M3 Summarons. Why So Cheao?

[Stu W]

I noticed that the 35mm Summaron to fit the M3 's can be had very reasonably. As I only own M3 bodies it seems like the perfect 35mm lens for me. I do have a Summicron 35 without eyes, but it seems to me the Summaron would be far easier to use, and they seem to sell for less than the SBLOO finder. Am I missing something here? Stu

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

You mean you have the Summicron 35, the first version, without the goggles?

I'll trade ya 🙂

They're cheap because so few people want them, and even fewer know that they can be used on any M body, not just the M3. You should not remove the goggles, otherwise the focusing/rangefinder coupling is off.

 

[FrankS]

The only negative (besides the slower max aperture) is the bulk of the goggles. Performance-wise, I love my little 35 Summaron (with no goggles). It is like the 50 Elmar f3.5 and 90 Elmar f4. All under-appreciated and over-shadowed by newer faster Leica glass, but all great lenses.

 

[telenous]

I hear great things about the Summaron. If the goggled version is like the goggled Summiluxes for M3s then it has the added benefit of focusing as close as 0.65 m.

 

[Stu W]

Gabrielma, when I saw what the first version Summicron 35 was selling for, I decided to leave mine in it's bubble. I realize that a lens is supposed to be used, but this one is mint, and I think I'll leave it as an investment. ( I also have a non-goggled Summaron 3.5 that I'm thinking of selling to finance the goggled one.) As far as the Summaron goes, looking at the size of the eyes, I think I answered my own question. I assume they're so Inexpensive because the bulk of the goggles-but on an M3 it's either that or an external finder. I think I may take the plunge and get a goggled Summaron. Feeling a little gassy today.
And I think Alkis is correct-I read somewher the lens will focus down to .65.
Stu

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I realize that a lens is supposed to be used, but this one is mint, and I think I'll leave it as an investment.

😱 You should take it out at least once in a while, let it breathe, let it get some sun, otherwise it'll deteriorate, grow fungus, fog up (and your investment won't be as good).

I love my lenses and cameras dearly, but I use them. If I don't use them much, then I make myself use them or just put them back in circulation.

You sure you won't reconsider? I had the privilege of owning, briefly, the goggled 35 Summicron; but it pained me to return it; I just couldn't use it effectively; it attracted too much attention (many "ooh that's cool; wow, that's and old camera you got there; damn, what are you taking pictures of?; why are you taking a picture of me with that?!?") and was too bulky to haul around in my small bag. The images are great, flares easily, but it has a look in the images I really like. The closest thing to it is the 35 Summaron f/2.8 and then, more or less, the 35 'cron IV.

This is why they're cheaper than the nongoggled ones. It's just too expensive to have the goggled one and then a "modern" version for those "light" times.

Take that lens out on a date (shooting date). For me? Pleez? 😱

 

[Stu W]

Thanks Roland, I think I'll buy myself a lens for my birthday. Damn, birthdays are depressing. Stu

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

It's your birthday?!? Ahhhhh..., yes, GAS could be the least you could indulge today. I got me-self an M3 on my birthday (which later I exchanged for an M2, oh well).

Happy Birthday!

 

[Ben Z]

Don't buy the googled lens sight-unseen unless you can return it. When I had my M3 I found one in a store, just back from a Sherry overhaul, for $300 and I figured wow! When I put it on the camera though, it made the viewfinder image dimmer, less snappy, and there was considerable distortion. All in all I didn't like it.

 

[Stu W]

Ben, I considered all that. I'm willing to trade off that extra glass in the viewfinder to get away from the external finder. Stu

 

[richard_l]

Don't buy the googled lens sight-unseen unless you can return it. When I had my M3 I found one in a store, just back from a Sherry overhaul, for $300 and I figured wow! When I put it on the camera though, it made the viewfinder image dimmer, less snappy, and there was considerable distortion. All in all I didn't like it.

That's unfortunate, Ben. I really think the ocular on your lens must be defective. With my Summaron, I don't notice any significant darkening, reduction of clarity, or increased distortion in the viewfinder.

Richard

 

[Ronald M]

There are too many glass/air surfaces and the contrast is killed in the finder.

Other than that, it is a fine lens. It is really nice if you wear glasses as the entire 35mm frame can be seen on any .72 body.

 

[Stu W]

I just sold a screw mount summaron for what I paid for it. I'm kind of sorry I did as it was very nice, but I just want to stay away from the external finders. I do wear glasses, and I think I may have just purchased a 3.5 with goggles. Stu

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Awesome. I hope you're happy with it. Don't forget to show us photos with it.