Have 35 Summicron, why lust for 2.8 summaron?

V

Vickko

Veteran
Local time
3:49 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
2,827
I already have two 35 Summicrons (IV, ASPH), why should I still lust for the 2.8 Summaron?

Does anyone have comparative stories on the imaging capabilities of the 2.8 Summaron?

From what I can tell, it is far superior to the f3.5 Summaron. But what is it compared to the newer Summicrons?

regards
Vick
 
Vickko said:
From what I can tell, it is far superior to the f3.5 Summaron. But what is it compared to the newer Summicrons?
Click to expand...
"Superior" implies a single-dimensional scale. I already have two good 35s (M-Hexanon and UC Hexanon) yet recently bought a 35/3.5 Sumaron. Why? Because I've seen examples of the very different look it produces in photos, and I'd like to explore that. I haven't had much chance to use it and learn it yet, so it may not be one that suits me long-term, but I think it might be and I'll enjoy finding out.

Physically, BTW, its a little gem of a lens.

...Mike
 
I have an f3.5 Summaron and like its qualities.

From what I've read: f2.8 Summaron is a big improvement over the f3.5 Summaron, and is very very close to the f2 Summicron.

If you already have a 35 Summicron, I see no reason to lust for an f2.8 Summaron.
 
I asked the same question a few weeks ago, but with a view to moving from a 2.8 Summaron to a Summicron.

This was Tom Abrahamsson's reply...

"
Unless you need the speed, the Summaron is one of the best of Leicas 35's. The close up performance is better than the Summicron and from about f4 to f11 they are equal. The Summicron, when it came out was a compromise. Leica needed a fast 35 as both Canon and Nikon were beating them at their game. You gain a stop, but you loose a bit of edge, particularly in the close range.
Later Summicron's improved, but not until you get up to 35/2 Asph. do you get the same close range sharpness.
For the money today, the Biogon 35f2 is the best deal.Much more pleasing tonality than the 35/2 Asph and about the same resolution and less harsh contrast.
An early to mid 90's Summilux is another good choice. It will get you 2 stops, but it is not as "straight" as either the 35/2 or the 2.8. It has a curved field, particularly when you are using it wide-open or close to that. Sharpness is otherwise similar to either the f2 or 2.8 pre-Asph 35's.
I have the whole gamut of these lenses and one of my M2's always has the 35/2,8 on it! Usually with Tri X in it and it is rare that I cant get a shot I want with it. OK, nothing is perfect, the infernal infinity lock can drive you nuts, but I usually dismantle these on any old 35 or 50."

Regards
Ernst
 
I paid $550 for mine in April this year and it's in very good condition. They seem to be going for $6-700 in M mount currently.

Regards
Ernst
 
Having a 3.5 Summaron, original 8 element Summicrron, and a version IV, the 2.8Summaron was the one I gave to my son intrade for the 3.5.

Do not waste your money on a 2.8 .
 
Ronald M said:
Having a 3.5 Summaron, original 8 element Summicrron, and a version IV, the 2.8Summaron was the one I gave to my son intrade for the 3.5.

Do not waste your money on a 2.8 .
Click to expand...

Ronald, care to elaborate? I assume by your comment that you strongly prefer the 3.5 Summaron to the 2.8 Summaron. I would be interested in hearing your further thoughts as to why.

Thanks,
Randy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom