Ron F
Member
I've been using a Leica M6 TTL with a 50mm f2.8 Elmar for a couple months now and have been wanting to look into a 35mm lens. I really wanted a 35mm f3.5 Summaron for the M-2, but was hoping the prices on ebay might fluctuate down a bit. The other evening I happened upon, and bought a CV 35mm f3.5 Skopar C very reasonably and am now awaiting my new purchase.
Now I'm a little concerned since I've been reading in various posts that the CV 35mm is a high contrast lens, but I plan on doing black and white with it, so this might be a problem.
This is probably a stupid question, but which lens, the Summaron or the Skopar will have a level of contrast that is better suited for black and white?
Also, I've read that the f3.5 Summaron is "dreamy" wide open; can anyone tell me at which aperture this lens sharpens up?
Now I'm a little concerned since I've been reading in various posts that the CV 35mm is a high contrast lens, but I plan on doing black and white with it, so this might be a problem.
This is probably a stupid question, but which lens, the Summaron or the Skopar will have a level of contrast that is better suited for black and white?
Also, I've read that the f3.5 Summaron is "dreamy" wide open; can anyone tell me at which aperture this lens sharpens up?
foon
Established
Well, since you've already bought it, why don't you actually try it and see if it suits your taste? I am sure you will get some great results from it. 
R
ray_g
Guest
Ron, either lens would be suited for black and white. Modern, coated lenses give results with more contrast, and older, usually single coated or uncoated lenses have lower contrast. Some prefer the former, while others prefer the "old look" of the latter. I have never used the Skopar, but I have seen fantastic results with it. Same with the summaron. Foon's advice is sound, because only you can decide which look you like.
scottgee1
RF renegade
Ron, you might want to take a look at:
http://cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm
and
http://cameraquest.com/ltmlens.htm
One man's opinions of course, but food for thought.
Have fun!/ScottGee1
http://cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm
and
http://cameraquest.com/ltmlens.htm
One man's opinions of course, but food for thought.
Have fun!/ScottGee1
ChrisN
Striving
Hi Ron
I use a CV 35/2.5, and I am quite pleased with the results I'm getting with B&W, although I can't compare it with Summaron. There are quite a few pics in my gallery taken with the CV lens.
I use a CV 35/2.5, and I am quite pleased with the results I'm getting with B&W, although I can't compare it with Summaron. There are quite a few pics in my gallery taken with the CV lens.
richard_l
Well-known
The 35mm Summaron is a high contrast lens similar to the 35mm Summicron.ray_g said:
Richard
Solinar
Analog Preferred
The C/V 35/2.5 Skopar is a sweet lens. It's modern coatings will yield a bit more contrast than the classic Lietz lenses of the early 1950's. One major difference is the Skopar uses a short 45 degree focus throw. While the old 3.5 Summaron uses that classic long throw focus ring, which may be overkill for the 35mm focal length, but is nice touch.
By the way, there are two different Summarons. The 2.8 Summaron should have a different character than its 3.5 predecessor. For one, the later glass benefited from the use of lanthium glass, which yields better contrast. Plus, it offers that extra stop.
My experience with older Leitz lens is yeah they tend flare a bit more than modern C/V lenses, but as a whole have a pleasing classic look wide open. Dreamy conjures up the Holga look. The Leitz lenses I own are anything, but that.
By the way, there are two different Summarons. The 2.8 Summaron should have a different character than its 3.5 predecessor. For one, the later glass benefited from the use of lanthium glass, which yields better contrast. Plus, it offers that extra stop.
My experience with older Leitz lens is yeah they tend flare a bit more than modern C/V lenses, but as a whole have a pleasing classic look wide open. Dreamy conjures up the Holga look. The Leitz lenses I own are anything, but that.
Hektor
Leicapile
50's leitz lenses are often a bit dreamy 'cause they need cleaning. Often you need a very bright lamp shining in or thro' the lens to see it. Just holding it up to the sky aint good enough unless you're very expert at spotting it. sort of tilt it sideways and catch the internal reflections off the dust or haze with strong through illumination.
(a bit like what happens when you take a photo really ! )
JC.
