pepeguitarra
Well-known
Is there a real difference in the operation of the Summicron 35/2 version 1 with goggles and the one without goggles on the M9? Is it really cumbersome the goggles, or just fine? Your experience, thanks. Pepe
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
You'll get a darker, distorted, flare prone view finder image with the goggle. Also the goggle itself is clumsy. I sold mine and paid a lot more for the M2 version. But that said if you only have an M3 then it is still a great lens to have.
sleepyhead
Well-known
Storing the goggled version in bag when not in use is more difficult, and a deal-breaker for me.
WJJ3
Well-known
FWIW, I shot a goggled Summaron for 2 years on my M3 and really liked it. I did not mind the extra bulk on my camera at all. To be picky, one thing that was a little annoying was the aperture ring is a little hard to grab when you have a hood mounted, but that goes for the ungoggled lens as well. As long as the goggles are clear they will not darken your finder. They will make it a little lower contrast since the lenses in them are not coated. All this being what it is, I can't say how one would be on your M9. I think I had a good experience with mine on my M3 because these goggled lenses were designed for the M3. The M9 already has a lower magnification viewfinder, so it might not be so good with one of Leica's goggled 35's.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
Then, it is good for the M3 mostly!
Then, it is good for the M3 mostly!
Thanks guys. I was looking into the google lens, but I am going to hold on. I am getting my CV Nokton 35/1.2 from DAG tomorrow, and I cannot find a better 35mm than that. It is the greatest complement to my Zeiss Biogon 35/2. I guess I do not need that ugly summicron 35.
Then, it is good for the M3 mostly!
Thanks guys. I was looking into the google lens, but I am going to hold on. I am getting my CV Nokton 35/1.2 from DAG tomorrow, and I cannot find a better 35mm than that. It is the greatest complement to my Zeiss Biogon 35/2. I guess I do not need that ugly summicron 35.