New (to me) Summaron 35/3.5 lens question

Stu W said:
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
Click to expand...

That could be the case, Randy. Laura was reporting a similar experience with
a 2.8.

In any case, since it's not a lens with goggles removed and 3.5ft min
distance, and it brings the 35mm framelines up, you are good, aren't you :)

Roland.
 
I just looked at my lens again. Nope, it defiinitely does not have an adapter screwed onto a ltm lens. The M mount on this lens is screwed to the body of the lens with 5 small screws and, further, slightly overlaps the body of the lens. This overlap also has both the red dot for mounting the lens on a camera and is also where the aperture markings are for correlation to the distance scale. So, the lens mount is definitely part of the lens and is not simply an adaptor screwed onto a ltm lens.

But yes, as you say Roland, it appears that I'm "good." Would just like to better know the story on this lens.

Thanks everyone for all their thoughts and input. So, can anyone advise re whether Leica ever offered a lens mount swap type service?

-Randy
 
This is really reaching but since the default frame lines on the m body are 35/135, even without a lens attached, is it possible that the camera body is at fault? Could the frame mask be jammed? Stu
 
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...

Okay, Frank, I checked and the lens seems to focus accurately. In other words, the lens focusing scale matches the distance measured with a tape measure when the lens is focused on a nearby point. I tested this at various distances ranging from 5 to 8 feet. I'm going to shoot a roll with it in the morning to test things live.

-Randy
 
I have one that I purchased years ago in NYC and had it adjusted by the tech at Ken H. It was my carry lens when I was worried about trashing my 35 'Cron or I was traveling on business. It's a fine lens and I think you will like it very much. I tried to sell mine a while back and could not find any takers. Do you mind me asking how much you paid for her?

Thanks.

B2 (;->
 
Hi Bill,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts & experiences with your Summaron. Surprised to hear that you had trouble selling it.. And no problem asking what I paid for mine - $150 including front and rear caps. Does have some haze inside that was only visible with a flashlight shone through it. Will probably send it off to Sherry for a cleaning. What do you think, was that a good price?

-Randy
 
Randy, yes I think that's a very good price. I got mine here at RFF in similar condition for $160. My sense is that the usual offering price is (was) $250-$300 in EX condition, but if you look closely, unless they've been cla'ed, they'll have a bt least a bit of haze.
 
Paul Connet said:
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.
Click to expand...


It sounds to me like Paul has found the answer to your riddle.
 
Okay, I've now done a simple test roll with this lens. It focuses fine and is plenty sharp enough. However, it definitely flares when there's light in the frame. So, off to Sherry it'll go for a cleaning. I've already talked to her and she said it should clean up very nicely. I'll do another test roll then and will post some more shots then for rough comparison purposes.

So, here's a couple of shots evidencing sharpness and nice color imaging qualities.
 

Attachments

  • Grand entrance.jpg
    Grand entrance.jpg
    169.6 KB · Views: 0
  • Garden bench.jpg
    Garden bench.jpg
    94.6 KB · Views: 0
And here's a couple of shots that give a bit of that "ol' timey" look.
 

Attachments

  • Table & Chairs.jpg
    Table & Chairs.jpg
    84.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Peets coffee.jpg
    Peets coffee.jpg
    64.6 KB · Views: 0
Lastly, here's a couple of shots that show the flare problem.
 

Attachments

  • Roof flair.jpg
    Roof flair.jpg
    144.1 KB · Views: 0
  • Lattice flair.jpg
    Lattice flair.jpg
    99.3 KB · Views: 0
Randy, mine's almost the same with flare. Since I have a CV40f1.4 for a contrasty modern look, I'm thinking of just leaving the Summaron as is, for that particular look. It can literally create an "atmospheric" look.
 
Last edited:
You raise a good point, Frank. I mean, I do like the flared look of the roof shot above. However, I'm not sure I can guestimate well enough what I'm going to get to feel confident enough to intentionally try for shots like that. Do you find the flare you get to be consistent and/or predictable enough to do that?

-Randy

P.S. Here's another shot where I kinda like the result of the flare.
 

Attachments

  • 9-8-2007-02.jpg
    9-8-2007-02.jpg
    120.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
The amount of flare is pretty much a guess, but then such is the nature of RF photography with viewfinder framing and sunny sixteen metering. I think thaough, that my Summaron's flare is a bit more controlled than yours.
 
Thanks, Frank. As much as I might like the occasional "glowing" shot, I think sending this lens to Sherry is probably the better call.

-Randy
 
So my Summaron M 35/3.5 is with Sherry Krauter right now getting a nice little lens bath to remove the haze. In the meantime, I came across this webpage that very nicely describes this lens with a number of examples of what it's capable of. Bottom line is that I think I'm going to like using this lens quite a bit and can't wait to get it back from Sherry.

Here's the page for those who may be interested: http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7asgb/newphotographythroughvintagecameras2/id19.html

-Randy
 
Thanks Randy. Let us know when your Summaron comes back and what the results are (and how different from initial pre-cleaned results.) I'd be very interested in that.
 
Will do, Frank. Of course, in the meantime I scored a Canon 35/2.8 with viewfinder and case in perfect condition and at a very attractive price. That's the lens I had been looking for before coming across the 35/3.5 Summaron. Now it'll be a shootout between them I guess.

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