I am now tempted by a 35mm f3.5 summaron. I have come across one in screw mount, but has the 39mm filter thread. I imagine with a 35mm ltm to m adapter this will work fine on the M2?
I am now tempted by a 35mm f3.5 summaron. I have come across one in screw mount, but has the 39mm filter thread. I imagine with a 35mm ltm to m adapter this will work fine on the M2?
I managed to acquire a 35mm f2.8 summaron for a good price. It has a serial number commencing 1732 which according to this: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Summaron_f=_3.5_cm_1:2.8 seems to place as being produced in 1960. It has "M3" written next to it in this listing. I would have assumed this means it is a goggled version? But the one I purchased definitely does not have goggles. I have not received the lens as yet...
Yes, accurate focus is dependent on the goggles, it's not just a matter of viewfinder magnification. OTOH, the goggles for the dual-range 50mm Summicron do come off easily as they're only necessary for the closeup mode. There is basis here for some misunderstanding...
As I see it we are talking about what should be done and what shouldn't be done. Lost goggles are in the latter case and shouldn't be lost but are sometimes...
I could be wrong but I've seen a lot with and without goggles and goggles without lenses and so put 2 and 2 together. But at my age the memory is getting overfull and brain fade happens.
I purchased a '58 button rewind M2 and '66 Summaron 2.8 w/hood package off ebay a few years back just fresh from a Kindermann CLA. This combo seems just so right together. I hope you are happy with your purchase.
There are four Leitz 35mm lenses with goggles: 35mm f/3.5 (Summaron), 35mm f/2.8 (Summaron), 35mm f/2 (Summicron) and 35mm f/1.4 (Summilux).
The goggles of the 35mm f/3.5 can be removed for storage, but the others are fixed by screws. These 35mm lenses should always be used with their goggles, otherwise they will not focus correctly, except on infinity.
I love my 3.5/35mm Summaron and 2/35mm Summicron ASPH but for very different reasons.
One gives a "1950's photojournalistic" rendering filled with character and life, the other a crisp, contrasty, predictable rendering that's absolutely sterile.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.