(a bit like what happens when you take a photo really ! )
JC.
scottgee1
RF renegade
Solinar said:
Yeah the dreamy Holga look without that pesky Holga price tag.
ScottGee1
Mark Wood
Well-known
If my late (L39/E39) 35/3.5 Summaron is representative of them all, it's a nice lens but it shows its age in terms of absolute edge sharpness, even when it's well stopped down. I think it gives good colour rendition and contrast but things move on and I suspect that a modern CV lens will have a "technically" better performance. My lens looked mint but had the usual haze problem that could only be sorted out by a recoating of some of the inner elements. Malcolm Taylor did for me 5 or 6 years ago and fortunately, the recoating didn't seem to make any difference to resolution.
richard_l
Well-known
True. Even the notorious Summarit is a good performer if clean.Hektor said:
It looks as if the common misconceptions about the Summaron will prevail. Maybe that is a good thing. Wise buyers will purchase the superior CV products, leaving more of the inferior older Leica stuff for deluded Leica fanatics to waste their shekels on.
Richard
Fred
Feline Great
"It looks as if the common misconceptions about the Summaron will prevail. Maybe that is a good thing. Wise buyers will purchase the superior CV products, leaving more of the inferior older Leica stuff for deluded Leica fanatics to waste their shekels on."
An interesting point. The CV lenses are fantastic value for money. They seem (to me anyway) beat every SLR lens I've used (not including medium format here) hands down. Stopped down just one stop from wide open and they really come alive..... which is not the point of this thread.
Anyway,
The point is that you can always 'soften' detail by filter/ lens/ dirty end element etc, but you cannot get detail if it's not there in the first place. Hence I'd plump for the CV every time. Far more versatile in all sorts of conditions.
Admittedly there are older lenses that exhibit a certain 'look' under different lighting conditions that are fantastic, but these lenses are arguably limited in general use to the financially challenged amature (me).
With reference to the quote at the top, a modern Leica lense sometimes needs to be used to be seen to be believed, but at a premium.
An interesting point. The CV lenses are fantastic value for money. They seem (to me anyway) beat every SLR lens I've used (not including medium format here) hands down. Stopped down just one stop from wide open and they really come alive..... which is not the point of this thread.
Anyway,
The point is that you can always 'soften' detail by filter/ lens/ dirty end element etc, but you cannot get detail if it's not there in the first place. Hence I'd plump for the CV every time. Far more versatile in all sorts of conditions.
Admittedly there are older lenses that exhibit a certain 'look' under different lighting conditions that are fantastic, but these lenses are arguably limited in general use to the financially challenged amature (me).
With reference to the quote at the top, a modern Leica lense sometimes needs to be used to be seen to be believed, but at a premium.
R
ray_g
Guest
richard_l said:
Richard, I thought that was more true of the 35/2.8. Live and learn.
richard_l
Well-known
I used to think that too, until a couple of RFFers told me that I was wrong. Then I got a 35/3.5 for myself. It now lives on my M2.ray_g said:
I have some pictures taken with it, but I don't know which they are. I was randomly interchanging the 35/3.5 with a 40/2 Summicron-C on a 36 exp. roll of XP2, and I can't recall (or tell from looking) which picture was taken with which lens. (Both lenses are "new.") I'm now shooting up a 36 exp. roll of color film with only the 35/3.5 on the M2.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Well Richard XP-2 is pretty good at showing the resolution differences between lenses. So, that's a pretty good testimonial.
Anyway, sometimes modern photographers become a bit over zealous about the resolution numbers of their lenses, then go shoot some Tri-X. Or they must have the fastest lens that money will buy and wind up with a huge assemblage of glass to carry around.
Everyone's style is different. It is good to see someone else keeping it simple and making pleasant prints with just a compact vintage lens.
Anyway, sometimes modern photographers become a bit over zealous about the resolution numbers of their lenses, then go shoot some Tri-X. Or they must have the fastest lens that money will buy and wind up with a huge assemblage of glass to carry around.
Everyone's style is different. It is good to see someone else keeping it simple and making pleasant prints with just a compact vintage lens.
Last edited: