sircarl
Well-known
I have a Summaron 35/3.5 in good condition for my IIIf, and it has produced very nice results for me. Lately, though, I've been reading good things about the f/2.8 version, and have the opportunity to buy one. But I'm still not sure this would be a smart thing to do. Can anyone here tell me if I'd see a big difference switching to the 2.8? I've read through a lot of the past discussions of these lenses on RFF, but haven't been able to find anything comparing the two versions directly.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Carl - if the lens is 200 GBP - jump on it, as it has been selling for in the neighborhood of 250 GBP. The extra stop and filter threads are nice to have.
On the other hand, the old 3.5 Summaron is sooooooo compact.
On the other hand, the old 3.5 Summaron is sooooooo compact.
sircarl
Well-known
Andrew,
Well, the lens went, on eBay, for £334 (about $650), which is a pretty insane price, even if it was as good as the seller claimed. So I passed on it. Would have passed it up anyway, since no one on RFF (outside of you) advised me to buy it. As I said, my f/3.5 Summaron is perfectly fine., so I guess I'll stick with it for a while.
Well, the lens went, on eBay, for £334 (about $650), which is a pretty insane price, even if it was as good as the seller claimed. So I passed on it. Would have passed it up anyway, since no one on RFF (outside of you) advised me to buy it. As I said, my f/3.5 Summaron is perfectly fine., so I guess I'll stick with it for a while.
Vincenzo Maielli
Well-known
Summaron 35/2.8: is better as optical perfomances.
Ciao.
Vincenzo
Ciao.
Vincenzo
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
As Vincenzo says, the f/2.8 version is optically better: but I should add that the difference is at best marginal. If your f/3.5 is clean -- without the dreaded haze -- there's no reason to change. I've had two of them and they served me well.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
If the F2.8 was a screw mount lens.....then $650 was a bargain, they are pretty RARE in screw mount versions and a better lens than the f3.5 optically
Tom
Tom
Dektol Dan
Well-known
If you can get the 2.8 go for it. I have both and the difference is very dramatic. I feel the 2.8 betters the early 35 Summicrons (I've owned version 1 as well). The 3.5 has a large format flatness look to it (which I love), and is no where near as sharp as the 2.8 with its better glass.
It's best to have both, I guess, but the Leica glow is with the 2.8. I recently shot a comparison which you can see here.
It's best to have both, I guess, but the Leica glow is with the 2.8. I recently shot a comparison which you can see here.
raid
Dad Photographer
I would only get the 2.8 Summaron if the cost was reasonable. Then I would sell the 3.5 Summaron since having two 35mm lenses with such speeds would not really be warranted. I still prefer the Version 1 Summicron 35mm lens over any other 35mm lens for my photography needs.