I hate summaron goggles!

[FrankS]

I thought I read somewhere that the gogles were just for using the lens for close ups or close focusing. Do you have to use them all the time? This is in regards to the 50mm.

TY

That is correct for the dual range 50mm lens where use of the goggles is necessary only for close range focusing, but not the 35mm goggled lens where the goggles have to stay on all the time in order to use the RF of the camera.

You can use the goggled 35mm lens without the goggles, but the camera's RF would not give accurate/useable focus information, you would have to focus the lens using the lens' focus scale and estimate distance.

 

[FrankS]

Hey Memphis, it's funny: after our chat on the phone, whenever I read your posts, I can hear your southern accent! 🙂

 

[FrankS]

I have the non-goggled version of the 35mm f3.5 Summaron that I quite like. (Please see the pic of my father with sunflowers in my top ten gallery.)

 

[Krosya]

why did you get it?

why did you get it?

I thought about it and since I already own a 35/2.8 canon which I find to be wonderful I would rather to have a 50 on the m3.

This may be a dumb question, but if you already have a 35mm lens that you like so much, why did you get this one, plus had it CLA'd? And it doesn't really give you anything different from speed perspective. Had it been summilux, sure, but in this case.....was it just to try it out?
Anyway, good luck with it - whatever you end up doing - keeping or selling it.

 

[YEGEY]

hmm

hmm

summaron goggled f3.5 m3 pics


like I said, Mine's at sherry's getting a cleanup -- I'd probably sell mine for $550-$600 since it has original box, cosmetically is a 9.5 (scratches on the lens cap), front and rear caps --- or might trade it for the right lens --- value is entirely subjective -- it's a good lens on any camera

While it may be a pretty good lens, goggled summaron 35/3.5 will most likely not sell for $550-600 unless it's some sort of a special edition, which I'm not sure if there was one. Or if you can find a collector that really really really wants one. I don't mean to sound rude, but it's not the lens that is either rare or great performer. So many lenses out there can outperform it at a lesser price and better handling. As I understand it - you got it pretty cheap, I'd say keep it if you like how it handles - that way you will have it's best value.
Just my opinion.

 

[Rayt]

Goggled lenses are way cheaper than their un-goggled versions so if you can live with extra mass on your camera and a dimmer distorted finder then you can save a few hundred and a lot more if it is the first version 35mm Summicron. Moveover goggled lenses tend to be readily available in mint condition so I guess heavy users tend to avoid them. Supposedly goggled lenses require extra calibration out of the factory so that explains why every one I have ever had were tack sharp.

 

[jaapv]

My-my, these things have risen. I bought my ex+ 3.5 a year ago for 175 euro at an expensive dealer. Great little lens, I use it mainly for IR photography on the M8, for which it is eminently suited.

 

[jaapv]

Hey : That was post # 4000 just now! 🙂 🙂

 

[FrankS]

There's a big difference in price between the f3.5 and f2.8 Summaron versions. Blake, you may be seeing the f2.8 prices.

 

[FrankS]

Generally un-goggled versions sell for more because they are the same lens without the bulk of the goggles.

Just did an ebay search, and prices have indeed gone up. A year or so ago when I was looking, ungoggled f3.5 Summarons were selling $200-$300, goggled versions for less.

 

[Michael I.]

I actually golt it as a part of a very good deal with two bodies