Summaron 35mm f2.8 M lens

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Michael, 

I don't think you are correct about a removed goggles lens not showing the correct distances on the focus scale. It is only if you try and use the rangefinder that the distances will be off. If for example you put an LTM to M ring back on the lens, the flange focal distance would be the same as with the goggles (the goggles flange is 1mm thick), so as far as the lens is concerned, it would not know if it was fitted with goggles or the LTM to M ring. It is because light is refracted through the lenses in the goggles, which bend the apparent light rays from the object, that RF focusing does not work. If you then go on to think that an LTM lens shows correct scale focusing, whether mounted on an M camera with an LTM to M ring or mounted directly on an LTM camera, as the ring corrects the flange focal distances. Why would a goggles lens behave any differently? 

Luigi, 

The very small screws without a head are called "grub screws" in English, because if you have a few together, they look a bit like small insect grubs and Gewindestift in German (I think, it is over 55 years since I did my German lessons). 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

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

[Slender]

Thank you both for these answers.

So, I would assume a subject standing at 3m from a lens "with google removed" could be focussed using just the distance scale (in addition to SL2 EVF off course).

The idea here is to have, for my SL2, a small, nimble lens I can "zone focus" knowing at wich distance the focus is thanks to the position of my finger on the lens tab (like in my M4/M7/M9 days with 15, 21, 28, 35mm lenses) for street photography.

Just another quick question: can you remove the googles just undo-ing the screws (and so the mounting point on top of the lens remains), or is the whole thing ---- ring+mounting point for google screws+googles ----  mounted on a removable flange/shim?

• If I understand the previous post correctly, that would mean the lens would be 1mm closer to the mount, and so a little bit off, unless you leave/put the flange/ring on the lens mount

Thank you very much for your help.

 

[wlaidlaw]

If you replace the goggles with a 35/135mm LTM to M adapter ring, the flange focal distance (the distance from the mount of the lens to the imaging medium, film or sensor) of a googles lens will be exactly the same as when the goggles were fitted. The goggles part of the lens are a single part, there is no extra flange or adapter, the 1mm thick flange is built in to the body of the goggles.

If you can find one, a black 35/135 LTM adapter ring works better than a bright chrome or aluminium one, as they don't give false readings to the 6 bit sensor in the M to L adapter or give rise to the "no lens detected" message on live view cameras. I have recently bought a Fotodiox Pro bright aluminium alloy 50/75 LTM to M adapter, which has 6 bit coding pits milled in it. I cannot get this adapter to read correctly on the M to L adapter, in spite of painting in the correct code, 10001, for my LTM 50/2 Summicron V Special Edition. I want to use this lens on my M10-R, without having to select the lens in the menu every time. I got the painted in code, 000101, on my black Rayqual LTM adapter ring to work first time,  with my LTM 50/1.4 Summilux III Special Edition. 

Unlike many LTM lenses, with the 35 Summaron, you don't need a cut out LTM to M lens adapter ring. I don't know if the goggles lenses have the same very neat infinity lock that the LTM 35 Summarons have but they certainly don't have the button type, as for example an LTM Summar. Those lenses need the cut out adapters, as otherwise, the infinity lock will foul the LTM to M ring. 

Wilson

[Slender]

Thank again for another greatly detailed answer. Who would have guessed there are such intricated tiny mechanic hoops to jump through ? for me to get a googled summaron 35 2.8 to work on an SL2.... but its good to know you can stretch brand compatibility as far as 1930ies--2021!

Do you guys believe we might see a re-edition soon, and prices soar up for vintage ones? They already cost double what they used to a few years back....
 

[luigi bertolotti]

10 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Luigi,

Thank you for explaining. Now it is clear.

If the screw thread base is properly fitted then the lens should focus correctly at Infinity as things are. Even if the other distances are not correct.

I wonder, with all of these M3 versions being converted to M2 & Screw Mount, If you might be able to find a set of goggles, which weigh 80 grams, to re-convert the lens back to an M3 version? After which it would hopefully focus correctly.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

 

Hello Michael, I have a goggled Summaron 3,5... but it is so fine (compared to the reworked 2,8) that I don't dare to try a transplant of the goggle unit... 🙄 (which I think it's possible)

And... I do confirm what Wlaidlaw says : distances on the scale are correct, in themselves... I made a rather precise test years ago... the problem is in the RF alignement. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by luigi bertolotti

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

After reading Wilson's Post #123, this Thread, I went & re-read my Post # 119, this Thread. My first 2 sentences should have read:

It would focus correctly at Infinity. The RANGEFINDER PATCH would not indicate the actual distance the lens is focused on at distances less than Infinity.

