New (to me) Summaron 35/3.5 lens question

V

vrgard

Well-known
Local time
1:11 AM
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,716
I just picked up a Summaron 35/3.5 lens and have a question about it. It's an M mount lens having serial number 1180520. From what I can find on the web, this means it's a 1954 vintage lens. Further, the various web descriptions say that this lens should bring up the 50mm framelines, despite being a 35mm focal length lens, because the M3 (the only M camera available in 1954) did not have 35mm framelines. However, this lens does bring up 35mm framelines on an M4. And it does not appear that the lens mount has been modified or altered in any way. So, what gives? Is the date wrong and this lens is really a later vintage? Is the web frameline information wrong and, despite being from 1954, still brings up 35mm framelines on those M cameras that have them and the web info is just wrong? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks in advance for any thoughts or info you have.

-Randy

P.S. It does have a bit of internal haze so I'm thinking of sending it to Sherry Krauter for a cleaning since I understand that it's a bit of a job to disassemble this lens. If anyone has info or suggestions otherwise please let me know.
 
The difference between bringing up 50 and 35 lines is a few strokes of a file, Randy. If the lens was modified for use with an M2 a long time ago you probably wouldn't notice. It's also possible that the mount was changed by Leica, this was an aftermarket option.
 
Thanks, Mark in er ah wherever you are (oblique reference to your other posting about being on the verge of moving from London to New Zealand - good luck with that, by the way). You may be right that this was a lens mount swap by Leica since the mount itself is very clean and does not look altered in any way (unlike my Rokkor 40 mount that has been visibly altered to bring up the 35mm framelines rather than the 50mm framelines). Guess I didn't realize that Leica ever offered such a swap service.

-Randy
 
Does it have eyes, Randy ? If it doesn't it was made for the M2 and brings
up 35mm lines.

Congrats,

Roland.
 
Hey oldster confused.

If it was an '54 it will have goggles and there was not an M2 in '54, as far as I recall.
With goggles the correct field of view is with the 50mm frame on a M2 or M4.
Does it have goggles?

Noel
 
Nope, no goggles. And definitely no mount for goggles. In other words, it does not have the little raised flat portion on top as does the goggled version. Which makes me think it's a later vintage. Yet the serial number corresponds to 1954. And I've found discussions on the web explaining that there was a version of the Summaron 35/3.5 for the M3 before Leica started putting goggles on them. But that version supposedly brings up the 50mm framelines and thus requires use of an external viewfinder for proper framing. Yet this lens brings up the 35mm framelines which is why I can't sort all this out.

signed getting older and more confused daily,
Randy

P.S. For what it's worth, Kevin Cameras (http://www.kevincameras.com/) has a couple of them that look just like mine except the distance scale on some of his are in meters whereas mine is in feet.
 
Last edited:
Randy, with your Summaron mounted on an M2, M4, or M6, the 35mm framelines come up, right? Does the lens' focusing scale agree with the camera's RF when focussed at a close object, of say, 6ft?
 
Thanks, Noel, but I don't think a file has been taken to this lens mount. It's just way too clean/original looking for that. However, Mark is probably right that the mount was perhaps changed later in its life. Can anyone else confirm that this was commonly done and/or available by Leica?

Thanks,
Randy
 
FrankS said:
Randy, with your Summaron mounted on an M2, M4, or M6, the 35mm framelines come up, right? Does the lens' focusing scale agree with the camera's RF when focussed at a close object, of say, 6ft?
Click to expand...

Good question, Frank. I don't know and don't have an M camera with me at the moment. I should have checked that when I bought it. I guess I never thought about it once I recognized that it wasn't simply a goggled Summaron without the goggles (which, obviously, would cause a focusing problem). Anyways, I'll check that when I get home tonight.

-Randy
 
Xmas said:
Hey oldster confused.

If it was an '54 it will have goggles and there was not an M2 in '54, as far as I recall.
With goggles the correct field of view is with the 50mm frame on a M2 or M4.
Does it have goggles?

Noel
Click to expand...
Ghester Sartorius, in his book on Leica lenses notes that the Summaron was initially adapted to the bayonet mount without eyes and required the use of a shoe mounted viewfinder. It was later modified by adding the eyes for the M3. He notes 20064 were made without eyes and 19,141 were made with eyes for the M3. He makes no statement regarding how the mounts were cut to bring up frame lines.

I would suspect that already in 1954 they knew that they would make the M2 with 35mm frame lines and that is what the initial batch of Summarons was aimed at. They probably got a bunch of complaints about having to use shoe-mounted finders so created the Summaron with eyes.

My conjecture only :)

Paul C.
 
Randy, this is going to sound dumb but my first Summaron was a screw mount with an adapter firmly screwed on it. The lens also accepted standard e39 filters. It seems that lens had 2 different variants-one which accepted the old style filters and one for the e39. Stu
 
Thanks for the confirmation, Mark. That certainly squares with the appearance of this lens since it does not have the flat portion above the lens where the goggles would normally mount.

Paul C., thanks for the further info. That seems to match what I found on the web at: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002bkJ

And Noel, you're probably right about the cleanliness of a Leitz trained technician.

Still wondering, though about the possibility of a lens mount swap by Leica/Leitz. Anybody got any more thoughts on this?

-Randy
 
Stu W said:
Randy, this is going to sound dumb but my first Summaron was a screw mount with an adapter firmly screwed on it. The lens also accepted standard e39 filters. It seems that lens had 2 different variants-one which accepted the old style filters and one for the e39. Stu
Click to expand...

Thanks for the further thought, Stu. Mine is a 39mm filter size so it may be the same as the one you had. Any easy way to tell without disassembling anything?

-Randy
 
Randy, mine was a screw mount lens with a standard screw to m adapter on it. The only reason I mentioned it is that I actually overlooked the adapter on initial inspection. Also, doesn't the 35mm lens bring up the 135 frame on an m3? Stu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom