Summaron 35mm f2.8 M lens

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?

Yes by sure : mixed batches of BM/SM are common, and the published figures must not be taken as a Bible.

[romualdo]

Yes by sure : mixed batches of BM/SM are common, and the published figures must not be taken as a Bible.

Cheers & thanks for the confirmation Luigi

[Advertisement]

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

[M.RB]

I've always assumed my 35/2.8 Summaron (#215xxxx) was an LTM lens with M mount over the top (I've only ever used it on M cameras.)
Now I've started using an LTM camera (IIIf), I looked into this more closely and realise that it appears it probably isn’t :O

There is no little screw to remove the bayonet M mount visible, only the three larger screws on the barrel of the lens itself. 
Is that case closed, no way to use as an LTM lens?

I checked my other lenses and did find this same screw is present on my older 35/2.0 Summicron '8 element'  (#1852xxx)
So I will try that one out and that saves the day a bit but I really wanted to use the Summaron for this purpose (smaller more frequently used camera.)

I did also notice my 1980's 35mm Summilux ‘pre-ASPH’ (#339xxxx) also has a little screw on the mount in the same place as the Summicron.
I’m assuming that’s just coincidence in how the mount is attached, and nothing to do with hidden screw mount threads? 
 
Thanks.
 

[pierovitch]

Liked it so much put one on my phone. 

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!

Goggles are still useable on an M10 if you like a good finder margin.

Cheers Pierre

[wlaidlaw]

7 hours ago, M.RB said:

I've always assumed my 35/2.8 Summaron (#215xxxx) was an LTM lens with M mount over the top (I've only ever used it on M cameras.)
Now I've started using an LTM camera (IIIf), I looked into this more closely and realise that it appears it probably isn’t 😮

There is no little screw to remove the bayonet M mount visible, only the three larger screws on the barrel of the lens itself. 
Is that case closed, no way to use as an LTM lens?

I checked my other lenses and did find this same screw is present on my older 35/2.0 Summicron '8 element'  (#1852xxx)
So I will try that one out and that saves the day a bit but I really wanted to use the Summaron for this purpose (smaller more frequently used camera.)

I did also notice my 1980's 35mm Summilux ‘pre-ASPH’ (#339xxxx) also has a little screw on the mount in the same place as the Summicron.
I’m assuming that’s just coincidence in how the mount is attached, and nothing to do with hidden screw mount threads? 
 
Thanks.
 

There is (was?) a thread some years ago, which listed the LTM lenses which had been converted in the early days of the M mount, by the addition of a semi permanent LTM to M ring. It always seemed a strange thing to do, particularly in the light of later production of the 1999 year special edition lenses, where a sales pitch was made on the ability for them to be dual mount, LTM and M. The LTM to M ring was supplied in a separate box on the two of these lenses I have (the 50/2 Summicron V-SE and the 50/1.4 Summilux III e46-SE). The third lens of the series was the 35/2 Summicron ASPH-SE. I did not buy the third lens, as I had recently bought a black/light alloy 35/2 ASPH Summicron-M as a lightweight travel lens, to use instead of my very good but very heavy 35/1.4 ASPH Summilux chrome/brass version. The 1999 year special edition lenses are all chrome/brass. I use the 50/1.4 Summilux-SE all the time on my M7, with the supplied LTM to M ring. 

Wilson

[Michael Geschlecht]

11 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

There is (was?) a thread some years ago, which listed the LTM lenses which had been converted in the early days of the M mount, by the addition of a semi permanent LTM to M ring. It always seemed a strange thing to do, particularly in the light of later production of the 1999 year special edition lenses, where a sales pitch was made on the ability for them to be dual mount, LTM and M. The LTM to M ring was supplied in a separate box on the two of these lenses I have (the 50/2 Summicron V-SE and the 50/1.4 Summilux III e46-SE). The third lens of the series was the 35/2 Summicron ASPH-SE. I did not buy the third lens, as I had recently bought a black/light alloy 35/2 ASPH Summicron-M as a lightweight travel lens, to use instead of my very good but very heavy 35/1.4 ASPH Summilux chrome/brass version. The 1999 year special edition lenses are all chrome/brass. I use the 50/1.4 Summilux-SE all the time on my M7, with the supplied LTM to M ring. 

Wilson

Hello Wilson,

The screw mount converted to bayonet mount lenses MIGHT have simply been unsold stock of screw mount lenses which were converted to the POSSIBLY then more popular bayonet mount. Or they also MIGHT have been pre-manufactured chassis which were converted to bayonet mount because of a greater demand for the bayonet lenses during the manufacturing sequence.

Best Regards,

Michael

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

There is (was?) a thread some years ago, which listed the LTM lenses which had been converted in the early days of the M mount, by the addition of a semi permanent LTM to M ring. It always seemed a strange thing to do, particularly in the light of later production of the 1999 year special edition lenses, where a sales pitch was made on the ability for them to be dual mount, LTM and M. The LTM to M ring was supplied in a separate box on the two of these lenses I have (the 50/2 Summicron V-SE and the 50/1.4 Summilux III e46-SE). The third lens of the series was the 35/2 Summicron ASPH-SE. I did not buy the third lens, as I had recently bought a black/light alloy 35/2 ASPH Summicron-M as a lightweight travel lens, to use instead of my very good but very heavy 35/1.4 ASPH Summilux chrome/brass version. The 1999 year special edition lenses are all chrome/brass. I use the 50/1.4 Summilux-SE all the time on my M7, with the supplied LTM to M ring. 

Wilson

The giveaway is the minimum focus distance. With an LTM model the minimum focus distance is 1 metre and with the M mount it is 0.7 metre/0.65 metre.

William

[wlaidlaw]

William and Michael, 

I totally understand supplying an LTM to M ring with an LTM lens but why lock it on and pretend it is a true M lens? There was no advantage in doing this that I can fathom. Leica obviously saw the error in their ways and supplied later lenses like my 1960 LTM Summaron 35 with an LTM to M ring in a separate section of the box. My Summaron is a 1M focus model, therefore a true LTM lens. Same thing with my two 1999 year special edition lenses, both supplied with an adapter ring and both focusing to 1M. 

Wilson

[ianman]

13 hours ago, willeica said:

The giveaway is the minimum focus distance. With an LTM model the minimum focus distance is 1 metre and with the M mount it is 0.7 metre/0.65 metre.

Mine is 0.7m minimum focus and has an LTM mount. It does have what I understand is an original factory removable M adapter... I but can't remove it!

[wlaidlaw]

2 hours ago, ianman said:

Mine is 0.7m minimum focus and has an LTM mount. It does have what I understand is an original factory removable M adapter... I but can't remove it!

The majority of 0.7m LTM mount Summarons were originally goggles models for use on an M3. The thread at the front of the goggles is M39. Because the LTM version is rarer than the goggles version, it was not uncommon for the goggles to be removed and the lens sold as an LTM. I have a feeling that if you want to use a goggles model Summaron on an M camera without the goggles, you may need a thicker LTM to M adapter ring to get the correct RF focus. I am sure some of our historical experts will either confirm or correct me on this. 

Wilson

[ianman]

I was under the impression that Summarons removed from goggles brought up 50mm framelines when used on an M. I could be wrong.

The adapter on mine has the tiny screw, and there is a corresponding threaded hole on the lens body, so this is not an aftermarket adapter.

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!

[jc_braconi]

+1 and
The thread is on the BM not on the the lens

[wlaidlaw]

There was a thread some years ago, discussing whether a Summaron removed from Goggles would ever focus correctly on either an LTM or with an adapter on an M. I cannot offhand recall what the conclusions were, as I knew mine was an original LTM lens.

Wilson

[gyoung]

As I remember it, the rf cam is different on goggled lenses and will not give correct rangefinder operation at closer distances if the goggles are removed.

I have never heard of a thicker (than 'normal') L39 to M adapter. 

Gerry 

Edited November 17, 2018 by gyoung

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

I think that 1 of the reasons that the screw for the bayonet adapter was glued in place with the "goggled" versions is:

The way that the "goggled" versions operates is: While the distance scale on the lens barrel is turning from Infinity to 0.65 meters: The internal helical is moving the rangefinder in the camera from Infinity to 1 meter: Because 1 meter is the close focus limit of the rangefinder in the M3 range/viewfinder.

At the same time the lens elements in the "goggles" are expanding the field of view from the 45 degrees within the 50mm lens mask to being 64 degrees within that same 50mm lens mask. A 50% increase in angle of view.

