summaron f2.8 or f3.5?

[begona]

I put trade ad here on RFF(i want to trade CV 35mm f2.5 PII for summaron) and I want to ask you which is better, lighter ect...

thanks

 

[Robert Lai]

CV 35 2.5 is very sharp, high contrast. Both the Leica lenses are older, and have lower contrast. Neither have any distortion.

The Summaron 3.5 is somewhat low contrast wide open. You need to stop down to 5.6 or more for good sharpness. This is a typical early 1950s look. It is a very tiny lens.

The Summaron 2.8 is sharp from wide open. I find it to be as sharp (if less contrasty) as the 35mm Summicron ASPH (f/2).

I've had all of the lenses mentioned including the CV 35. I think you may be disappointed going to the Summaron 3.5 after the CV 35. It may feel like going backwards, unless you want the vintage look. Summaron 2.8 is a very fine lens, but I'm not sure that it is that much better than the CV 35. I personally thought that the CV lens had too much contrast.

 

[Dirk]

For B&W I know of no better 35mm lens than the Summaron 2.8. The CV is too contrasty. For color, it may be a different story. The Summaron 3.5 has nicer color than the 2.8, but not as good in B&W. I find the CV quite boring, but that's just my personal take. YMMV.

 

[dotur]

www.ivanlozica.com

Believe me... I've sold Summaron 3.5 and traded CV Pancake II, but I still keep Summaron 35/2.8 on my M6.
It IS the best of the three. 🙂


0893dot2012 by dotur, on Flickr

 

[elude]

The 2.8 for its sharpness (exceptional at close range) even wide open, and for its handling.
It's my favourite lens with the 35 Summilux Asph (very different however 😀)

 

[FrankS]

Ivan, another super photo!

 

[dotur]

Thank you so much, Frank!
Goran's CV35PII is practically new and excellent, it was a part of my trade for that Tele Rolleiflex on my photo! 🙂

Cheers,
Ivan

 

[Dralowid]

My humble rather convoluted opinion only...

Whereas the 3.5 Summaron seems a bit like a successor to the 3,5 Elmar, the 2.8 Summaron is more akin to a precursor for Summicron.

And yes, I believe the 3.5 would disappoint after the rather 'in your face' CV

Michael
(who has tried them all, has a 2.8 and currently a love hate relationship with a CV 21mm)

 

[CrisR]

I've used my 35mm f3.5 Summaron against my CV 35mm f1.4 Nokton, both at f5.6-11 for street and I just prefer the CV so I'm getting rid of my Summaron. I've not tried the f2.8 so I can't compare but my f3.5 is my only non-CV lens and my least favourite.

Ask for size, it's smaller than the Nokton but sticks out about the same.

 

[splitimageview]

the 2.8 Summaron is more akin to a precursor for Summicron.

Yes, the 2.8 is basically a sharper Summicron, just without the faster stop. 🙂

 

[begona]

Only reson why I want trade CV lens is because I have Leica M3 and I want some lens with goggles.(good finders are expensive)

Pozdrav Ivane, 🙂 nadam se da Rolleiflex dobro sluzi 🙂

 

[dotur]

🙂 No need for apologizing... I wish you good luck with your trade! And Tele Rolleiflex is fabulous! The shot below is with Ilford Delta 3200 in Rodinal... Handheld,1/30, 4.0...
Pozdrav, Ivan.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

here we go again. 😀

 

[Vincent.G]

I would go for the f2.8 version that focuses down to 0.7m. Even more "valuable" ones are those that come with factory fitted ltm to m mount converter that can be removed by unscrewing one small set screw. However I find it difficult to distinguish the images made by 2.8 or 3.5. They are equally good to my eyes. Look at Simon's or Helen's work. They do magic with the summaron!

Prices for summaron is too high and at those prices, I would rather go for c biogon. Nonetheless it is a matter of taste and how deep your pockets are.

 

[john_s]

I had an M-mount 3.5 and at full aperture it wasn't at all sharp away from the center, although the center was good.

 

[jordan.dickinson]

I have the 2.8 M2 version (no goggles), and it's one of the nicest M-lenses I own. It's tiny, very well built, and extremely sharp and crisp at nearly all apertures. I sometimes prefer other lenses for various types of applications, but on a day to day basis, the 2.8 is wonderful. I have a few images on my flickr account if you want to get an idea.

Best of luck on your decision.

 

[TR3B]

Summaron

Summaron

I have the 2.8 as well and have been unsuccessful using it on my M8. All my other lens focus fine but the Summaron seems to be hit or miss. Maybe I have a bad one, who knows.

 

[peterm1]

I have the f3.5 in bayonet mount (the early non goggled one that does not bring up the correct frame lines). I have not used it much as it it has the (normal) interior element haze that these tend to develop. I am planning to have it cleaned and will have the mount modified to bring up the 35mm framelines at the same time - its a minor job for a skilled technician. I also have the screw mount f3.5 which I understand to be optically identical. It looks odd on the M8 due to its diminutive size but has been CLAd by an earlier owner and shoots well. There is something about the way these lenses "draw" their images which is classic and very attractive - maybe its the uncorrected abberations from which they suffer that gives it a certain look that is not so clinical.

I have no doubt that the f2.8 is the better lens - all reports I have read going back 15 years or more say so but I have never been fortunate enough to own one to try.

 

[Nando]

The Summaron 2.8 is sharp from wide open. I find it to be as sharp (if less contrasty) as the 35mm Summicron ASPH (f/2).

I have a Summaron 2.8 and the 35mm Summicron-M ASPH too. I completely agree with your assessment. The Summaron is truly one of Leica's best lenses optically and mechanically.