New (to me) Summaron 35/3.5 lens question

Quick question to the Gods : is the flare caused by haze inside the lens or is it a feature of the Summaron 35/3.5?

I have the opportuinity to buy a Summaron-M - same as Randy, without the eyes - but I would prefer not to have to deal with the flare.

Thanks a lot!
 
Thanks, memphis. Now I REALLY can't wait to get mine back from Sherry.

And Philippe, the haze is inside the lens and is not specific to the Summaron and occurs with many of the older Leica lenses. Here's a link to Steve Gandy's/Cameraquest's webpage describing it in a bit more detail (scroll down to the section talking about "Fogging"): http://www.cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm

As for not having to deal with the flare, that's kinda hard (even if using a hood) without ensuring the lens has been cleaned to remove the likely haze in a Leica lens of this vintage. But just so you know, the cost of cleaning is not that high (under $100). So, don't hesitate to buy that Summaron if you're getting it for a good price.

-Randy
 
Thanks Randy for the details.

I was wandering if a Summaron would flare even if it has been cleaned by expert hands. Is it going to flare more than a CV 35/2.5 for instance?
 
ocean7 said:
Thanks Randy for the details.

I was wandering if a Summaron would flare even if it has been cleaned by expert hands. Is it going to flare more than a CV 35/2.5 for instance?
Click to expand...

Others more expert than me should chime in here. But to my understanding, we're talking about two different things here in that flare can be caused by a variety of factors. One factor is possible haze in a lens, which early Leica lenses are prone to. So, having an expertly cleaned lens will reduce/eliminate the haze-contributing factor. But because there are other potential factors at play, a haze free Summaron won't guarantee you no flare in all situations. Another factor to possible flare is lens coating. And early Leica glass had lesser coatings than do lenses of today. Some like the look they give hence choose to shoot with such lenses. But if you want to avoid flare as much as possible then a newer lens with better coatings (e.g., the CV 35/2.5) may be your preference. Okay, now I'm starting to get beyond my knowledge base so will end here and let others contribute and/or correct my errors! :)

Hope this is helpful.

-Randy
 
The early summaron in M mount was built without goggles and does not bring up the 35mm framelines on later cameras (as it was designed for the M3 - the M2 and later cameras with wide angel options having not yet been developed.) So the opening post is quite likely correct - the lens could have been built in 1954 and could well have been modified later. It is apparently an easy mod if you know what you are doing. (I have one of the same vintage and it is identical to that described, except that it does not bring up 35mm lines so has never been modified.) I like this little lens very much.
 
You may be right, Peter, in that my lens may have had the mount modified at some point to bring up the 35mm framelines. But it sure doesn't look like it. Guess it doesn't matter either way because it brings up the correct 35mm framelines now.

-Randy
 
The Summaron 35/3.5 has been the main lens on my M3 for a while now. It gives sweet pastel-colored pictures on slide films. Mine is the goggled type that brings up 50 frame.

The goggles preview is quite accurate through all distances. But the goggles themselves can become unwieldy at times. I ended up smudging the protruding viewfinder correction lens with my fingers everytime I reached into my camera bag in a hurry. I'm a little worried that the next time it might be my wedding ring kissing the lens instead of my sweaty fingers.

My question is; will I still be able to get an accurate focus WITHOUT the goggles attached?
 
Last edited:
Silverhalide, you will only get accurate focus by using the lens's focusing scale. The camera's RF image will not be accurate (except maybe at infinity.)
 
FrankS, thank you very much for the info.
So it'd seem that the goggles do a little more than simply widening the finder's FOV and magnifying (reducing?) the RF patch to match it then?

Hmm . . . I guess I don't quite understand how the goggles really work. But I guess I'll keep them on. I am not so good at scale focussing, although I agree that it's relatively easy with a 35.

memphis, trading the ring for more lenses is an absolutely brilliant idea, I'll see what my wife has to say about it. . . um . . . (PS. If this happens to be my last post on RFForum, you'll know it's working . . .)
 
By the way, for anyone who cares, I just got my Summaron lens back from Sherry Krauter and she was able to clean the haze so well it looks brand new again. Haven't had a chance yet to do the comparison shots I wanted to do but thought others might be interested to know how well Sherry can remove haze from these old lenses.

-Randy

P.S. Once again, nice shooting Memphis!
 
Okay, so I haven't had a chance yet to do any sort of shoot out between the Summaron M mount 35/3.5 against the Canon ltm 35/2.8 but I did finish up a roll using the newly cleaned Summaron. Here are a couple of shots intentionally taken wide open into direct sunlight to test out the flare characteristics of this newly cleaned lens. (Note that these are only low-res 1-hour photo scans and were taken under very harsh conditions - direct sunlight peeking over the building and through the trees.) So what say you, is this "acceptable" flare under the circumstances? Sure looks like it to me.

-Randy
 

Attachments

  • 10-19-2007-13.jpg
    10-19-2007-13.jpg
    138.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 10-19-2007-19.jpg
    10-19-2007-19.jpg
    143.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Hi Randy, I actually like a bit of flare when I want a vintage look option, so I think it's jsut fine. In certain situations, the atmospherics produced by a bit of flare is desireable.
 
Thanks, Frank & Roland. Yep, as I indicated above, this wee bit of flare looks more than acceptable to me. Not sure many other (particularly vintage) lenses would have done much better under the circumstances. Heck, as best I can recall, I couldn't see as clearly with my naked eye as this lens did in taking the shot. Thanks guys. Gee, now I guess it's time to do that shootout, huh?

-Randy
 
Okay Frank, I finally got around to doing a rather unscientific and simple shootout between the cleaned Summaron 35/3.5 and the already pristine Canon 35/2.8 lenses. As you guessed, the differences were small. What I noticed is that the Summaron is a wee bit warmer than the Canon, the Summaron's minimum focus is a wee bit closer than is the Canon's, the Summaron's depth of field (and similarly, the sharpness in the oof areas) is just a bit more than is the Canon's, and the Summaron flares more readily in extreme situations than does the Canon. Regarding the flare, I tried several shots in very harsh bright off-axis light conditions and the Summaron's flare made the shot unusable while the Canon was able to handle it just fine (note that I did not use filters or hoods with either lense in these test shots). Oh, and for the purists in the group, the chrome finish on the Summaron is a better match for my chrome M cameras than is the Canon's which is a bit more of a shiny rather than matte chrome. As for handling, the differences are minor and I would chalk that up to personal preference at best. All in all and based on this very quick and dirty test, I think I would be happy using either of these lenses. Hope this is helpful.

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