Leica 35MM F/3.5 Summaron M Mount + Leica m2 body

T

twotroy

Member
Local time
4:27 PM
Joined
Jun 13, 2018
Messages
24
View My Gallery
I recently purchased a very clean copy Leica 35MM (3.5CM) F/3.5 Summaron M Mount lens without the goggles. I like the old rendering but was surprised to find out that it fits my M3 and M262 digital body perfectly but the lens for some reason does not seem to fit a leica an m2 body. The bayonet does not turn all the way to lock on to the body.

The lens based on the serial number is from 1955 - If its an M mount - is there a particular reason why it does not mount to my leica m2 from (1965) -
 
This version of the Summaron 35mm came out with the M3 (in 1954 - the earlier LTM version was available from 1948) and was designed to be used with that camera using an accessory mounted 35mm viewfinder. In other words it predates the M2 (which came out in 1957) by up to three years.

I have one which I used to use with an M3 but never tried mounting it on an M2 (as I never owned one). I have used it on later cameras with success - in my case both an M4P and an M8.

Of course the Summaron does not bring up the 35mm framelines on any of these (as the M3 for which it was designed never had 35mm framelines). I can confirm that it also mounts properly on the later cameras as you say. And I can confirm that the lens can be easily adapted to bring up the 35mm framelines on those cameras that have them. I have not bothered as it's easy to use the frame selector on the cameras if required.

I must admit I had no clue that it might not mount on the M2 (???) and unless this is some kind of idiosyncratic feature of your specific lens (or M2 body) I would think it may have something to do with the way the lens indexes (or fails to index, more to the point) with that camera's rangefinder follower. However I have heard no mention of this and when I checked my copy of the Leica Pocket Book it makes no mention of it either. I am inclined to think it is more likely to be because there is something slightly "out" on your lenses mount or that of the M2 on which you tried to mount it.

Have a search through this selection of posts from the LEica Forum. There may be something there...... https://www.google.com/search?q=sum...KEwilhv2Er_ThAhUc8XMBHZlDAa4QrQIoBDAAegQIBBAN
 
Thank you for the additional information. I will look thru your link. Unfortunately my m262 does not have a frame selector so this lens brings up the 50 framelines as expected which is fine with me at the moment.

I have several other m mount lenses which all fit perfectly on the M2 so perhaps there might be something "off" with this specific lens. I will keep on researching.


peterm1 said:
This version of the Summaron 35mm came out with the M3 (in 1954 - the earlier LTM version was available from 1948) and was designed to be used with that camera using an accessory mounted 35mm viewfinder. In other words it predates the M2 (which came out in 1957) by up to three years.

I have one which I used to use with an M3 but never tried mounting it on an M2 (as I never owned one). I have used it on later cameras with success - in my case both an M4P and an M8.

Of course the Summaron does not bring up the 35mm framelines on any of these (as the M3 for which it was designed never had 35mm framelines). I can confirm that it also mounts properly on the later cameras as you say. And I can confirm that the lens can be easily adapted to bring up the 35mm framelines on those cameras that have them. I have not bothered as it's easy to use the frame selector on the cameras if required.

I must admit I had no clue that it might not mount on the M2 (???) and unless this is some kind of idiosyncratic feature of your specific lens (or M2 body) I would think it may have something to do with the way the lens indexes (or fails to index, more to the point) with that camera's rangefinder follower. However I have heard no mention of this and when I checked my copy of the Leica Pocket Book it makes no mention of it either.

Have a search through this selection of posts from the LEica Forum. There may be something there...... https://www.google.com/search?q=sum...KEwilhv2Er_ThAhUc8XMBHZlDAa4QrQIoBDAAegQIBBAN
Click to expand...
 
I had Summaron 35 3.5 M mount, no goggles. It was activating 35mm frames on M4-2.
Isn't this lens version called as M2 version?
Any way, nicely build, but nothing special in rendering. Less interesting Leica lens I ever owned.
 
This issue pops up from time to time. Someone who had this problem of the lens not seating on one of their bodies concluded that it was due to manufacturing tolerances. Apparently the camera's locking catch was a little too wide to seat in the cutout in the lens. Or else the cutout was a little too narrow. Or a little of both.
 
The early M-mount 35/3.5 without goggles was intended for use with the M3 (with an external finder) and will bring up the 50mm lines. I had my copy milled by DAG to bring up 35mm lines.

It's a great lens, but I'm bugged by the fact that the minimum focus distance is 1m. The goggle version focuses down to 0.7m.

As for the lens not mounting on the M2, a little wiggling may permit it to mount. I've run into this issue myself.
 
Rob-F said:
This issue pops up from time to time. Someone who had this problem of the lens not seating on one of their bodies concluded that it was due to manufacturing tolerances. Apparently the camera's locking catch was a little too wide to seat in the cutout in the lens. Or else the cutout was a little too narrow. Or a little of both.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that this is most likely a tolerance issue, but I suspect it would not be a locking catch problem given how it was described by the original poster. He indicated that he could not rotate the lens fully into the locked position. If it were a locking catch tolerance issue I suspect the problem would rather be that he could rotate the lens into its final position but it would not then lock.

Sounds to me more likely that its to do with the mounting lugs. And possibly given its only on the M2 (not with other camera bodies he has tried) its more likely that the problem stems from the mounting lugs on the M2 or a combination of the body and the lens just as you say in your final sentence. (A guess but it sounds likely).

On thinking about it I have had one situation where I did have something a little like this but it was with an original LTM to M mount Leica adapter made by Leitz (It was so marked and predated the cheaper ones that later became available on eBay.) But I recall that I had a hell of a problem mounting it on my M3 as it was sightly out of tolerance. And given it was a removable adapter ring if I did mount it, I recall then having an even bigger problem getting the damn thing off as the lens would be inclined to screw off the adapter before the adapter bayonet disengaged from the camera. I cannot recall how well it mounted on other bodies as it was a decade or more back. I do recall that I bought the lens mounted on a Summarit 50mm and an M3 body and when I tried to unscrew it from the lens I had an enormous struggle. I concluded that the previous owner had used thread lock on the adapter / lens to help with the mounting / unmounting of the lens from the M3 body.

So I have to say that such tolerance issues do arise - even with Leica kit.
 
Thanks everyone for the feedback. As mentioned the lens does not mount (insert) into the Leica m2 body. This is even before being able to rotate and lock it into the mount. I didn't want to force it just to avoid damaging anything.

On the good side I have the opportunity to return it back to the seller and replace it with another same type of lens. I will report back with my findings and post some pictures of both lenses and show how they mount on the body.
 
twotroy said:
... As mentioned the lens does not mount (insert) into the Leica m2 body. This is even before being able to rotate and lock it into the mount. ...
Click to expand...
You might try focusing the lens to its closest distance before attempting to mount it... that may not help but it would be another point of data.
 
I will be able to test the m2 body with a different 35mm summaron before the end of the week so I will find out for sure. I doubt the camera body is the problem as all other m mount lenses (28mm summicron & 35mm zeiss distagon zm) work fine with it. Also as mentioned in the previous post, setting the lens to a min focus distance before mounting it on the body did not work.

Michiel Fokkema said:
It should mount. If not, something is wrong. Probably with your M3 because it does work on the other 3 cameras.
Click to expand...
 
I like this lens too, here on my M5.

Leica M5, Summaron 35mm f/3.5 (M), 400-2TMY, printed on Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

48131691778_9327ab420c_b.jpg
 
For what is worth, I had the same issue with my Summicron 35mm on my M5. It won't lock correctly unless it give it a little push. Not really something that I like so I refrain using that lens on the M5. As it has been noted, probably due to manufacture tolerances.
 
I have the E39/LTM version of this lens. I love the rendering - very precise and just a touch of "character" used wide-open.

(Actually, I have two - I also have the A36 version, which is even smaller. So much so, that I find it a bit fiddly to use)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Minox 35mm lens convert to Leica M mount
Replies
4
Views
177
ddutchison2
ddutchison2
Miles.
Leica 35mm "goggled" Lens Issue
Replies
13
Views
1K
KoNickon
K
R
Summaron 35/2.8 vs LLL 35mm 8 element
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
9K
froyd
froyd
macmx
Eisenstaedt's M3 and 35mm lens
Replies
11
Views
1K
Glenn2
G
Godfrey
Fences — (the modern) Summaron-M 28mm f/5.6
Replies
11
Views
1K
Godfrey
Godfrey
Back
Top Bottom