cmdrzed
wallflower
I have been eyeing a 35mm Summaron f3.5 ltm lens to use for street photography. I normally shoot with a 50 and thought that this lens would be a reasonably priced way to try out 35mm. I would like to hear from owners and see some pics if you have them available. Thanks.
FrankS
Registered User
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
I'd love to see some shots from M mount version of 35/3.5 as well. I know 35mm/2.8 attracts attention and much higher price compared to 35/3.5. Any inputs from 35/3.5 LTM & M mount users??
bob338
Well-known
i got an M mount f3.5 summaron with a camera i bought a few months ago and almost gave it away because i remembered it being a real clunker. it's actually a pretty nice little lens and i'm glad i kept it.
this is the only shot without my kid in it from a test roll i did a couple of months ago. it's the hamburger stand at stinson beach shot at f16 on kodak c-41 b/w film. it's a boring image, but it looks a lot more interesting than i thought it would...
bob
this is the only shot without my kid in it from a test roll i did a couple of months ago. it's the hamburger stand at stinson beach shot at f16 on kodak c-41 b/w film. it's a boring image, but it looks a lot more interesting than i thought it would...
bob
Attachments
loneranger
Well-known
That's a great picture FrankS, great tones and good shadow hightlights.
bob338
Well-known
cmdrzed
wallflower
Those look excellent to me! From what I gather, the ltm and m mount summarons are the same optical formula.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
I think the the LTM 35/3.5 has 1m (or 0.9m?) min focus distance while the M mount version is 0.7m.
Optically LTM & M F3.5 are pretty much identical, and M 2.8 is supposed to be "superior" wide open. (characteristics getting close to Summicron side from Elmar side)
Optically LTM & M F3.5 are pretty much identical, and M 2.8 is supposed to be "superior" wide open. (characteristics getting close to Summicron side from Elmar side)
Last edited:
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
35/3.5 Summaron - M8
maddoc
... likes film again.
I can share some ....
First, 35mm Summaron 1:3.5 LTM:
Second, 35mm Summaron 1:2.8 (M-mount - googled version)
Third, 35mm Summaron 1:3.5 (M-mount version - googled)
I had both googled versions only for a short time, the optical and mechanical quality was outstanding and the weight an issue for me. The LTM-version is tiny, reasonable sharp and a keeper.
Cheers,
Gabor
First, 35mm Summaron 1:3.5 LTM:
Second, 35mm Summaron 1:2.8 (M-mount - googled version)
Third, 35mm Summaron 1:3.5 (M-mount version - googled)
I had both googled versions only for a short time, the optical and mechanical quality was outstanding and the weight an issue for me. The LTM-version is tiny, reasonable sharp and a keeper.
Cheers,
Gabor
Melvin
Flim Forever!
I remember this photo. It helped convince me to buy a Summaron three years ago. It's nice to see it again.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
The 35/3.5 Summaron is an excellent lens if you don't mind its slow speed. I have had two of them. However, it is tiny and sometimes difficult to handle. It is also notoriously prone to haze. For street work I'd consider the CV 35/2.5 also.
john neal
fallor ergo sum
I had both of these and chose to keep the summaron - the CV is a great lens, but, for me, possibly a little too sharp at the expense of character
Ronald M
Veteran
I kept my 3.5 LTM for my 111 C & F cameras. Love it. Lower contrast than some othe the more nasty new glass.
cmdrzed
wallflower
I just found a Canon 35mm f/3.5 Serenar that seems to be about the same as the Summaron. The price is better and it comes with the viewfinder and caps. Anyone know anything about the Canon lens???
monochromejrnl
Well-known
quite sharp wide open, slight falloff in the corners but good sharpness across the field... fantastic tonality, small and compact... for the money, you can't go wrong if you want something to compliment a 35'cron or other modern, faster 35
John Shriver
Well-known
The Canon 35/3.5 is a copy of the Elmar 35/3.5. A Tessar formula does not stretch gracefully to wide-angle use, and it shows. I don't have the Canon, but I do have the Elmar, and contrast is low, and the corners are soft and squishy.
The Canon 35/3.2 and 35/2.8 are more likely to look like a Summaron, similar formulas.
The warning to watch for haze in any Summaron you buy is well-taken. Very haze-prone from decomposing organic lubrication.
That said, the 35/3.5 Summaron is common, and generally reasonably priced. The "official" FOOKH hood is silly expensive.
35/2.8 Summaron is crazy expensive.
The Canon 35/3.2 and 35/2.8 are more likely to look like a Summaron, similar formulas.
The warning to watch for haze in any Summaron you buy is well-taken. Very haze-prone from decomposing organic lubrication.
That said, the 35/3.5 Summaron is common, and generally reasonably priced. The "official" FOOKH hood is silly expensive.
35/2.8 Summaron is crazy expensive.
FrankS
Registered User
The Canon 35mm f2.8 is a nice lens.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Canon 35/2.0 LTM Black a lens to consider as well. Some say Summicron quality.
cmdrzed
wallflower
There are some nice photos posted here. Thanks for the contributions. Also, thanks for the heads up on the optical formulas, John. I think I will go with the summaron. Now if I can get the courage up to order it 