M3 & Summaron sans googles Q

jbielikowski

jbielikowski

Jan Bielikowski
Local time
2:11 AM
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
1,382
Location
Warsaw, Poland
View My Gallery
Hi, is anybody using Summaron 35 (2.8/3.5) with M3 without googles? Got M3 SS last weekend and now I'm thinking about lens. I expect that @ infinity it will be some coverage issues, but how it behave circa 3m? TIA
 
Since the goggles are reduction optics, not magnification (as with the DR Summicron, 90 Macro and 135 Elmarit) the error should be less, if not altogether non-existent.
I am a bit confused though. You have an M3 and a Summaron that had the goggles removed?
Regardless, a few RFF members use their Summarons which were formerly goggled sans goggles and they have posted some beautiful images.

Phil Forrest
 
If you want a Summaron, get the goggled one (35/2.8), as it costs much less than the M2 version. You can get a fair idea about the price of various Leica lenses in Europe from this shop:
http://www.newoldcamera.com/index.aspx

You can compare the various Summaron and Summicron versions. I hope you understand a little bit of italian...
 
jbielikowski said:
Hi, is anybody using Summaron 35 (2.8/3.5) with M3 without googles? Got M3 SS last weekend and now I'm thinking about lens. I expect that @ infinity it will be some coverage issues, but how it behave circa 3m? TIA
Click to expand...

Some users have reported using a 40mm lens with the M3, and using the whole finder. With a 35mm lens coverage of the M3 finder will not be sufficient not only at infinity, but also at closer range. You could of course use a 35mm external viewfinder. That way you would be very quick shooting street.

Mfogiel is giving you good advice: the goggled Summarons go for less than the ungoggled (M2-versions), and will give your M3 a very nice 35mm coverage in the finder.

I assume you want to do without the added weight and bulk etc. of the goggles?
Greetings, Ljós
 
Now (I say, I say, just hold on, I say just hold on there one cotton-pickin' minute....) People are using the M3 Summaron w/o the goggles? Everywhere I've read about this I see dire warnings that the focusing will be screwed up if you remove the goggles. So how's that work?

In 2009 before the M9 came out I got a clean Summaron 35/2.8 from KEH for like $325, didn't realize it had the goggles, couldn't use it on my Bessa, sent it back. Prices began taking off by that fall and the goggle'd now are rarely under $600 and the M2 is 850-1200. Oy.

So CAN you remove the goggles?????

Thanks
Vince
 
Last edited:
sparrow6224 said:
Now (I say, I say, just hold on, I say just hold on there one cotton-pickin' minute....) People are using the M3 Summaron w/o the goggles? Everywhere I've read about this I see dire warnings that the focusing will be screwed up if you remove the goggles. So how's that work?
. . . .
So CAN you remove the goggles?????

Thanks
Vince
Click to expand...

Vince: the goggles just affect the field of view of the VF. Without them, on an M3, you won't see what the lens sees. But the RF patch has no way of knowing whether the goggles are on or off -- there is no coupling. So when that RF patch is aligned, just press the shutter button. I have two of these lenses, one with goggles and one that is an LTM lens (without goggles, obviously). I use the LTM with an adapter on M cameras - they both work fine.

Ben
 
But why has this orthodoxy persisted for so long, that the removal of the goggles messes with the rangefinder coupler? It NEVER made sense to me. A knowledgeable person just recently "confirmed" this to me.
 
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks said:
Vince: the goggles just affect the field of view of the VF. Without them, on an M3, you won't see what the lens sees. But the RF patch has no way of knowing whether the goggles are on or off -- there is no coupling. [...]
Ben
Click to expand...

I think you mean the right thing, but it might not quell Vince's reawakened doubts 🙂

One step back, to the OP's question:
"Hi, is anybody using Summaron 35 (2.8/3.5) with M3 without googles? Got M3 SS last weekend and now I'm thinking about lens. I expect that @ infinity it will be some coverage issues, but how it behave circa 3m? TIA"

The key word here is "coverage", If I understand right. The OP is aware that there are goggled and ungoggled versions, his question is not whether you can take a goggled version, remove the goggles, and still get accurate focus at all distances (you cannot. That, Vince, still holds true.)

The OP's question is all about coverage of the lens (field of view), and the coverage/framelines of the M3 finder. It is like asking: anybody using a 28mm lens with a M2, can I use the whole finder for framing?

Btw, one thing that has not been mentioned so far, which would be yet another argument for using the goggled version on an M3: without modification, the M3's focus is coupled down only to 1m. If you use a "M2-version"-f2.8-Summaron on a M3, you lose focus coupling between .7 and 1m.

However, with the goggled Summaron ("M3-version"), you have coupled focus down to .65m!!

So there is a number of reasons why a goggled Summaron makes a whole lot of sense on a M3: price, finder coverage and extended close-focus-coupling.
Drawback: weight and bulk.

Hope that helps, please correct me if I made a factual error along the way.

Greetings, Ljós
 
ON the 35/3.5 the goggles slide off and on; made so you can sensibly use it for both cameras. So I doubt it focuses that close.

so Ljos, thank you. At what distances do you get "inaccurate focus" with goggles removed from an M3 version? Just the .7-1.0m? That can be lived with. I was under the impression it made focusing inaccurate more broadly.

Thanks for the help with this.

Vince
 
Which version are you referring to. The earliest bayonet mount 35mm f3.5 for M3 had no goggles. Neither does it bring up the correct framelines when used with later cameras as it was designed for the M3 which did not have 35mm framelines. It was instead intended for use with an accessory-shoe mounted finder.

If you are talking about using one of the later versions of the 35mm f2.8/3.5 that originally came with goggles (but using it without those goggles) I am informed that (some versions????) cannot be used without the goggles as this affects focus accuracy. However, I do not have one so cannot personally confirm this so am basing that only on multiple postings on various forums. An alternative that I have also used is to buy a LTM version of the lens (which is optically identical to the 35mm f3.5) and buy a suitable adapter for use on a bayonet camera. This is what I have been doing with my M8. I should say that I (and many others) think this Summaron is a fine lens, although it can be prone to haze and consequential flaring. If you get one with this issue, recent threads here point to it being difficult to disassemble for cleaning.

Incidentally, its "Goggles" not "Googles" The latter is a search engine. Which in a funny kind of way, I suppose goggles are too :^)
 
Last edited:
For once and for all, when the goggles are removed from a goggled 35mm Leica lens, the focusing will no longer be correct, exept on infinity.
This topic often returns on this forum.
The inner focusing thread of a goggled 35mm Leica lens is different from a not goggled one. That is the reason the not goggled ones are so much more expensive, as the goggles are really a PITA. They are only useful on an M3. On all other M-Leicas they can be used, but then the 50mm frame will pop up as the magnification of the image in the viewfinder will be smaller. The lenses with their attached goggles are clumsy to use and are also havier. The goggles too often damage the cameras during the mounting procedure because they are so very clumsy.

Erik.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom