

 

Maybe there are variations from lens to lens, but that seems a stretch. Andy Barton and others have been disappointed - but not me. Maybe my expectations are too low, but I have not been disappointed and I have some fine pictures that have been enlarged to 16x24 and I am proud to sign my name at the bottom.

 

One thing I do not do - I usually use it a f5.6 or f8 whenever I can. That is where it is best. Like all lenses up until fairly recently, wide open is not where it performs best. So I freely admit to its limitations. But I am writing all this to defend the f3.5 version. It is still capable of some good pictures.

[RITskellar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a Summaron f3.5, which I like very much. It was made for the M3, and needs an external viewfinder for that camera. Mine originally brought up the 50mm frame, but a prior owner filed the lug on the M-mount (a shame and disgrace - but it works) and it now brings up the 35 frame on my M2.

 

Good clarification! There are actually TWO versions of the M-mount Summaron 3.5. One that is meant to be coupled with goggles for the M3, which is what Michael was referring to. And then one like mine (pictured above) that does not require goggles and works with the M2, M4 and above. It brings up the 35mm frame lines just like any other standard 35mm lens would.

[Tom Johnston]

regarding the 3.5 thread mount summarons, i believe there were two versions as well, distinguished by a filter thread on the later model. i had both of these at different times, and liked them very much, how they worked, and especially for their compactness.

[Guest maddoc2003jp]

I had both, the googled 2.8 and 3.5 in m-mount, and found the 2.8 to be the better of the both. Now I have the Summaron 35/3.5 in LTM which I like for it's small size but at f/3.5 it is not one of the sharpest lenses out there ...

[Don'tknowmuch]

You know - I am often tempted back to the convenience of my SLR's and, besides reminding myself why I began this Leitz exploration, one of the main reasons I don't just give up and get back to SLR-land is because of the helpfulness and experience of those here in this forum. So thanks very much again.

Anyway; back to business.

So there are 4 variables?

f3.5 screw-mount front of lens does rotate.

f3.5 M-mount front of lens does rotate.

and the same with f2.8.

Not to mention if the frame lines are right...

I will have to ask each time I dig out a lens in second-hand-land. There's one here https://www.leicashop.com/vintage/summaron-2835mm-p-112.html and I'm asking them about the rotating factor. Any comments on this lens - apart from it being a bit pricey possibly? Any dealings with this trader?

Thanks again,

Jim.

[andybarton]

AFAIK, there isn't a "rotating" f2.8

 

Place a Wanted Ad here. If you'd asked three weeks ago, you could have bought mine They do come through every now and again

[Philippe D.]

Hello,

Any comments on this lens - apart from it being a bit pricey possibly? Any dealings with this trader?

This is a good (but here pricey' date=' yes) lens. Leicashop/Vienna is a well known merchant.

Look at RedDot, maybe you could have a look and the lens at hand. Red Dot Cameras

The f/3,5 is also a good lens, some even prefer this one. It's just a very personal taste.

 

On a M2, you also may use the one with google (actually made for the M3).

[luigi bertolotti]

.....

So there are 4 variables?

f3.5 screw-mount front of lens does rotate.

f3.5 M-mount front of lens does rotate.

and the same with f2.8.

Not to mention if the frame lines are right...

 

Jim.

 

To be precise :

 

1) Summaron 35 f 3,5 screw mount, rotating lens (the only one that is so), filter A36

2) Summaron 35 f 3,5 screw mount, filter E 39 (as all the subsequents)

3) Summaron 35 f 2,8, screw mount

4) Summaron 35 f 3,5 bayonet early model for M3, does NOT bring up 35 frame on M2/4 etc.

5) Summaron 35 f 3,5 bayonet with goggles well usable also on M2/4 etc. (I use on M8 )

6) Summaron 35 f 3,5 bayonet (ungoggled) brings up 35 frame on M2/4 etc.

7) Summaron 35 f 2,8 bayonet with goggles

8) Summaron 35 f 2,8 bayonet no goggles, brings up 35 frame on M2/4 etc.

 

"bastards" item can be found on the user market : goggles removed, BM adapter removed (early BMs were SM with a factory attached adapter ... recognizable for the SM versions focus to 1 m, the BM to 0,7, the BM goggled to 0,65)

 

 

6)

[john_s]

To be precise :

 

1) Summaron 35 f 3,5 screw mount, rotating lens (the only one that is so), filter A36

2) Summaron 35 f 3,5 screw mount, filter E 39 (as all the subsequents)

3) Summaron 35 f 2,8, screw mount

4) Summaron 35 f 3,5 bayonet early model for M3, does NOT bring up 35 frame on M2/4 etc.

5) Summaron 35 f 3,5 bayonet with goggles well usable also on M2/4 etc. (I use on M8 )

6) Summaron 35 f 3,5 bayonet (ungoggled) brings up 35 frame on M2/4 etc.

7) Summaron 35 f 2,8 bayonet with goggles

8) Summaron 35 f 2,8 bayonet no goggles, brings up 35 frame on M2/4 etc.

 

"bastards" item can be found on the user market : goggles removed, BM adapter removed (early BMs were SM with a factory attached adapter ... recognizable for the SM versions focus to 1 m, the BM to 0,7, the BM goggled to 0,65)

 

 

6)

 

For what it's worth, the one I had (see above post for my impressions of sharpness) was bayonet mount, had an infinity lock, and originally brought up incorrect frame lines (I forget which, but I ground a bit off it to bring up 35mm frames on my M6). The serial number was 1178552.

[luigi bertolotti]

For what it's worth, the one I had (see above post for my impressions of sharpness) was bayonet mount, had an infinity lock, and originally brought up incorrect frame lines (I forget which, but I ground a bit off it to bring up 35mm frames on my M6). The serial number was 1178552.

 

Correct... 1.178.552 is a 1954 item - first year of production of that kind - like one of mine (1.180.184), so bayonet mount but no 35 frame on M2/4/5/6/7/8.

[Don'tknowmuch]

I'm very grateful to those who took the time to fill me in on the Summarons. Thanks all, but I've had a bit of a think about it and, well, I'm sticking to the 35mm Elmar and what it was about the look of this old lens that got me going in the first place.

I wanted, and want, to create a certain look with the Leica, and think, if I sit back and look at the images I'm printing off, that I am slowly getting there with the Elmar.

I think that if I went down the road of getting a "better" lens, I would be missing the point; to get the look that the old Elmar gives me - inconvenient though it is - I'll have to put up with using it! The Summaron may possibly give me more of the same look with better detail etc, but it would be expensive to find out if this was the case.

Besides, buying lenses for my M2 seems to be a bit of a minefield; so many variants and names. And the cost of Summarons is apporaoching that of many other options – more confusion…

Thanks again; the information you gave me has helped me to make up my mind. So - I’m going to carry on with the Elmars (I also have a 50mm Elmar on a Leica 1) as they do appear to produce images that I like. I shall also take pictures in Zuikoland for a different look, and spend out on a better scanner.

Jim.

[andym911]

Jim

good decision in my opinion.....just sent you a PM,

 

Andy