35 Summaron w/goggles or VC 40 1.4?

[chrispiper]

I have a M3 with an Elmar 5cm f/2.8 collapsible lens. I like the 50 but I'd like a little more contrast. I'd also like to shoot a little wider. I can only comfortably afford one lens so I'd like to hear your feelings. A 35 goggled Summaron 2.8 is roughly the same price as the VC 40 1.4. Is the 40 too close in focal length to the 50 to consider having both or is the difference in images worth the similarities? Conversely, I like the idea of a 35 and a 50, they both clearly fit different situations.

I assume the Summaron looks roughly like my Elmar - lower contrast, lower "bite" but nice out of focus areas. The matching looks of the Leica lenses is attractive. But, the low weight and small footprint of the VC is a clear advantage over the bulky goggles.

Thanks in advance,
Chris

 

[ferider]

I like the 40 very much.

But in your case I would pick the Summaron. A great lens, make sure it has no haze.

Best,

Roland.

 

[HuubL]

Try get a 40mm Summicron. It was originally made for the Leica CL, but equally well fits other Ms. It brings up the 50 frame lines and all you need to consider is cropping a little outside. It's usually a little cheaper to get than the summaron (say 250-350 euro range) and it's faster as well. Not to many around though...

Oh, and BTW, it absolutely delivers..... At least as good as the 2.8 Summaron

 

[kknox]

Have had both lens for my M3, the VC 40 is lighter & great in low light. I would do the VC 40 sc again.

 

[chrispiper]

Any thoughts on kevincameras.com? A few Summarons there that fit my budget. Thanks for the note on the 40 Leica Summicron, I will add that to the list of contenders.

 

[Ronald M]

It is Cosina Voitlander, not variable contrast.

The 40 is a modern lens that will not match the contrast of the 50 very well. Frame lines are iffy unless you get a finder. An old Imarect can be set to 40 mm or CV makes a 40 finder.

Most people like the Summaron. Check for fog before purchase. Anything more than crystal clear is not acceptable. Tone representaltion and contrast go first long before fog affects sharpness.

Before you ask, you can not remove them and still focus properly.

You may not like the goggles. Most do not like them. Alturnative is 35mm finder and any 35mm lens.

Sorry I am in a funky mood right now.

 

[chrispiper]

Have had both lens for my M3, the VC 40 is lighter & great in low light. I would do the VC 40 sc again.

That's kind of my thinking. I like shooting inside and all the speed I can get it useful. I suppose it's just the "classic" aspect of the 35 that's appealing. People seem to like it up close. Are the two lenses both able to focus under 1m?

 

[chrispiper]

Sorry I am in a funky mood right now.

No sweat : ) I don't take things too personally. I was pretty set on the Summaron until I saw a CV for sale at a reasonable price and it made me hesitate.

I'm no maestro so it's probably a wash what I get, I just like to hear what others have to say.

Chris

 

[gm13]

I have a 35/2.8 Summaron and love it, goggles and all. nice contrast w/ the Tri-x typically fed it. Favorite lens on the M5 size-wise. my latest KEH catalog has a 35/2.8 summaron in EX condition w/ caps for $889, a bargain version for 465 and the 40 'cron- ex, hood, caps for 665 but the nokton is only 400...

 

[chrispiper]

I have a 35/2.8 Summaron and love it, goggles and all. nice contrast w/ the Tri-x typically fed it. Favorite lens on the M5 size-wise. my latest KEH catalog has a 35/2.8 summaron in EX condition w/ caps for $889, a bargain version for 465 and the 40 'cron- ex, hood, caps for 665 but the nokton is only 400...

Would you hesitate to get the Bargain version? Is the EX that much nicer of a shooter, or just a better collector?

 

[Rob-F]

One thing that nobody mentioned is that the 40 won't correspond to the M3 framelines very well. Sure; you can use the full coverage of the finder if that is OK with you, but that's a bit too makeshift for my taste. Another point is that a 40 is not a 35. Will 40 be wide enough for you? Or will it be a case of "close, but no cigar?"

I have the 2.8 Elmar (first version) and don't think of it as a low-contrast lens. Certainly it is not low in the sense of my 50/1.5 Summarit, for example. I used to have a Summaron, and I remember it as having good contrast. I certainly had no complaints. I can say the same for the 40 Summicron and the 40 Rokkor. I have the 40 Nokton, and find it to be contrasty and sharp. But again, a 40 is not a 35.

An alternative would be to get the 35mm f/2.5 VC and use it with an auxiliary finder in the shoe. I have this lens, and I can tell you its contrast is very good. Or get the goggled Summaron. Your call. But in your position I would want a 35 for the M3, in order to have a second lens that is wide enough to be worth the bother.

 

[Michael Markey]

I have an M3 and a CV40 SC. I also use a 50 Summicron. The VC 40 is great with B/W. A good modern kens at a good price . I use the full viewfinder ,no problem. The only thing that I don`t like about it is that tab focussing but I prob use focus more that I need to do.

 

[Film dino]

Summaron 35/2.8 prices

Summaron 35/2.8 prices

Any thoughts on kevincameras.com? A few Summarons there that fit my budget. Thanks for the note on the 40 Leica Summicron, I will add that to the list of contenders.

Kevin Li's prices tend to be higher but his descriptions are very accurate.
Igor Camera had a goggled Summaron 2.8 for $475 & a non-goggled one for $610. Setadel Studios http://www.setadelstudios.com/products.php?pt=p&pc=2&b=Leica+M have a goggled one for $450.

David

 

[chrispiper]

Excellent advice from everyone, thanks much.

re: 35 vs 40 - That's really the biggest sticking point against the CV 40 1.4. It's a good price, a good lens, I'll probably like shooting it. But, I think 35 is different enough than 40 - and 40 too close to 50 to make it worthwhile. The Summaron seems the more logical choice.

re: low contrast. I've shot Trix400, Kodak BW400CN, Ilford XP2 and drugstore Fuji400 color film with the Elmar. I should have explained earlier that I'm coming from a DSLR perspective so I'm used to more contrasty images straight from the camera. I can work on the film scans to get closer to that look if I want to. I'm learning to like the look of the Elmar but I would like a pinch more contrast in general. Thus the leaning towards the CV lens.

re: Igor's. Thanks for the source. I haven't got a list of trusted online stores yet for film gear. Again, in DSLR world I've got it all in hand and know where the bargains are.

The real solution is to get the Summaron now and get the CV next year. I suppose I'll get looking more seriously now.

Chris