Instead of the:

It would focus correctly at Infinity. The DISTANCE SCALE would not show the actual distance...................

which I actually wrote.

Sorry for the mix-up.

Wilson's explanation is correct.

Best Regards,

Michael
 

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Michael Geschlecht

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Luigi,

I was not suggesting changing the "goggles" from 1 of your lenses to the other. I was suggesting checking on the internet & with dealers to see if there might be a set of goggles available for sale separately given the number of "converted" 35mm lens out there.

Best Regards,

Michael

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Wilson,

My 35mm F2 Summicron with "goggles" has the same really nice, wonderfully working, Infinity lock that is on you 35mm F2.8 Summaron screw mount. 

I think that all of the 35mm F2 Summicons (Version I) with "goggles", M2 & Screw Mount use this type of Infinity lock. Many of the 35mm F2.8 Summarons with "goggles", M2 & Screw Mount used this Infinity lock. I don't know if any of the 35mm F3.5 Summarons did. Some 35mm F2.8 Summarons use a 50mm F2 Rigid Summicron style Infinity lock. As do many 35mm F3.5 Summarons. As with many things Leitz/Leica there are most likely a number of exceptions or/& variations of this.

Best Regards,

Michael

[luigi bertolotti]

5 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Wilson,

My 35mm F2 Summicron with "goggles" has the same really nice, wonderfully working, Infinity lock that is on you 35mm F2.8 Summaron screw mount. 

I think that all of the 35mm F2 Summicons (Version I) with "goggles", M2 & Screw Mount use this type of Infinity lock. Many of the 35mm F2.8 Summarons with "goggles", M2 & Screw Mount used this Infinity lock. I don't know if any of the 35mm F3.5 Summarons did. Some 35mm F2.8 Summarons use a 50mm F2 Rigid Summicron style Infinity lock. As do many 35mm F3.5 Summarons. As with many things Leitz/Leica there are most likely a number of exceptions or/& variations of this.

Best Regards,

Michael

Hello Michael : I don't think any Summaron 3,5 has that kind of infinity lock : I have one of the last SM (1.640.196) and also a BM for M2 (1.595.031) and both have the old classic lock with push button. 

[wlaidlaw]

Luigi, 

I would guess that the different infinity locks are due to the ages of the designs. I believe the 35/3.5 Summaron started development before WW2 but due to delays, was not actually in production until 1946. The 35/2.8 was designed around 1956/57 and released in 1958. Other than special edition lenses, I would think this was the last LTM lens design. The LTM version was only made from 1958 to 64 with production of just over 5,000 lenses. 

Wilson

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Wilson,

What about the 35mm F2 Summicron, The 90mm 3 element F4 Elmar & the 135mm 4 element F4 Elmar? I think that they were all released after the 35mm F2.8 Summaron.

Best Regards,

Michael

[luigi bertolotti]

7 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Wilson,

What about the 35mm F2 Summicron, The 90mm 3 element F4 Elmar & the 135mm 4 element F4 Elmar? I think that they were all released after the 35mm F2.8 Summaron.

Best Regards,

Michael

That's an historically interesting topic... : I think that the Summaron 2,8 was the "last LTM design" in the sense that  the lens group was designed  around the LTM mount and the "style" of the Barnacks... as an evolution of the 3,5 ; not by chance, the first 2,8 items have the original Summaron 3,5 A36 mount (Lager) ; Summicron 35, the 3 Element 90 and the Elmar 135 f4 were designed having in mind that they had to be built on both LTM and BM mounts (as well as the SA 21 and the Summicron 90) : but , worth noting, the basic design of the mount, for those lenses, is clearly targeted to the good old LTM... 😉 : the BM version was often achieved with built in adapters, and in the case of Elmar 3 elem. the BM looks not so stylish...

