Summaron, Summicron v1 ....

[Matus]

OK, so - here I am thinking to give the small format one more chance. Why do I say that? I am mostly 6x6 shooter, but sometimes even the Mamiya 6 is too much.

The long story ...
Over past few years I have used a few small format cameras and was never happy enough with the results. The Olympus XA - too much vignetting and A4 prints were lacking, then Jupiter J3 with R3A - the camera worked nicely but I did not like the shutter, the lens (tuned by our very own Brian) was interesting for portraits but very low contrast for travel. Then the Konica S3 came along - sharpness wise a bit better than XA, but before I really learned to use it properly - I accidentally dropped it and sold for shipping.

I know - none of the above lenses was modern optic, but I somehow became unsure whether I will ever manage to produce a detailed print out of 35mm that I liked.

... nearly there ...
In the past weeks I started to look into small format again and realized that I actually like the way 35/2.8 Summaron draws - with good detail and micro-contrast but at the same time with smooth quality to the image. It seems that Summicron 35/2.8 v1 has similar image quality.

... and the point:
Now - both these lenses are about 50 years old and I am wondering whether my expectations are not (again) too high. I know that there are modern 35mm lenses (Zeiss ZM 2.0 and 2.8, Skopar 35/2.5 ...), but I would like to get something that has that ... smoothness and sharpness (micro-contrast) at the same time. Or am I just fooling myself?

Would love to hear from you about these two lenses, your experience and opinions and maybe even other proposals.

 

[OlliL]

Hi Matus,

Don't know the Cron, but the Summaron renders wonderfully, even in comparison to up-to-date lenses. Here's a sample from the 35/2.8, which has the detachable screwmount adapter and no googles (maybe for the IIIg?)

Shot taken with Olympus E-P1 @ f2.8

Untitled Portrait von oliverleschke auf Flickr


Another one, where the Bokeh is visible (at least a bit)


Pink roses von oliverleschke auf Flickr


P.S. Their is a small typo in your post. The Cron is 35/2 of course.

 

[rogerzilla]

Even the screwmount 35/3.5 (use an adapter for an M body) is awesomely sharp until you get to the very edges of the frame. Its main problem is flare; later coatings on the 2.8 versions do rather better.

 

[Vics]

OK, first of all, all the Summicrons are f 2.0. Also, the Zeiss 35/2.8 seems to perform right at the top of the class, so you should include that.
Having sait that, your core question seems to be whether as a MF shooter, would you be happy with ANY 35mm cam or lens. I think you should consider subject to camera distance as the controlling factor. An old pro told me a long time ago that the farther away the subject is from the camera, the bigger the piece of film one should use. That has seemed logical for me. If you shoot a lot of landscapes, I think you'll never be happy with the results from a 35mm neg. Maybe a folder? BTW, I have the Summaron you mentioned, and it delivers quite a modern-looking image, for my money. I wouldn't shoot a mountain landscape with it though, I'd use my Rollei TLR.
Here's a recent snapshot from the Summaron...

Guy With Marine by travlrs2, on Flickr

 

[Matus]

That is exactly what draws me towards Summaron ...

Just let me link a few photos from flickr to explain better:

Summaron 35/2.8:


Summaron 35/2.8:



Summicron v1:


Summicron v1:

 

[loplop]

I had a Konica S3; I know some have called it the "poor man's Leica" and in some ways, I can see that; occasionally I got the sharp smoothness you mentioned:

18410026_DxO by ndjedinak, on Flickr

But upon closer inspection or magnification as in a good sized enlargement, I wasn't getting Leica sharpness and detail.

I absolutely love the rendering of LTM 35/3.5 Summaron's, but they are kinda similar... Really fantastic but won't stand up to huge enlargements:

53050026_DxO by ndjedinak, on Flickr

Now the 35/2 Summicron and the 35/2.8 Summaron are in a completely different league, IMO. I don't have any Summaron shots online, and you won't see this on my small Flickr sizes... But although the image has similar qualities to the above, there is a ton more snap and sharpness at the micro level... Really fantastic. This is Summicron V1:

08570014_DxO by ndjedinak, on Flickr

I tried to keep subjects somewhat constant, I don't have a lot of examples online, sorry! And none of the Summaron I owned. The 'cron seems somewhat harsher in OOF areas when wide open, Summaron 2.8 wide open is a little more smooth... But of course, the Summaron doesn't have f2, and at 2.8 in my tests both were very similar... I have the 'cron shot I used to test that online, below, but not the Summaron shot, sorry!

08580007 by ndjedinak, on Flickr

New lenses render completely differently... To me, they are bolder, more macro contrast and less micro contrast... More broadly painted vs. sharply drawn. Modern wide aperture lenses usually have pretty neutral bokeh, which many like... Some of the older lenses are more defined, painterly, or downright swirly in some circumstances.

That said... And this isn't a winner of a shot, by any stretch... But I was photographing downtown just playing around and this homeless woman asked me to take her photo with her friend the Reverend. I obliged, and then she asked for a copy. I had no frames left--my rewind lever stopped halfway--but I just cranked my M3 and was able to peel the film a little off the spool to get one more frame in. I had very expired Superia Xtra in the camera, took it to Costco for dev, and asked for a 12x18 of the last frame on the roll, no matter how it came out. I gotta say, I was shocked how good it was. Superia kinda stinks, IMO, but this lens made the best of it! I met her a week later and delivered a 12x18 in a frame... Both her, and I, were ecstatic!

So long story short: try some of the better Leica lenses before dismissing small format... I find they are a big step over stuff like the Konica S3.

 

[Matus]

You guys are fast, thanks

- Vics -
Indeed - that is a very valid point I have already thought about in the past. If one wants lot of small detail in the photo - larger formats are the way to go. now - the 35mm for me would be for light travel and maybe occasional portrait. But sill I would like to get nice A4 print without the necessity for 645 or larger (Mamiya is OK for portraits, but Rolleiflex T I had before was better).

-loplop-
I agree about the rendering of the modern lenses. Your samples from the summaron definitely show the difference - even the Summicron V1 looks more .. "moderm" so to speak (may prove me wrong). Would you consided A4 from Summaron a "huge enlargement"?

 

[Matus]

I should have mentioned that probably also the first generation Summilux is a very interesting lens, but way out of my league (the Summicron is probably too high already).

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Why not experiment with a Yasica GSN or a Canonet QL 17. Both can be had easily for under $200. (The Canonet's prices have been rising close to the $200 with the Yashica a larger camera still obtainable for under $100.) For the best images the Leica M series with a Summicron but you are around $1500.

 

[Dektol Dan]

Summaron and Zeiss 2.8

Summaron and Zeiss 2.8

I've had my Summaron since I purchased it in 1968.
I've My father had a Summicron IV which I borrowed. I preferred the Summaron, and has been my favorite 35 all these years with other 35s coming and going. I now have the Zeiss 2.8 which I love. It's different and more modern; no it doesn't have the National Geographic, Life magazine look, but it's the best of the Zeiss look.

Ergonomically the Zeiss is properly small, but the little focusing tab drives me nuts, but I can adapt. If you can find a very nice Summaron get it, otherwise get the Zeiss. Ideally own both.

The issue of f2 v. f2.8, means little to me in the world I shoot in. But, it is true that the Zeiss can be shot wide open with only depth of field being the consideration, while the old Summaron while capable, is not quite in the same league until another half stop is added.

Lastly, the Summaron is the nicest lens for making the ladies beautiful, it makes young women glow, and moms lose ten years.

In these days of Photoshop, and in my world, lower contrast lenses rule; remember it is easy to add contrast in the computer, but not so easy to create the subtle values that the older designs were designed for.

 

[loplop]

You guys are fast, thanks

-loplop-
I agree about the rendering of the modern lenses. Your samples from the summaron definitely show the difference - even the Summicron V1 looks more .. "moderm" so to speak (may prove me wrong). Would you consided A4 from Summaron a "huge enlargement"?

A4 is easy with my Summaron 35/3.5, but it doesn't do a good A2. Summicron will easily do A2 from good 35mm film.

I think the Summicron renders very much like my Leica Summilux 50mm v2; excellent microcontrast with very good macro contrast, a bit overly etched (not terribly forgiving!), and a hugely 3-dimensional feel. I love the look, and you can make it more vintage with old style emulsions and wide open shooting, or more modern with newer emulsions and stopping down. Fantastically versitile. Anyway, you can compare and look through my 50 summilux photos here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndjedinak/tags/leicasummilux50mmf14ii/

and my 35 summicron here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndjedinak/tags/leicasummicron35mmf20i/

and my 35 3.5 (I have no 2.8 pics up, sorry!) summaron here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndjedinak/tags/leicasummaron35mmf35ltm/

 

[Matus]

-Steve-
I have exposed a few films with the Konica S3 which is supposed to have one of the best lenses among the fixed lens rangefinders and found it OK, but not so great. I just may tray the Hexar AF, but my impression was that the lens is very different from the summaron (not a surprise indeed).

Your point about the Leica prices is taken. I am fully aware that even if Iw would get a summaron and an R2A I am at around 700€ or more. Surely and M2 or M4 would be abetter mach, but would bring me to around 1000€. I am indeed not hasting with the decision.

-Dektol Dan-
I know people like the Zeiss ZM 35/2.8 very much. You are right - it is different from the Summaron, but definitely has smooth rendering. I guess I will have to include it in the pool ...

-loplop-
You know, I was just thinking that Summilux would be a great match for a summaron ... 😉 You have some nice work there. You are right about the summicron (again) the micro-contrast is all there, but the OOF areas are very different from the summaron.

 

[raid]

I have used about 30-35 lenses (in lens comparisons) in the 35-40mm range in the past few years. My favorite lens in this range is the Version 1 Summicron, followed by the Version 2 Summilux. There are many 35mm lenses that are great lenses overall. These are the two 35mm lenses that I happen to like and often use.

 

[TennesseJones]

I like the summaron 2.8.

 

[Erik van Straten]

This is with the first type Summicron 35mm f/2 (eight elements), Leica M2 and Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

And this is with the second type Summilux 35mm f/1.4 preasph, Leica M2 and Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[Matus]

Raid, I have browsed through your reviews, but did not see the summaron there. Did you have that one in the test too?

 

[raid]

Matus: It was the "Star" of the lens testing. Roland's website at smugmug.com has the 35-40mm tests (under my name). It is there ... above the 35/1.7 Ultron in the photo below.

http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Raids-35-40mm-Lens-Test

The prices for the 35/2.8 went up after the results were shown. Same goes for the Canon 35/1.5.

 

[kermaier]

I have and love the Summaron 35/2.8, but there are other vintage lenses to consider as well.

The Nikkor 35/1.8 in LTM is a superb lens. Color rendering is a bit warmer than the Summaron, and the bokeh wide open is less neutral (more prone to the swirlies). It's harder to find than either of the Leica lenses, but the price is closer to that of the Summaron than the Summicron.

The Canon 35/2.8 LTM lenses are also great (good resolution, medium-low contrast) and much less expensive than the Summaron. Very compact in its early chrome incarnation.

The Nikkor 35/2.5 is also a great option, though harder to find in LTM than the Canon.

If you can go a bit longer than 35mm, though, I think the hands-down best lens for the money is the Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2 for the CL/CLE (the later CLE version is multi-coated). It brings up the wrong (50/75) frame lines on a Leica M body, but that's a quick fix for any decent lens technician. Sharp, good but not excessive contrast, beautiful bokeh, faster than a Summaron, compact and can be had for $400-600. Love it completely.

::Ari

 

[Matus]

Thanks Raid. That must have been a lot of work. But it seems like you have used a rather grainy film (or is that just that the crops are so large?)

Ari, I actually do not want a low contrast lens. I know that Summaron is not a high contrast lens, but many say that if it is in a good condition the contrast should be comparable to the V1 summicron.

Yes, 40mm would be actually OK (even though few cameras have 40 framelines, and those in R3A are a bit hard to see) too and there are several options. The Rokkor is one of them, but together with Nokton 40/1.4 I found that it tends to produce a bit busy backgrounds (sometimes, please I do not want to offend happy users). Otherwise these are excellent lenses indeed.

But to be honest (with myself), I have yet to figure out whether the Summaron is not just my white whale ...