Since the cam in the goggled lenses is pushing the lens barrel forward at a 50% greater rate than the actual distance covered by the rangefinder cam travel:

That means that the physical lens barrel is focusing ahead of (closer than) where the actual rangefinder is measuring.

The optics in the "goggles create the image of closer focusing. Altho at a reduction in magnification from 0.91 to 0.60 in an M3.

This, by the way, is why lenses with the "goggles" removed do not focus where people expect them to: Since their internal cams are driving the lens barrel to focus from Infinity to 0.65 meters while the rangefinder thru the range/viewfinder window is showing the viewer the range from Infinity to 1 meter.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited November 17, 2018 by Michael Geschlecht

[ianman]

There is one exactly like mine for sale at Leicashop with the following description:

Quote

... rare variation with detachable M-adapter - the lens can be used for screw mount and M-mount,  ...

But mine is in much better condition 🙂... now if I could just get that bloody adapter off...

Edited November 17, 2018 by ianman

[wlaidlaw]

1 hour ago, gyoung said:

As I remember it, the rf cam is different on goggled lenses and will not give correct rangefinder operation at closer distances if the goggles are removed.

I have never heard of a thicker (than 'normal') L39 to M adapter. 

Gerry 

Gerry,

That was my recollection also but I further seem to recall that nobody could really explain coherently, why if the goggles lens was set at the correct flange focal distance, with an adapter to replace the goggles, the image convergence in the RF would be different with and without goggles. Various suggestions were made about angled light refracting through the goggles lenses but no proof with nice light ray diagrams/traces. My optics at both school and university is far too long ago, to remember how to do that, with the images represented by arrows and light ray traces from each extremity.

Wilson

[Michael Geschlecht]

1 hour ago, wlaidlaw said:

Gerry,

That was my recollection also but I further seem to recall that nobody could really explain coherently, why if the goggles lens was set at the correct flange focal distance, with an adapter to replace the goggles, the image convergence in the RF would be different with and without goggles. Various suggestions were made about angled light refracting through the goggles lenses but no proof with nice light ray diagrams/traces. My optics at both school and university is far too long ago, to remember how to do that, with the images represented by arrows and light ray traces from each extremity.

Wilson

Hello Wilson,

The reason is: The rangefinder within the range/viewfinder of an M3 can only (Usually) measure from Infinity to 1 meter.

The "goggled" 35mm lenses for the M3 (Also equally usable with M2's & their siblings range/viewfinders.) have a different cam (Helicoid) than the "non-goggled" M2 version does.

When you focus thru the "goggles" to 0.65 meters & the lens barrel on the "goggled" lens reads 0.65 meters.

The rangefinder inside the M3 itself is at 1 meter.

It is the ingenious "goggle" optical system that convinces the person looking thru the M3 range/viewfinder & "goggle" optical system that the M3 rangefinder within the range/viewfinder is focused at 0.65 meters.

Which, of course, an M3 rangefinder cannot.

Best Regards,

Michael

[gyoung]

1 hour ago, wlaidlaw said:

Gerry,

That was my recollection also but I further seem to recall that nobody could really explain coherently, why if the goggles lens was set at the correct flange focal distance, with an adapter to replace the goggles, the image convergence in the RF would be different with and without goggles. Various suggestions were made about angled light refracting through the goggles lenses but no proof with nice light ray diagrams/traces. My optics at both school and university is far too long ago, to remember how to do that, with the images represented by arrows and light ray traces from each extremity.

Wilson

My theory, entirely without the optical knowledge to back it up,  is that the goggles reduce the magnification of the system,  and thus the effective base length so that the cam needs to move the prisms in the rf differently, whether less or more I haven't a clue!

Gerry 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Michael Geschlecht]

23 hours ago, willeica said:

The giveaway is the minimum focus distance. With an LTM model the minimum focus distance is 1 metre and with the M mount it is 0.7 metre/0.65 metre.

William

Hello William,

The M2 version focuses to 0.7 meters.

The M3 version with "goggles" focuses to 0.65 meters.

Both versions sometimes focus a little closer. As is sometimes the case with Leitz/Leica lenses of other focal lengths.

Best Regards,

Michael