Does the Summaron 35/2.8 get enough love?

[whited3]

It's always 'chron & 'lux in the limelight, but what about the Summaron 35/2.8? Especially for black & white photography. Granted there is some great discussion about the lens, but damn; am I fooling myself thinking photos taken with this lens have a striking signature that sets it apart from its pricier siblings? Sorry.. I haven't the vocabulary to nail down Summaron's signature, but something with the contrast and way it draws is mesmerizing.

What's going on with this lens? I mean, technically, in the glass, in the optical formula? Am I even talking about a real difference from 35 lux/chron?

 

[jordan.dickinson]

I, for one, love the little 35 2.8 Summaron. I've bought/sold 3 35mm Summiluxes both ASPH and pre-asph, but never sold my Summaron. I don't know the optical formula but in terms of the way it renders images, I find it nearly perfect in all ways when it comes to daylight photography in black and white. I think it has plenty of love here on the forum, but of course, the summicron is almost always going to be the benchmark for sharpness, speed, and size. In any case, my Summaron will always be one of my favorites!

 

[jsrockit]

I actually like this lens too... I found it to be lower in contrast than the Summmicrons (though I never used a V1) and very nice for color.

 

[Dralowid]

We try not to talk about this lens in an attempt to keep the price down...

 

[Tom A]

I have and have had multiple Summaron 35f2.8's over the years. At the moment I have one - clean glass etc - but someone crudely scratched in a social security nimbler on the barrel - so its value is low enough that I will just keep it. In many ways the Summaron 35f2.8 is a better lens than the much vaunted Summicron 35f2 8 element. Particularly for closer focussing. I always found it better than my Summicron for that. OK, it does have the infernal infinity lock -and Murphy's applies - the object you are focussing is right on the "cam" - and suddenly it clicks to infinity!
Mine is at the moment on a M2 and though it is grim and grey today - it is still useable - even at f2.8.
The C-Biogon 35mm f2.8 is most likely a technically better lens - sharper, with better contrast etc - but the Summaron can still hold its own - even after 50 years +.
You usually have better luck finding a clean 35f2.8 than early 60's Summicron/Summiluxes. Most of the higher speed lenses at the time were bought by pro's - who beat them up. The f2.8 was usually bought by affluent amateurs - and they used Uv filters and took care of their stuff.

 

[whited3]

Heh, may the leica gods show continuing $$ mercy...
I actually have the goggled version for the M3 and contemplate selling/swapping it for the non-goggled version. BUT the prices are almost in summicron territory. I am an inch away from gently removing the goggles and slapping it on my M6 permanently.

No takers on explaining where the Summaron's magic rendering comes from?

 

[Robert Lai]

Ken Rockwell has an extensive review of the lens. It's a 6-element symmetrical double Gauss design.

I find it to be a boring ,very sharp, distortion-free lens of no special character. So boring and ho-hum that I sold off my 35mm Summicron ASPH, my CV 35 2.5 as well as my Nikon 35 1.4 AIS for my SLR. The "boring" Summaron 2.8 is my only remaining 35mm lens. It really has no faults to speak of. Nice and small to carry around too.

As mentioned above, we never talk about this lens, because we don't want people to want it. Less demand = better prices.

 

[Tom A]

A classic combo. M2, Summaron 35mm f2.8 - and yes, a Softie and the M2 Rapidwinder for IXMOO cassettes and a Cameraquest rewind crank. Here you can see the crudely scratched in Social Security # on the barrel. Never could figure out why people did that.

 

[whited3]

That's a happy looking camera.

I've seen comparisons to the Zeiss before; I'm not very well read on lens designs. Are these comparisons to say the summaron & biogon have a similar look/formula?

 

[jonmanjiro]

I am an inch away from gently removing the goggles and slapping it on my M6 permanently.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong here, but I think if you remove the goggles the lens will no longer focus properly.

