If Summaron, then why Summicron?

[zoar]

Hi,

I've heard that the 35f2.8 Summaron is actually sharper close up (within five feet) than the rather more expensive 35f2 pre-ASPH Summicron (4th version), and that both lenses perform equally from 4 or 5.6 to 16 or 22. If so, why would one want the Summicron? Just for the lighter, smaller presence and the extra stop?

I'm trying to decide between the two.

Thanks.

 

[Ben Z]

I can say nothing about the relative performance of one vs the other because I'm not one of those resolution-chart-shooters. What I can say is that when the exposure calls for 1/15 @ f/2.8 and you can't hold it steady below 1/30 (I'm not saying you personally, but you meaning anyone), you open the Summicron up a stop, but with the Summaron you switch to a faster film. That's going to probably give you more grain, and definitely take a minute or two, so if the shot isn't static you're going to miss it. In general, given most of my shooting is hand-held I like to have the fastest lens I can afford and have the gumption to lug around.

 

[FrankS]

I agree that the 35 Summicron, any version, goes for a heck of a price. I'll have to get by with an f3.5 Summaron and a 40mm Rokkor which matches the speed and is just slightly longer.

 

[markinlondon]

As Frank says, the 40 Summicron-C or Rokkor goes for a fraction of the price of the any of the 35 Summicrons and is a good choice on a budget. So is the CV Ultron 35 f1.7. And as Ben said sometimes you just need that extra stop.
As to why, it would seem that in many ways the 'cron replaced the Summaron and Leica are not averse to producing optics "just because they can". Consider the Noctilux. Personally I've never seen the point of that lens but there are those here who rave over it.

 

[richard_l]

I think the center resolution of the Summaron and Summicron are similar, but the edge-to-edge performance of the 'Cron is better, particular at f/2.8. However, I've used Summarons for several years, and the images have always seemed adequately uniform across the plane of focus, even wide open. Test bench performance would be another matter, however.

By the way, if you get the M3 version, be sure that it comes with good "eyes." Some people have "eyes" which cause too much dimming and distortion in the finder. The LTM and M2 versions are optically equivalent but do not need the "eyes."

Richard

 

[zoar]

Thanks, very much.

I have an M6, so I don't think the goggled version of the Summaron would work with my camera.

 

[raid]

I love my 35mm Summicron first version with eyes. I also have the 35/3.5 classic looking Summaron which has a totally different signature. I just sold my vintage Canon 35mm/2.8 but still have the newer design Canon 35mm/1.8.
The images taken with my Summicron come out very sharp. The Summaron 35/3.5 has far less contrast and if there is internal haze in this old lens, it will be less sharp.

Raid

 

[richard_l]

...I have an M6, so I don't think the goggled version of the Summaron would work with my camera.

It works fine with the M6.

Richard

 

[richard_l]

...The images taken with my Summicron come out very sharp. The Summaron 35/3.5 has far less contrast and if there is internal haze in this old lens, it will be less sharp.

Raid, I think you mean that your 35mm/3.5 Summaron has far less contrast. Shine a really bright flashlight through your lens, and you will probably see haze, fungus, or problems with the coating.

Richard

 

[raid]

Richard,
I know that the Summaron is supposed to be sharp and less contrasty, even when the lens is totally clean. Am I right?

Raid

 

[richard_l]

Richard,
I know that the Summaron is supposed to be sharp and less contrasty, even when the lens is totally clean. Am I right?

Raid

Most people say that, but it hasn't been my experience. I don't have a 35mm Summicron for comparison, but both of my Summarons (f/3.5 and f/2.8) are as contrasty as my 50mm Summicron (latest version). Maybe I'm just lucky. 🙂

Richard

 

[raid]

Maybe I should send my Summaron for internal cleaning. What would be the cost for such cleaning and who is recommended? Is this "too easy" for DAG or Sherry Krauter?

Raid

 

[Oh Two]

I have only used the first version of Summicron 35 (which I really like, but not more than the Summaron), I have the 2.8 Summaron. I have seen images for the the other pre ASPH models. Version IV looks like a Summaron to me. If you don't need the extra stop the Summaron is an excellent choice. I want a Summicron ASPH now, but only because I can see a difference. Would I use that over the Summaron all the time? NO!

The bokeh king is not the version IV Summicron. Running away it's the 2.8 Summaron!

 

[richard_l]

Maybe I should send my Summaron for internal cleaning. What would be the cost for such cleaning and who is recommended? Is this "too easy" for DAG or Sherry Krauter?

Raid

I'm sure DAG or Sherry would be glad to do it. You could email for estimates. I like Focal Point, but he's not the cheapest. http://www.focalpointlens.com/fp_intro.html

Richard

 

[Pablito]

For me it's all about the extra stop. In the kind of work I do having f2 gives a huge advantage over f2.8. If I didn't do so much available light work, I might feel differently. I also love the size of the Summicron - it's tiny and pairs incredibly well with the M body. The M with the 35mm Summicron fits easily in a coat pocket even with the hood on. If you're so inclined.

 

[raid]

I inspected my 35mm/3.5 Summaron last night, and I can see some internal haze that must be removed. I agree with others that the Summicron is very sharp.

Raid