BigSteveG
Well-known
I want a real "signature" lens. I am wondering what the differences in signature are between the 3.5 LTM and the overpriced 2.8 M version. Anyone have experience w/ both?
Joe
Established
Try a search for threads with "summaron" in the title, there's been a lot about this lately.
john_s
Well-known
I had an M-mount Summaron 3.5 and I was disappointed by its lack of sharpness. The centre was ok, but half way to the sides it was distinctly soft. I don't mind that in a portrait lens, but for wide angle use I like the edges to be reasonably sharp. I'm not talking obsessive sharpness with TechPan and microscope, just a decent 8inch x 10inch print with 400 speed black and white.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Well, for everybody concerned watch the classifieds here soon for EX++ condition 1954 issue Summaron f3.5/35 LTM with matching bubble and VIOOH finder with case that`s an "overage" (extra) lens that I`m buying together with a WW2 Leica kit - so look for it in next weekend`s ads!
Tom
Tom
Last edited:
Celloman
Member
I wonder if your lens had some problem... mine is very sharp, and no less sharp than a Voigtlander 35mm P II, which has a good reputation.
Mike
Mike
FPjohn
Well-known
Hello:
I find my F3.5 Summaron to be of moderate contrast and sharp. I would recommend it. I would also recommend the more modern but still distinctive Summicron c .
yours
FPJ
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=16118&full=1
I find my F3.5 Summaron to be of moderate contrast and sharp. I would recommend it. I would also recommend the more modern but still distinctive Summicron c .
yours
FPJ
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=16118&full=1
morgan
Well-known
Mine is the LTM version. It's sharp enough, but the contrast is pretty low. Not a huge issue with me since I mostly use it on an R-D1 and can fix that in software. It's a nice tiny lens when I don't want to carry around my 35 1.2.
Windscale
Well-known
I had a Summaron 35/f3.5 (with windows for M3) for many years and it performed very well. I had to sell off the greater part of my Leica gear ( 1 M4, 2 M3 and about 6 lenses) about 10 years ago and the lens I missed the most was the Summaron 35/f3.5. I was left with 1 M3 with 50 and 90. But a couple of years ago, my finances permitted me to get an M3 Summaron 35/f2.8. It is a great lens but I think it did not out perform the 3.5. May be it was just me being psycological and lamenting the loss of my 3.5 version!
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I've had two of the LTM 35/3.5 version. Low contrast but reasonably sharp. The lens has a reputation for giving "3-D" or "plastic" images. Also for being prone to fog.
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
The only Summaron I wish I have is the M mount 35/2.8.
I've had the LTM 3.5, and it was not bad, but not good either. Prone to flare, reasonably sharp for an old design but certainly not what you can expect today. It's small and that's its good point.
Consider a color skopar classic 35/2.5. It's smaller (with the shade), it's not foggy (which a lot of Summaron are), it's damn good and sharp, and mine have a "signature", at least my signature, which is the most important.
Best,
Marc
Have a nice day.
I've had the LTM 3.5, and it was not bad, but not good either. Prone to flare, reasonably sharp for an old design but certainly not what you can expect today. It's small and that's its good point.
Consider a color skopar classic 35/2.5. It's smaller (with the shade), it's not foggy (which a lot of Summaron are), it's damn good and sharp, and mine have a "signature", at least my signature, which is the most important.
Best,
Marc
Have a nice day.
oscroft
Veteran
I've got a goggled M mount 2.8 (Overpriced? I don't think mine was). I haven't had it long and haven't used it much, but I love the first results from it.
richard_l
Well-known
Both Lenses are excellent:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5312
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5435
Richard
Ronald M
Veteran
The 35 Elmar is very soft on the corners. The 35 3.5 Summaron is much much improved and the pics look like my other Leica lenses of the period.
I had a 35 2.8 that got sharp by 5.6. I was never thrilled with it. Maybe it was a bad sample. Leica Historical Society did tests of 35 2.0 V1 and 35 2.8`s a few years bad. They were profesionally done with multiple samples. They found the 2.8 was slightly better than the 2.0 V1 and was was sharp at 4.0. I guess my sample is a dog.
The 2.8 is gone now and I traded it for a 3.5 screw for my 111f. I will never sell it.
I had a 35 2.8 that got sharp by 5.6. I was never thrilled with it. Maybe it was a bad sample. Leica Historical Society did tests of 35 2.0 V1 and 35 2.8`s a few years bad. They were profesionally done with multiple samples. They found the 2.8 was slightly better than the 2.0 V1 and was was sharp at 4.0. I guess my sample is a dog.
The 2.8 is gone now and I traded it for a 3.5 screw for my 111f. I will never sell it.
BigSteveG
Well-known
Thanks for the comments and examples. I
m looking for a cheap user.
m looking for a cheap user.
Justin Low
J for Justin
I second Mike's opinion. I recently had my Summaron rebuilt with 'new' internal elements and it really is very sharp. The contrast is very good too.
morgan
Well-known
That's a good point. i miss my color skopar, it's a very sharp little lens. It kills my summaron in every respect. I think I ultimately sold mine to help pay for my 35 1.2, but I might get another one...
richard_l
Well-known
The 35mm/3.5 Summarons which have excessively low contrast at middle apertures may have some internal haze or other problem. My f/3.5 Summaron has good to excellent contrast at all apertures. Sharpness, particularly away from the center, may decline a bit wide open but should be quite good by f/4 or f/5.6.
There may be wide variations in the performance of older lenses, which are attributable to their history of use or abuse, not their design.
Richard
There may be wide variations in the performance of older lenses, which are attributable to their history of use or abuse, not their design.
Richard
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
An enormous amount depends on what you expect and what you are comparing it with. I've had both f/3.5 and f/2.8, in the days when they were newer and less likely to be hazy, and I have a 'spectacles' f/2.8 on loan at the moment. I was never much impressed with any of them. They were a great improvement on thr 35mm Elmar, but that's about all you can say for them.
The trouble with looking for a 'signature' lens is that most of the time, 'signature' is synonymous with 'optical shortcoming' (though not always, e.g. 75/2 Summicron, 38/4.5 Biogon). Whether you like the 'look' of a lens is not really something that anyone else can advise you about.
Just about any lens, no matter how awful, is good for something, so you can only judge by looking at others' pictures and seeing if (a) you think they're any good and (b) you shoot the same sort of stuff. My Summaron shots are boring as well as technically mediocre so I can't recommend one and I'm certainly not going to post any pics.
Cheers,
Roger
The trouble with looking for a 'signature' lens is that most of the time, 'signature' is synonymous with 'optical shortcoming' (though not always, e.g. 75/2 Summicron, 38/4.5 Biogon). Whether you like the 'look' of a lens is not really something that anyone else can advise you about.
Just about any lens, no matter how awful, is good for something, so you can only judge by looking at others' pictures and seeing if (a) you think they're any good and (b) you shoot the same sort of stuff. My Summaron shots are boring as well as technically mediocre so I can't recommend one and I'm certainly not going to post any pics.
Cheers,
Roger
richard_l
Well-known
Regardless of what I or Roger have to say about the f/3.5 Summaron, it may be exactly what you want (or don't want) in a 35mm lens. I would be happy to use it as my only 35mm, others would think that ludicrous.
Richard
Richard