Upgrading from Summaron 35/2.8-Advice please?

ernstk

ernstk

Retro Renaissance
Local time
10:55 PM
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
381
Hi,

I've been using a very nice Summaron 35/2.8 as my most widely used lens on my M2 for the last 4 months. I love this focal length and it's a joy on the M2 with only the 35 frameline showing.

I also own a 50 Summicron (1968, chrome, rigid) and there is a visible difference in quality, both tonally and in sharpness.

I'd now like to think about upgrading to a Summicron 35 (or possibly a Summilux?). Can you give me some guidance as to the relative quality differences between the models? Also, which would most closely resemble my 50 'cron, image wise? I'd be buying a used version.

Thanks and regards,
Ernst
 
If 35 mm is your most used length, I'd advise a Summilux. The extra stop can be invaluable. Can't answer your specific questions.
 
The original summilux v1 is soft anf low contrast at 1.4 and extremely prone to flare that will destroy your image. I shot the v1 professionally for may years so I have a great deal of experience. The summicron v3 or 4 are major improvements and the Zeiss Biogon is top of the line. The asph summicron tends to be a little on the harsh side compared to the older lenses. I previously owned and shot thousands of images with the v1 summilux, v1 summicron, v4 summicron and currently own the Biogon and asph summicron.
 
Hi Ernst,
I went through this loop about 10 years ago and bought a V4 Summicron. the improvement was with the enhanced contrast of the V4. But, the resolution was not that much better, suprisingly! On reflection only change if you need the extra speed. The Summaron is an exceedingly good lens and will claim a good price, the asking prices of the lux and cron are not the bargain buys you may seek!

Cheers,

normclarke
 
The original 8 element at collector prices will match your rigid 50 image wise.

Later versions are a little better. The sharpest is the current ASPH.

Original 35 1.4 is not a good lens compared to current one as stated above.

A Biogon is a modern design and while nice, will not match the rigid.
 
You can search this Forum for a least a week's worth of discussion of various 35mm lenses.

Or you can listen to x-ray and buy the Zeiss Biogon. If the Biogon isn't fast enough for you, you could then buy the C/V 35/1.2 Nokton. You'll have two outstanding lenses and money left over for film relative to current Leitz 35mm lens' used prices.

Enjoy!
 
OK, let me pitch this into the mix. I have the same situation in that I use a 50 DR 'cron on my M3, and I, too love the 35mm focal length. Just by happenstance I also have a Contax IIa that I use with a Nikon 35mm f 1:2.5. I THINK that lens is available as either LTM or M mount, not sure, but I think the DR and the W-Nikkor are very well matched. Can anybody confirm any of this?
VS
 
ernstk said:
I've been using a very nice Summaron 35/2.8 as my most widely used lens on my M2 for the last 4 months. I love this focal length and it's a joy on the M2 with only the 35 frameline showing.

I also own a 50 Summicron (1968, chrome, rigid) and there is a visible difference in quality, both tonally and in sharpness.
Click to expand...
The problem is that most Leitz/Leica 35mm lenses produced after the Summaron are way overpriced, especially considering the small improvement in image quality over the Summaron. If there is a significant difference in sharpness/contrast between your rigid Summicron and the Summaron, there may be a problem with haze or fungus. Shine a torch through it and take a good look inside. (Using the sky or a lamp for illumination may not be good enough for detecting haze.)

I have a 35/2.8 and a 35/3.5 Summaron, and I am very satisfied with their performance. If I do consider getting another 35, it will likely be the new 35/2.5 Summarit (provided it performs as well as the 40/2.4 Minilux Summarit). You might consider postponing the purchase of another 35 until the 35/2.5 Summarit has been thoroughly evaluated.

Richard
 
I agree with Richard. I am very suprised that you see such a difference between the Summaron 2.8 and your 50 Cron. Really suprised. I would send the lens to Sherry or Dag for a full cla on the summaron. Should cost you around $80.00. When sending it in tell him or her to check the focus. I have had both Sherry and Dag do cla's on Leica lens and they came back perfect. I really think something is wrong with your particlular lens. Also I am assuming that you are shooting both lenses on the same camera, your M2.
 
Just to add one more thing...

First, the summaron is a GREAT lens. IMHO as good as the cron of the same age. I myself am a fan of the 40 cron. love, love, love it.

that option would get you more speed and a lens very close to the 35.

not to mention, they're reasonable.

Mike
 
i have the 35 lux (1979 version) and a 50 dual range. it's hard to compare to the dual range because they look very different to me, and i use them for different things. i think the pre-asph 35 lux is ideal for color shots since it handles hard lighting without killing the subtlety (i use it for direct flash stuff a lot). i really only shoot b/w with the 50, and it has a really formal and hard-yet-glowy look that is totally unique.

the upside is that if you buy a used lux (keh has one right now), you won't be losing resale value if you change your mind. same goes for the cron.
 
Unless you need the speed, the Summaron is one of the best of Leicas 35's. The close up performance is better than the Summicron and from about f4 to f11 they are equal. The Summicron, when it came out was a compromise. Leica needed a fast 35 as both Canon and Nikon were beating them at their game. You gain a stop, but you loose a bit of edge, particularly in the close range.
Later Summicron's improved, but not until you get up to 35/2 Asph. do you get the same close range sharpness.
For the money today, the Biogon 35f2 is the best deal.Much more pleasing tonality than the 35/2 Asph and about the same resolution and less harsh contrast.
An early to mid 90's Summilux is another good choice. It will get you 2 stops, but it is not as "straight" as either the 35/2 or the 2.8. It has a curved field, particularly when you are using it wide-open or close to that. Sharpness is otherwise similar to either the f2 or 2.8 pre-Asph 35's.
I have the whole gamut of these lenses and one of my M2's always has the 35/2,8 on it! Usually with Tri X in it and it is rare that I cant get a shot I want with it. OK, nothing is perfect, the infernal infinity lock can drive you nuts, but I usually dismantle these on any old 35 or 50.
 
Thank you

Thank you

My thanks to you all for your replies, particularly Tom A for his encyclopaedic response.

On reflection, it would appear that I have a high performance lens but one who's signature is different from my 50 'cron, not neccessarily being of inferior quality.

Tom, you have me thinking about that Biogon now....

Regards
Ernst
 
Tom's thinking is good. However, I'll simply mention that it might be worth your time to check out those lenses from Canon & Nikon that were cleaning Leica's clock for so long. These are some utterly incredable lenses that, frankly, are rarely equaled to this day. I can not speak to many of them, but I know that my Canon 35/1.8 is a masterwork of high sharpness with moderate contrast.

I hope these thoughts help,

William
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom