Summaron 35mm f2.8 M lens

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have 5 35mm Summarons. Two f 3.5 models, one early LTM and one early M, without goggles, which does not bring up 35mm frame lines and requires SBLOO. I have 3 f 2.8s, an M with goggles, an M without goggles and an LTM. They are all excellent lenses, but if I were asked about it, I would say that the LTM models are, probably, very marginally better than the M models. The only downside, if it is one , is that the minimum focus distance  is larger on the LTM models. My 35mm Summicron Asph is, in my experience, better than the Summarons, but the difference is, once again, a marginal one. With the correct adapter, the LTM model 35mm Summarons will bring up the correct frame lines on cameras from the M2 onwards, including digital models.

 

Here is a photo taken with the early f3.5 LTM model on an M9

 

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!

 

William

Edited February 23, 2018 by willeica

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Not to be contrary, but I think that the Canon 35-2.8 beats the Summaron.

[wlaidlaw]

Not to be contrary, but I think that the Canon 35-2.8 beats the Summaron.

 

Does not wholly surprise me. My LTM Canon Serenar 5cm/f1.8 "Hiroshi" lens is a whole lot better than my exactly contemporary Summitar. 

 

Wilson

[wizard]

I have an M mount Summaron 35, that has also been very nice since getting the haze removed. Focus is perfect. I also have a Summarit 2.5 35. I find it curious that Puts says comparing it to the Summaron, "...a quantum leap forward in image quality."

I don't see it in my pictures, but I am happy with both.

 

Well, since a quantum leap is, physically speaking, a very, very small increment, no wonder you don't see any difference in your pictures  . On a more serious note, I do find the more modern lenses provide more contrast, clearer colours and more puch in general, which does not mean the older lenses such as the Summaron are flawed in any way.

[willeica]

Not to be contrary, but I think that the Canon 35-2.8 beats the Summaron.

 

You could be right, Jaap. I have that one as well in LTM mount, but I thought it might not be politic to mention it.  It could, indeed, be marginally better, but it is certainly at least as good as the 35mm Summarons and it takes the same IROOA lens hood and it will allow reversing of the hood, which is not possible with the f2.8 Summarons.

 

William

[ianman]

I would like to get one of these for my M.

Could anyone tell me, is there any difference between an LTM mount Summaron with an M adapter, and an original "dual mount" ?

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would like to get one of these for my M.

Could anyone tell me, is there any difference between an LTM mount Summaron with an M adapter, and an original "dual mount" ?

 

Summaron 2.8/35 in "real LTM mount" (not adapted with unmounting adapter) would have minimum focus to 1m

and M mount would have 70cm.

 

Otherwise they have same optical formula.

 

Only about 5,300 made in screw mount and 30,400 in M mount :

Wiki for more info https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Summaron_f%3D_3.5_cm_1:2.8

[wlaidlaw]

Yes there is a considerable difference. Although the front of a spectacles 35 Summaron lens can be unscrewed and has an M39 thread, it will not focus properly on an LTM camera. The other odd thing is that if you remove the spectacles but leave the bayonet mount on, the lens will bring up 50mm frame lines. You really have to buy the lens you want from the start:

 

1) LTM lens focusing to 1m M39 thread (SIMOO)

2) M bayonet lens with spectacles to use on M3 brings up 50mm frame lines, focuses to 0.7m (SIMWO)

3) M bayonet lens without spectacles, brings up 35mm frame lines and focuses to 0.7m for M2/4/6 etc (SIMOM)

 

There are unscrupulous sellers who will sell the more common and cheaper type 2 as either type 1 or 3, by unscrewing from spectacles or removing spectacles, when they will not work correctly - beware!

 

Wilson

[a.noctilux]

My M3 ex-Summaron 2.8/35 with goggles has 65cm as minimum focus.

I sold it long time ago as I have also a goggled Summicron 35mm  (8 element and focus at same 65cm ) usable with all my Ms.

 

As side note, Summaron 2.8/35 is better corrected than Summicron 35 at f 2.8 (better flat field), but not the lovely rendering of Summicron at f 2.0 .

Edited April 27, 2018 by a.noctilux

[ianman]

Summaron 2.8/35 in "real LTM mount" (not adapted with unmounting adapter) would have minimum focus to 1m

and M mount would have 70cm.

 

I had seen this, but the one I am looking at definitely has the 0.7m engraving but is a thread mount and has an M mount adapter. I believe this dual-mount option was available at some point. I have seen it mentioned a couple of times elsewhere.

