CV 35mm f2.5 vs. Summaron 35mm f3.5

[Ron F]

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?

 

[foon]

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. 😀

 

[ray_g]

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]

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

 

[ChrisN]

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.

 

[richard_l]

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.

The 35mm Summaron is a high contrast lens similar to the 35mm Summicron.

Richard

 

[Solinar]

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.

 

[Hektor]

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.

 

[scottgee1]

SNIP!
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.

Yeah the dreamy Holga look without that pesky Holga price tag. 😉

ScottGee1

 

[Mark Wood]

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]

50's leitz lenses are often a bit dreamy 'cause they need cleaning.

True. Even the notorious Summarit is a good performer if clean.

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]

"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. 🙂

 

[ray_g]

The 35mm Summaron is a high contrast lens similar to the 35mm Summicron.

Richard

Richard, I thought that was more true of the 35/2.8. Live and learn.

 

[richard_l]

Richard, I thought that was more true of the 35/2.8. Live and learn.

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.

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]

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.