BigSteveG
Well-known
How to tell the difference between the goggled v the normal model?
New Summaron question
- Thread starter BigSteveG
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 17
- Views 2K
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Here is a 35mm Summaron with "goggles". This lens is for the M3, which does not have 35mm framelines. The "goggles" widen the 50mm view of the viewfinder to 35mm.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Keith, if you were to remove those googles from the lens, would there be a flat area where the googles mated to the lens? Or is the google part rounded to mate to the lens?
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Frank the "goggles" kind of wrap around the lens. They attach by screws to a section that is part of the lens mount. All the "goggles" or "eyes" do is change the viewfinder to correct the angle of view. They in no way change how the lens if focused by the rangefinder cam, if one were to remove them.
Last edited:
phototone
Well-known
I could be wrong, but as I recall the goggles on 35mm Summaron can be either the removable or the permanent type. It changed during the long production run. Bear in mind that the lens wiil not give you accurate rangefinder focusing without the goggles.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
phototone said:
I don't see how that could be true. The goggles just change the viewfinder and rangefinder for the M3 to focus this lens correctly. If they were removed, I am sure the lens would focus correctly on a M2, M4, etc..
FrankS
Registered User
The reason I asked is, if there was a way of seeing if it was a googled Summaron lens without its googles, or if it was a non-googled Summaron lens.
Keith, this issue has been discussed here before, and the consensus was: a Summaron lens built for google use, needs its googles to function properly on M2s or M4s etc.
Keith, this issue has been discussed here before, and the consensus was: a Summaron lens built for google use, needs its googles to function properly on M2s or M4s etc.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Frank,
As you can see from the back, the "goggles" screw to a flat plate that is part of the lens itself. The upper 2 holes are guide pins that are on the "goggles" to help center them if you were to remove and remount them.
As you can see from the back, the "goggles" screw to a flat plate that is part of the lens itself. The upper 2 holes are guide pins that are on the "goggles" to help center them if you were to remove and remount them.
back alley
IMAGES
isn't google a search engine...😉
smart ass me
smart ass me
kbg32
neo-romanticist
FrankS said:
Frank,
I wish I had one to test this for myself. I had one for an old M3 and the "goggles" were a necessity for lens to function properly on that particular camera because of the view/rangefinder. For the life of me, I can't understand how the "goggles", if removed, would make a difference on a M2, M4, etc., if the view/rangefinder were already corrected for that focal length.
Last edited:
M
merciful
Guest
FrankS
Registered User
Thanks for that link, Merciful! You see, even some experienced Leica guys are confused on this issue.
I'm waiting for a screw mount Summaron with no google issues.
I'm waiting for a screw mount Summaron with no google issues.
M
merciful
Guest
Glad to help. I thought about grabbing one once, read that thread, and decided to go with the guy who said he'd tried it. Nothing beats experience (especially if you don't have to pay for it.)
Still waiting for my uncoated 90mm Elmar (also goggle-issue free.)
Still waiting for my uncoated 90mm Elmar (also goggle-issue free.)
kbg32
neo-romanticist
This is interesting. This is all bringing back a conversation I had about this lens with a tech guy some 20 years ago........
paulh
Established
I also tried it with my googled early 35 mm Summicron which is a factory adapted screw mount to M mount. No chance. The focusing is not correct without the goggles. The rangefinder works but the image is out of focus. A quick email to DAG confirmed it. The cam on goggled lenses have been calibrated to compensate for the goggles.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
kbg32 said:
It is true. The focussing curve is different to compensate for the magnification of the goggles, which changes the RF baselength. The only way to change the RF magnification without changing the focussing parameters is to change he magnification of the ocular, as the 1.25 Okular does, but that is exacly the opposite of what the goggles do.
Last edited:
richard_l
Well-known
jaapv explained it perfectly. 🙂
However, if you do try to use a goggled 35mm lens without the goggles, the rangefinder will focus accurately at infinity, but the accuracy will decrease as you attempt to focus closer and closer. I wonder how many people have misjudged the quality of a goggled Summaron (or Summicron) because they assumed that the goggles weren't needed for cameras which have 35mm framelines. That's sad. 🙁
However, if you do try to use a goggled 35mm lens without the goggles, the rangefinder will focus accurately at infinity, but the accuracy will decrease as you attempt to focus closer and closer. I wonder how many people have misjudged the quality of a goggled Summaron (or Summicron) because they assumed that the goggles weren't needed for cameras which have 35mm framelines. That's sad. 🙁
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
merciful said:
I just read this thread, and it basically says the same. It seems rather silly to blame 2006 Leica sales-people for not knowing about an obscure 40-year old technical detail. The part about removing the goggles and changing the cam to increase focus accuracy is, albeit technically correct, utter baloney as one of the essential points about RF photography is the extremely high focussing accuracy at wideangle. If you do all the sums (which I didn't, I looked at diagrams), a 35 mm goggled 2.8 is twice as accurate in focussing as an equivalent SLR R lens on a split screen and a non-goggled one about 2.5 times. So why would anyone want to take that trouble and cost? 😕
On the other hand it is still a total mystery why Leica offered removable goggles in the first place.
Last edited:
