Joe
Established
Does anyone have an opinion/first hand experience about how these compare, toe to toe, in terms of general performance: resolution and sharpness, contrast, distortion?
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I've had two 35/3.5 Summarons. They gave an effect which is often called "three dimensional". However, they are notoriously prone to haze. I have no experience of the Nikkor, but I understand that it is very sharp. Nikkors (and Canons) of that era have almost no optical problems.
I have the Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 in S-Mount and the Summaron 35/2.8 in M-Mount. The Nikkor has higher contrast. Both are "about" equal in sharpness. The F2.8 Summaron is reputed to be sharper than the F3.5 Summaron.
Last edited:
Didier
"Deed"
The Nikon 35/2.5 is probably the smallest LTM lens I ever had.
Optics: Very sharp, especially around f5.6-8. Contrast very good for a lens of that age (likely better than the Summaron). Kind of special, concentric bokeh swirl effect.
Ergonomy: It can focus down to less than half a meter, which is not really useful as you have to take care when the rangefinder patch stops (at 70 cm) and it makes the focusing throw extremely long. The focusing knob touched the M6 frameline dial, but no such issue on the R-D1.
Filtersize 34.5mm - rather rare to find hoods, caps and filters... The original hood is extremely collectible and went for $1600 the last time I saw one on the auction site...
Didier
Samples (the last one wide open for shure, don't remember for the other ones but likely stopped down):
Optics: Very sharp, especially around f5.6-8. Contrast very good for a lens of that age (likely better than the Summaron). Kind of special, concentric bokeh swirl effect.
Ergonomy: It can focus down to less than half a meter, which is not really useful as you have to take care when the rangefinder patch stops (at 70 cm) and it makes the focusing throw extremely long. The focusing knob touched the M6 frameline dial, but no such issue on the R-D1.
Filtersize 34.5mm - rather rare to find hoods, caps and filters... The original hood is extremely collectible and went for $1600 the last time I saw one on the auction site...
Didier
Samples (the last one wide open for shure, don't remember for the other ones but likely stopped down):
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I have both lenses, the Nikkor in S mount though. I think the two lenses give different looks with the Nikkor having a more modern look to photos taken with it. The Nikkor maybe sharper and have higher contrast while the Summaron a more old timey look, as Payasam says "three dimensional". I have also heard that Summarons suffer from being haze prone but I got lucky with mine in that case. I don't know how small the Nikkor in LTM is but I will say that the Summaron is a very tiny/compact/small lens that looks to be very well built. The build of the chrome S mount Nikkor also appears solid. I don't think you could go wrong with a good examle of either and would which look you want and if you need the extra speed the Nikkor has.
Bob
Bob
lawrence
Veteran
I had a f3.5 Summaron but it wasn't particularly sharp so I sold it. I didn't notice any haze at all and it had one of the sturdiest builds I've ever seen. Nice lens but lack of sharpness and slow speed limited its usefulness.
raid
Dad Photographer
I just got the Summaron 3.5 cleaned professionally, and I hope that there will be less haze left. The lens itself is very well built and it is tiny.
vrgard
Well-known
No experience with the Nikkor but I do have the Summaron 35/3.5. And yes, it had haze when I got it. But Sherry Krauter cleaned it up for me and completely eliminated the haze. Great build quality and nice, small size.
-Randy
-Randy
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Many 3.5 Summarons have haze and clean up very well (mine is as new now). I have not heard of the cement problem being unique to Summarons. As far as Nikkors and Canons not having haze (or even having less haze that Leica from the same period), that is a complete fallacy promoted by Stephen Gandy or some other self proclaimed authority such as myself. An old lens is an old lens period.
Being that others may not share my experience, just search eBay and see how many clean Canons or Nikkors that you can find from the era. I'm sure you will find that their record is no better.
A 2.8 Summaron is the best choice, the Nikkor will make you sea sick from flying saucer bokeh. The 3.5 Summaron is okay, contrary having to a 3D look as reported, I find it to have a very flat but large camera look. Don't expect any big enlargements from it, but it is really a nice mate to a IIIf. If you have a M camera stick with the 2.8.
Being that others may not share my experience, just search eBay and see how many clean Canons or Nikkors that you can find from the era. I'm sure you will find that their record is no better.
A 2.8 Summaron is the best choice, the Nikkor will make you sea sick from flying saucer bokeh. The 3.5 Summaron is okay, contrary having to a 3D look as reported, I find it to have a very flat but large camera look. Don't expect any big enlargements from it, but it is really a nice mate to a IIIf. If you have a M camera stick with the 2.8.
