Nippon Kogaku 35mm f1.8 vs Summaron 35mm f2.8

[hrryxgg]

hey folks:

i have the kogaku with leica mount but am considering an original summaron 2.8 35mm (1958~).

does anyone have both? i know both are rare.

but curious what the differences are or would be?

i use an m6.

thanks in advance...

 

[raid]

Is the Nikon a 35/2.5?

 

[KEVIN-XU 愛 forever]

I have Summaron 35 2.8 and I love it so much. I have post some pictures in another thread.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164257


I also have Nikkor 35mm f1.8 in Leica screw mount if this is the one you mentioned.

 

[hrryxgg]

yes that is the one. the 35mm/1.8

can you telll me which you prefer, the summaron or the kogaku?

really curious. thanks!

 

[KEVIN-XU 愛 forever]

They have different aperture and different characters. So I don’t know how I can compare them. But I can say that the Summaron is quite reliable and I tend to use it a lot after I got my first Summaron in last month. Nikkor 35 1.8 ltm is more like a collectiable lens to me. They are rare and expensive. I will post some pictures here when I back home.

 

[hrryxgg]

the summaron i am
looking at is the late 1950s first batch. also pretty rare and expensive. i think.

 

[DMA1965]

I have the Nikkor 35 1.8 S mount for my Nikon SP. I was getting ready to sell my SP and finished off a roll that I had taken with the 35 1.8. Once I saw the pictures I changed my mind and decided to instead send the SP to Gus Lazzari who had it for 4 months and did a full overhaul. It came back looking brand new and everything moving so smoothly you would swear it was a Leica.

Basically that 35 1.8 made me change my mind. It is one of the most phenomenal lenses I have ever owned. The Nikkor glass just has a character that is completely unique. I absolutely love it.

 

[KEVIN-XU 愛 forever]

the summaron I am
looking at is the late 1950s first batch. Also pretty rare and expensive. i think.

Yeah relatively rare I think? Leica made 4,000 Summaron include varies versions (M, LTM, goggles) in 1958 which is its first production year. In total Leica produced 52,400 Summaron in ten years. But Nikkor 35mm f1.8 LTM only been made approximately 1500 of the Leica mount in total. I also got a very late serial Summaron #23099xx which I believe it falls into the last production year 1968.

 

[KEVIN-XU 愛 forever]

Here are some film results from W-Nikkor 35mm f1.8 + Nikon SP. I got both versions but I only have the pictures taken by the S-mount version.


W-Nikkor 35mm f1.8 with Nikon SP test by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

HongKong - 2014 by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

HongKong - 2014 by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

HongKong - 2014 by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

HongKong - 2014 by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

HongKong - 2014 by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

HongKong - 2014 by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

HongKong - 2014 by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

 

[KEVIN-XU 愛 forever]

Here are the photos taken by Leica Summaron-M 35mm f/2.8 + Leica M10



FIFA World Cup Final. by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

FIFA World Cup Final. taken with Leica M10 + Leica Summaron-M 35mm f/2.8 Version 1 by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

Leica Summaron-M 35mm f/2.8 Version 1 by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

Leica Summaron-M 35mm f/2.8 Version 1 by Kevin-Xu, on Flickr

 

[pyeh]

Hrryxgg, both those lenses are really excellent. I have a few 35's, including these two. The Summaron was Leica's best 35 for a long time. There is a famous test by the LHSA I think that claims the Summaron was sharper than the Summicron V1.
Kevin's pictures above using the Nikkor show how great that lens is, and there are several threads on RFF displaying the virtues of that lens, in S and LTM versions.
Personally I think the Nikkor 35/1.8 is one of the greatest 35 lenses ever made. It is magical in its rendering as well as technically brilliant. I have early as well as late LTM copies. I can't see any difference in their optical quality, although some people say there is. Jonmanjiro on this forum is very familiar with this lens. Look for his posts.

 

[hrryxgg]

well, thank you, seems i have a good one!

i suppose getting the early summaron would be a redundancy or waste of resources given what i have and that it has wider range of f stops?

thanks!

 

[raid]

I have the Nikon 35/1.8 LTM, and I very much like using it with my M9.

 

[raid]

I own a Summicron V1 35/2, and I never thought of getting a Summaron instead. I also have the modern Zeiss 35/2 ZM, plus a Canon 35/2 35/2.8 35/1.5 35/1.8 ltm. Different 35mm lenses for different flavors and rendition.

 

[splitimageview]

There is a famous test by the LHSA I think that claims the Summaron was sharper than the Summicron V1.

That report is linked in this thread:

https://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164257

I once did a side-by-side of the 35/2 v1 vs the Nikkor 35/1.8 LTM, this was maybe 9 or 10 years ago so I'm not sure I still have the images. Not unexpectedly, the differences between the two were splitting gnat's hairs. 🙂 And the Summaron is every bit as good as the 35/1 v1 8 element, as shown in the test above.

I've had 5 or 6 copies of the Nikkor pass through over the years, a few of them appear in this thread:

https://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162547

 

[raid]

At aperture 2.0, the Summicron beats the Summaron. I can prove it 🙂

 

[splitimageview]

And accordingly, Nikkor beats it at 1.8 🙂

 

[raid]

An old lens with max aperture 1.8 may in fact be a true 2.0 lens. I have both anyways.

 

[jonmanjiro]

An old lens with max aperture 1.8 may in fact be a true 2.0 lens.

Following that line of logic, I suppose an old lens with max aperture of f2 may in fact be a true f2.2 lens 😉

To answer the OP's, question, both the W-Nikkor 35/1.8 and Summaron 35/2.8 are superb lenses. I did a side by side comparison a few months ago and found performance to be very similar, with the Summaron probably having a little more even sharpness over the frame and into the corners. But you lose a whole stop and a third.

 

[raid]

Yes, I will believe such a conclusion. Both lenses are superb lenses.