[ianman]

Yes there is a considerable difference. Although the front of a spectacles 35 Summaron lens can be unscrewed and has an M39 thread, it will not focus properly on an LTM camera. The other odd thing is that if you remove the spectacles but leave the bayonet mount on, the lens will bring up 50mm frame lines. You really have to buy the lens you want from the start:

 

1) LTM lens focusing to 1m M39 thread (SIMOO)

2) M bayonet lens with spectacles to use on M3 brings up 50mm frame lines, focuses to 0.7m (SIMWO)

3) M bayonet lens without spectacles, brings up 35mm frame lines and focuses to 0.7m for M2/4/6 etc (SIMOM)

 

There are unscrupulous sellers who will sell the more common and cheaper type 2 as either type 1 or 3, by unscrewing from spectacles or removing spectacles, when they will not work correctly - beware!

 

Wilson

 

Thanks Wilson !

 

So there was never a 4th version which was an official LTM with M mount adapter? If not then it does sound like the case you mention where it has been removed from the spectacles. (it's got a thread, and a M bayonet and minimum focus of 0.7m)!! mmmmmmm

[wlaidlaw]

I had seen this, but the one I am looking at definitely has the 0.7m engraving but is a thread mount and has an M mount adapter. I believe this dual-mount option was available at some point. I have seen it mentioned a couple of times elsewhere.

 

The one you have is my type 2 on my post and has just been unscrewed from the goggles. From what others have posted, this does not focus correctly on either an M or an LTM but I have no personal experience of this as mine is an LTM version with 1m minimum focus. 

 

Wilson

[ianman]

The one you have is my type 2 on my post and has just been unscrewed from the goggles. From what others have posted, this does not focus correctly on either an M or an LTM but I have no personal experience of this as mine is an LTM version with 1m minimum focus. 

 

Wilson

 

Right, that's what I was thinking but now ... I've just seen this on Ken Rockwells site (I'm posting the link to rather than the image as we are not allowed to do so), which has a minimum focus of 0.65m... and clearly this is the M3 goggled version.

I am even more confused now... a bad way to start the weekend 

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

The 35mm Summaron lenses that were screw mount lenses adapted to M mount cameras were manufactured, as such, by Leitz at the time the lenses were made.

 

These are not later alterations of previously built lenses.

 

For whatever reason (There are a number of theories.) these were screw mount lenses that were adapted to work on M mount cameras.

 

When used on an M3: They used the auxiliary viewfinder SBLOO. Which is the same as 12010.

 

They also have an additional tiny screw that is not easily removable in the chassis which holds everything together.

 

I am sorry that I am not dexterous enough with computers to "click" a picture of this tiny screw in its context here to show you. Perhaps another reader of this Thread will be nice enough to do so.

 

Beyond the official conversions: There are numerous examples of later conversions of various type some of which were more successful than others. Many of these later conversions do not focus properly under some, or sometimes under all, circumstances.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited April 27, 2018 by Michael Geschlecht

[ianman]

Thanks Michael.

 

You write "Summicron" but I guess you mean "Summaron". Do you know if these Leitz conversions bring up the 35mm framelines correctly when mounted on an M2, etc.

[luigi bertolotti]

The question of minimum focus distance of goggled 35's is one of the many tricky / intriguing small details in Leitz history   : as far as I remember (but CAN be wrong) you have : 

 

0,65m on all Summarons 3,5

0,65 and also 0,70 on Summarons 2,8

0,65 and also 0,70 on Summicrons

0,65 on all Summiluxes

 

Referring, of course to the shortest WRITTEN distance ... the reason... who knows ?

[Michael Geschlecht]

Thanks Michael.

 

You write "Summicron" but I guess you mean "Summaron". Do you know if these Leitz conversions bring up the 35mm framelines correctly when mounted on an M2, etc.

 

Hello Ianman,

 

Thank you for noticing.

 

I corrected the error.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[luigi bertolotti]

Thanks Michael.

 

You write "Summicron" but I guess you mean "Summaron". Do you know if these Leitz conversions bring up the 35mm framelines correctly when mounted on an M2, etc.

 

No : as Michael says, they were made for M3 with SBLOO, that is, 50mm frame in the viewfinder, on all M cameras.

Edited April 27, 2018 by luigi bertolotti

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wlaidlaw]

No : as Michael says, they were made for M3 with SBLOO, that is, 50mm frame in the viewfinder, on all M cameras.

 

Luigi, 

 

Presumably only because the M3 did not have a 35mm frame in the viewfinder. I have always assumed that is why original Leica LTM to M converter rings like the one which came in the box with my Summaron 35/2.8 are marked Leica M2, because they would not work properly with an M3. 

 

Wilson

[romualdo]

I've been following this thread with interest as I have an LTM version of this lens - 1m closest focus - it appears to be an "original" LTM version

 

BUT, I just checked the Leica Wiki site & compared my serial number (1808066) with Puts data which places this # within an M3 only production run (1808001-1809000)

 

How accurate are these tables?

 

Could there have been LTM versions included within the 1808001-1809000 run?

Edited April 28, 2018 by romualdo