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by luigi bertolotti

[UliWer]

I should not presume that the Summaron 2.8 was constructed mainly as a screwmount lens. It was introduced in 1958, so even if the first ideas about the lens started 5 years earlier they were clearly on the path for the M. The lens has almost exactly the same mount as the 35 Summicron, which was certainly designed for the M system. Perhaps the prototypes with A36 filter mount mentioned by Lager were initially thought for screwmount because someone thought this was the better way as the screwmount users all had their A36-Filters in the cupboard. But this idea didn't prevail as they even "upgraded" the 1:3.5 Summaron for screwmount to E 39. 

[Mowgli]

Dear fellow members,

I have been reading and researching here in the forum for years. Now it is finally time for me to contribute something. During my research on the Summaron-M 35/2.8 I noticed something that I would like to share here and verify. Generally we distinguish four versions of this 2.8 Summaron (I leave the 3.5 Summaron out of consideration here):
1st version: LTM (focuses from 1m, coarse thread);
2nd version: Dual Mount from M 39+BM (focuses from 70cm, coarse thread, with small screw);
3rd version: M3+goggles (focuses from 65cm, coarse thread, with small screw);
4th version: M2 (focuses from 70cm, fine thread, without small screw).

However, there is another, late version from 1962:
5th version: M3+goggles (BUT focuses from 70cm, not 65cm and has a fine thread, but no small screw anymore).

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!

This leads to the following conclusions.
At about the same time when the production of the LTM was stopped (sometime in 1962, approximately from SNr. 193...) there were logically no more new Dual Mounts. Even the original Variant 3 with goggles always had an LTM, so these lenses had the small screw just like the Dual Mount. From about 1962 onwards, this changed. The new 5th variant no longer has the small screw and now focuses from 70 cm. In addition, the thread for all Summarons was changed from coarse to fine (cfr. pictures).

All in all, this means that LTMs were always used in all Summaron variants until 1962. Therefore, all Summarons with BM were Dual Mounts until 1962. A real non-dual mount variant M2 was only available from 1962 onwards.

What do you think?
Does anyone have a variant: M3+goggles+screw that focuses from 65cm or a dual mount with a SNr. larger than 193...?

I am curious
Pierre
 

[luigi bertolotti]

The question about the goggled lenses which had initially 0,65 and then 0,7 was discussed time ago, I remember... Summicrons also underwent this little modification, maybe related to intro of new M2 RF with 70 cm capability, or even to the standardization of parts used in both mounts ; on the contrary, goggled Summilux did keep 0,65  even in the very last ones M3 made. 

Edited February 22, 2022 by luigi bertolotti

[Jul]

On 2/22/2022 at 12:45 PM, Mowgli said:

a dual mount with a SNr. larger than 193...?

Not that much higher but still 194… http://www.summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=90172

[Mowgli]

Hi Jul,

Thank you for your comment. Obviously, it is not as simple as I thought. But what one could see here is the fine thread already. Does anyone know the batch number when Leica stopped making LTMs?

Best,
Pierre

[Jul]

23 minutes ago, Mowgli said:

it is not as simple as I thought

Let me add some more. I have a variant not in your list: 1905… dual mount with fine thread but you may already have noticed this variant if you visited the link from my previous post as the 194…. featured there is similar.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wlaidlaw]

The mystery deepens. I have a late 1960 LTM 2.8 Summaron with 1M focusing........but with a fine thread helicoid. I suspect all the early lenses of all three basic configurations were coarse thread and all the later ones are fine thread. I am guessing they just have internal focusing stops at the appropriate positions, 1M, 0.7M and 0.65M, irrespective of whether they used a coarse or fine thread helicoid, which would then match the focusing distance ring fixed to that lens. 

Wilson

Edited February 23, 2022 by wlaidlaw

[romualdo]

3 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

The mystery deepens. I have a late 1960 LTM 2.8 Summaron with 1M focusing........but with a fine thread helicoid. I suspect all the early lenses of all three basic configurations were coarse thread and all the later ones are fine thread. I am guessing they just have internal focusing stops at the appropriate positions, 1M, 0.7M and 0.65M, irrespective of whether they used a coarse or fine thread helicoid, which would then match the focusing distance ring fixed to that lens. 

Wilson

just looked at my 1960 2.8 LTM Summaron (1808066) & it has the coarse thread

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!