Please Help. Summaron 2.8 or 3.5?

[Roel]

With prices of the 35mm 2.8 summaron steadily increasing i have a question. Hope you can give some info/input.

I have a 35 summicron V4. But looking at the summaron images I have a feeling they are somehow 'smoother'.

So I'm wondering if a summaron is a good choice. And for streetphotograhy the 2.8 is not really necessary.

I just saw a 3.5 Summaron for sale. (About half the price the 2.8 are offered. Prices of 2.8 have been skyrocketing.)

My question:
Is this 3.5 summaron image quality wise a 2.8 without the extra stop?
Do the 2.8 and 3.5 deliver similar images on the stops from 3.5?

(Or should I go for the 2.8?)

 

[leicapixie]

Use search.
The 2.8 is half a stop faster.
It may be a little sharper.
Both do strange color imaging.
I like it. Better for B/W.

 

[Roel]

Thank you. I used search and found a lot.

Seems the 2.8 is the 'better' lens. Different glass used.
But would you see the difference between a shot at 3.5 or 5.6 between the two 'summaron brothers'?
And if so. Is it just sharpness or also character.
(guess I am looking for a incentive to not go for the pricier route..;o))

Use search.
The 2.8 is half a stop faster.
It may be a little sharper.
Both do strange color imaging.
I like it. Better for B/W.

 

[teddy]

Get the Summaron 35/2.8. It's optimun in the centre wide open, but the sides are soft with a halo but sharp cores, hard to explain. It's this aberration that makes sublime images. At 5.6, its super sharp as the modern 35/1.4 ASPH.
It's one lens that I would never sell. This lens has amazing clarity.

Summaron 35/2.8 wide open, 400 speed film.

Summaron 35/2.8 at F4, Efke 25, Yellow Green Filter, Adonal 1:100 at 60mins

 

[dabick42]

The Summaron brothers are both excellent performers, the f2.8 being noticeably more excellent up to f5.6; beyond that they're about equal.

The price of the f2.8 has ''rocketed'' because the internet has spread the word of how good it is - longtime users have known for decades.

I've owned the Summaron f3.5, the f2.8 and also the 8-element Summicron v1.
I kept the Summarons, sold the Summicron.

The choice between the Summarons depends on the price you want to pay and how pernickety with sharpness you are at wide apertures....

 

[johannielscom]

Hello Roel,

I had a goggled 2.8/35mm Summaron that I traded for a non-goggled one and sold, bought a non-goggled 2.8/35 dual-mount Summaron and sold that too (to answer your question, sorry for delay).

But I'm not a reference point in any of this, I bought and sold Summarons for profits, money that was invested into a Nikkor 1.8/35mm LTM which is coming my way 😎

The 2.8 is pricier indeed but if your heart is set to it you might as well go for it, or it will keep you up at night if you didn't! 😉

 

[Volver]

I was also looking for 2.8 and 3.5 summarons for my M3, but finally found hexanon-m 28/2.8 for a good price and decided to buy it.

 

[yadong110]

I own 2.8 and 3.5.
It's 3.5 if you only buy a Summaron at a lower price.
But you will buy them all at last.

 

[ottluuk]

I only have the 3.5 version (in LTM). It is a very nice daylight lens (i.e. f/5.6 and smaller) with gentle contrast and good sharpness. Very small, too. Wide open, resolution is decent (but not great) in the center and drops off in the field. Not good by modern standards but if you happen to like character...

From the web images I've seen from the f/2.8 version, it appears to be MUCH better at wide apertures than the f/3.5. Obviously, there will be some sample variation and condition matters as well.

 

[john_s]

I had a M-mount 35mm Summaron and I was not at all happy with the sharpness away from the centre. I like unsharpness off centre for portraits for which I use a longer focal length, but usually when using a wide angle lens I want the picture to be reasonably sharp all over. .....depends on your style, I suppose.

I did like the infinity lock though.

 

[roundg]

2.8 is a better lens than 3.5.

but at 5.6, they are very close. I have both lens and keep both.

 

[SCLim]

I have the 3.5. It's an interesting lens and different enough from the Summicron that you might want to try it out but the 2.8 is probably too close to the Summicron to be worth the effort.

 

[3jal]

havent tried the 2.8 but the 3.5 is my first leica lens and im sticking with it. happy with the results from this little gem

 

[Roel]

Thank you guys very much for the replies. Some good looking pictures.

I'm constantly asking myself why in the world I 'need' another 35mm that even has less speed than my 35 summicron v4 and/or Vc 40mm 1.4 SC.

Wondering if i should change the 35 cron V4 for the 2.8, save some money and keep the VC40 for speed when needed. (And spend that saved money on the 50 summarit that is coming)

Do you guys know of any straight comparison with pics between the 35v4 and 2.8/3.5?

 

[roundg]

Thank you guys very much for the replies. Some good looking pictures.

I'm constantly asking myself why in the world I 'need' another 35mm that even has less speed than my 35 summicron v4 and/or Vc 40mm 1.4 SC.

Wondering if i should change the 35 cron V4 for the 2.8, save some money and keep the VC40 for speed when needed. (And spend that saved money on the 50 summarit that is coming)

Do you guys know of any straight comparison with pics between the 35v4 and 2.8/3.5?

V4 is an overall better lens.

 

[Calzone]

V4 is an overall better lens.

Robin,

I disagree. First off I like the retro rendering of the Summaron 2.8, There is no comparison in build quality. Yes the corners on a Summaron are soft wide open, this can be pleasing but I think the center sharpness of the Summaron has the V.4 Cron beat. Know that I owned a V.4 Cron and sold it, but I still own a Summaron 2.8.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

As an afterthought: I failed to mention that I found that a version 3 hood for a 50/2.8 Elmar works as a hood on a 2.8 Summaron without a filter. This hood offers minimal blockage and allows use of the Leica metal lens cap.

If you are going to use a filter then you have to resort to a 12585 hood.

I have both.

Cal