Summaron 35 f 2.8

[bandini]

Hello Mr Abramson, which 50 mm lens in M-mount has the same fingerprint/greyscale (in B&W) as the Summaron 35 f 2.8 ?
Thanks in advance

WB

 

[Tom A]

Probably the early rigid Summicron vI. It is a difficult choice as few lenses are as good as the 35f2.8 Summaron! The Elmar 50f2.8 vi is far more flare-prone and lower contrast. The M-mount Elmar 50f3.5 is a better choice and closer to the Summaron signature - but otherwise the Summicron 50f2 vI would be my choice.

 

[bandini]

Summaron

Summaron

Many thanks for your answer !

 

[AndySig]

Mr A,

what's your view on the idea that the summaron is a splendid b&w lens but not necessarily so good for colour? I'm rarely disappointed with the colour shots I get from mine. They seem to have a "gentle" as opposed to "biting" quality about them, which I think is rather pleasant. I'd be interested in your take on this.

 

[hendriphile]

[/IMG]

...I'm rarely disappointed with the colour shots I get from mine. They seem to have a "gentle" as opposed to "biting" quality about them, which I think is rather pleasant.

+1. Sometimes it's nice to have a more natural color intensity. I find this image quite relaxing, reflecting the mood as it was at the time.

 

[raid]

Probably the early rigid Summicron vI. It is a difficult choice as few lenses are as good as the 35f2.8 Summaron! The Elmar 50f2.8 vi is far more flare-prone and lower contrast. The M-mount Elmar 50f3.5 is a better choice and closer to the Summaron signature - but otherwise the Summicron 50f2 vI would be my choice.

Maybe this is why I use the rigid Summicron as my regular 50mm lens for many years now. Isn't the V1 Summicron 35/2 also nearly same as Summaron at apertures 2.8 and smaller?

 

[Tom A]

I have had multiple 35f2.8 Summaron over the years and always found it a stellar performer. In many ways I prefer it to the vI Summicron 35 - particularly in close shooting. The 35f2 was a bit of a quick fix for Leica as both Nikon and Canon had fast 35's out, Canon with the 35f1.5 and Nikon with the 35f1.8 and Leica had to come up with something fast. They were also working on a "troika" of lenses - mainly aimed the pro's, 35/50/90 f2's.
The differences are not huge between the various lenses - it has more to do with personal preferences and ergonomics. At the time, these were the top line lenses and even today they do well. As for color, the Summaron 35f2.8 in its first version (kind of a brownish coating - was bit flat in contrast - the late blue coating increased the contrast slightly.
I still have a Summaron 35f2.8 and a Summicron vI and use them, but admittedly more for nostalgia than anything else. The C Biogon 35f2.8 is much better than the Summaron - and the Summicron 35f2 Asph or the Biogon 35f2 again is a major improvement over the vI Summicron 35 - and neither of them have infinity locks!!!!!

 

[froyd]

[...]
I still have a Summaron 35f2.8 and a Summicron vI and use them, but admittedly more for nostalgia than anything else. The C Biogon 35f2.8 is much better than the Summaron - and the Summicron 35f2 Asph or the Biogon 35f2 again is a major improvement over the vI Summicron 35 - and neither of them have infinity locks!!!!!

Hi Tom- can you please clarify whether you consider the ZM 35 2.8 to is better than the Summaron because it is a departure from the Summaron offering marked sharpness/distortion/contrast improvements, or because it is in the same vein as the Summaron, but better (i.e. even more gentle tonal transition and delicate contrast)?

Bases solely on the pictures I have seen online, the 35 2.8 from Zeiss seems to offer a more modern look with higher contrast than the Summaron, but of course, web images are not the best way to judge a lens.

 

[Tom A]

The C Biogon 35f2.8 is a modern lens, glass, coating etc are the latest formulas. It has higher contrast than the Summaron 35f2.8 it is also sharper across the board. Resolution is very high. If you are looking for a vintage look, the Summaron is a good choice - but if you want overall high quality - the C Biogon 35 is the best.

 

[gnuyork]

How does the 3.5 Summaron fare compared to the 2.8? I have never used the 2.8 but I borrowed a 3.5 from a friend and I was very pleased with results. I will admit it was when I first bought my camera and could not yet afford a lens. I was offered the collapsible 50 and the summaron from a friend until I finally got my Summicron 50.

I would actually like to have the summaron back, or get one at some point. I onky tried for my first (and only with that camera)) roll of tri-x. So I only had it for a short time.

 

[Tom A]

The Summaron 35f3.5 is derived from the Elmar 35f3.5,. It was a very good lens for its time - but the 35f2.8 Summaron is much better. For its time, a modern 35 mm, 6 elements, modern coating and surprisingly flare resistant (the 35f3.5 is a bit sensitive to direct sun or bright lights).

 

[str]

As I know, the 3.5 Summaron is not derived from the Elmar 3.5/3,5cm. The Elmar 3,5cm is a Cook lens, but with a cemented last element. The Summaron f/3.5 like the Summaron f/2.8 has 6 lenses and is a Gauss type similar to the Summar. At f/8 the Summaron 2.8 and 3.5 are nearly equal, not at f/4. There is it »much better«.

Stefan

 

[Erik van Straten]

The Summaron 35mm f/3.5 is a stellar performer too, only a bit slower than the Summaron 35mm f/2.8.

Leica MP, Summaron 35mm f/3.5, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[str]

Erik, a fine shot- and it shows, how sharp the lens records in the midle of the picture and how sharpness and contrast drop to the edges.

Stefan

 

[Dralowid]

Summaron 2.8 on Nex.

I've had this lens for many years and it seems to have 'crossed the media divide' OK.


DSC00058 by dralowid, on Flickr

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

I prefer the Summaron 2.8 above the Summaron 3.5 and the Summicron V1 35mm; it is an altogether more versatile lens (the 3.5 is nice for B&W but in my view less for color - and contrast is much better than that of the Summicron which is less suited for color too). Anyway it is my most used lens on film: below shots made last sunday when we had little sun coming up in The Hague and shows its capabilities concerning resolution and color rendering on fuji reala:

 

[DominikDUK]

Looking at your photos corner sharpness seems to be problem

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Looking at your photos corner sharpness seems to be problem

first one shot @3.5 with a zorki (second one @2.8 since I wanted to test the zorkis highest shutterspeed at 50asa (film is from 2002)
if you want anything sharper you will have to try the asph summicron which has the best cornersharpness

 

[DominikDUK]

The Canon 2.8/35 seems to be able to do it a bit better and I admit I was a bit astonished by the Summaron whose look I always loved. I am by no means a sharpness freak just astonished that's all

 

[Erik van Straten]

if you want anything sharper you will have to try the asph summicron

Or try the CV Ultron 35mm f/1.7, stopped down a bit the sharpest of them all.

Erik.