 

[Robert Lai]

The symmetrical design is responsible for its lack of distortion.
It is better than the Summicron ASPH in that regard, as the ASPH has a bit of pincushion distortion along the edges. The ASPH has very high levels of contrast at all apertures, but the Summaron is no fog bank (unless yours has haze).

I had a freshly overhauled 8-element Summicron. I didn't see what the big deal was about it, and I sold it off for silly amounts of money. It was not more contrasty or sharper at the corners than the Summaron 2.8.

Don't bugger up your Summaron with the goggles. It works fine on an M6 with the goggles.

 

[whited3]

As mentioned above, we never talk about this lens, because we don't want people to want it. Less demand = better prices.

Soo, anyone have a list of such lenses we do not talk about?

 

[whited3]

And about the goggles - I thought removing them just messed up the magnification of 50mm frame lines (intended to approximate 35mm equivalent). If it messes up focus too (but how?) then forget it.

My biggest gripe with the goggles is the deterioration in viewfinder quality looking through the extra glass. Pretty significant in my opinion. I'd rather just project my mental 35mm frame lines.

 

[Brian Legge]

Well, they seem to sell for $950 at the moment... I think they get plenty of respect. I'll have to stick with my Summaron f3.5 for now.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

My most used lens on ltm camera's; had three of them and kept the ltm version

As you can see, over time Leitz gave them different coatings:

Summarons and different coatings by Ron (Netherlands), on Flickr


and you don't always need a Leica to get good use of your Summarons 🙂

Zorki 4K repair & cla VI by Ron (Netherlands), on Flickr

 

[Robert Lai]

Other lenses we don't talk about

Other lenses we don't talk about

Speaking only for myself, here are some of the survivors of my latest lens culling and purging:

CV 28 3.5
Leica 28 2.8 Elmarit ASPH - this one is spectacularly "boring"
Both of these 28mm lenses are very small.

50mm HC /2 Nikkor (Sonnar). Boring and close focusing.

CV 75 2.5 - beautifully boring lens.

Leitz Elmar 135 f/4 (the one from the 1960s) - very, very boring lens comparable to the 135 Tele-Elmar M, except for less contrast wide open.

Codeword translation: BORING = no visible distortion, moderate to high contrast wide open, good to great corner sharpness, decent to superb bokeh, and good to spectacular flare resistance, and great price to performance ratio.

The reason to use such a word is that when Google searches are done for a particular lens, the word "boring" will then be associated with that lens 😀.

 

[JMQ]

Someone please correct me if I am wrong here, but I think if you remove the goggles the lens will no longer focus properly.

Jon is right, I have read the same. Leave the goggles on or you'll have a nice paper weight.

 

[hipsterdufus]

"Cheap" sure is a relative term in the Leica world. Seems like they're getting plenty of love. If anyone finds one for $300, let me know...

 

[Emile de Leon]

I have a mint 3.5 version I got in trade..basically NOS..
Have to admit..it kills...sharp at all f stops..
And using the hawks ext adapter..
It is superb in close up too..
I was really surprised how good the 3.5 is..I tested against a bunch of other lenses..it had some of the best imagery in closeup..
Ergonomically..thats another matter..
But the imagery..
Is flawless..

 

[froyd]

And about the goggles - I thought removing them just messed up the magnification of 50mm frame lines (intended to approximate 35mm equivalent). If it messes up focus too (but how?) then forget it.

My biggest gripe with the goggles is the deterioration in viewfinder quality looking through the extra glass. Pretty significant in my opinion. I'd rather just project my mental 35mm frame lines.

DO NOT remove the goggles. It will definitely not focus accurately on a regular body because the goggles change the magnification of the VF.

Regarding the deterioration in VF quality, I agree that the image darkens a bit with the goggles on, but a significant advantage is that now you get to use 50mm frame lines instead of 35, with all the added space around the frame vs 35 frame lines.

Another point regarding the Summaron: it's one of the best "feeling" lenses I've ever used in terms of smoothness of focus tab. It even makes me forget about that darned focus lock.