cfc247
Established
I'm looking to pick up a compact 35, for the times when I don't need the speed of my 35 lux asph. I am interested in comments on the drawing, contrast, and overall ergonomics of the two lenses. It seems the Summaron is about twice the price of a used Skopar, is there a signature or drawing unique to the Summaron worth the extra $?
FPjohn
Well-known
I cannot comment on the worth
of the signature but the Summaron f2.8 is held to resemble the the first Summicron 35.
yours
FPJ
of the signature but the Summaron f2.8 is held to resemble the the first Summicron 35.
yours
FPJ
bob338
Well-known
in my humble opinion, the summaron has that classic leica look and the skopar has that classic super sharp, clinical CV look.
bob
bob
cfc247
Established
thank you both for your thoughts...any photo samples? if classic and clinical are apt descriptions of the two lenses, i would certainly be more interested in the former.
also, is the 35 summaron f2.8 rf coupled? difference btwn the m and ltm mount?
also, is the 35 summaron f2.8 rf coupled? difference btwn the m and ltm mount?
FrankS
Registered User
cv35 f2.5 is high contrast. summaron f2.8 has tamed contrast, as has better micro-contrast as i understand it from tom a's explanation. if cost was not an issue, i would prefer the summaron, but the skopar is great value. (cost/performance ratio)
FPjohn
Well-known
The Summaron is rf coupled and the glass is the same in both ltm and M versions.
yours
FPJ
yours
FPJ
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I have color skopar and I am exactly at the same position as you to compare both.
Color skopar is modern highly flare resistant, high contrast sharp lens. I am looking for another 35mm which is also flare resistant (less extent) but with classical look. 2-3 days ago there was a thread on summaron 2.8 and it is described exactly as 35mm I am looking for...I dont know the prices but I will try to get one in the future...
try searching the threads, you will find example photos...
Color skopar is modern highly flare resistant, high contrast sharp lens. I am looking for another 35mm which is also flare resistant (less extent) but with classical look. 2-3 days ago there was a thread on summaron 2.8 and it is described exactly as 35mm I am looking for...I dont know the prices but I will try to get one in the future...
try searching the threads, you will find example photos...
oscroft
Veteran
I have a Skopar and I had a Summaron, and I think the two complement each other quite nicely - I agree with the modern/classic characterisations.
I only sold my Summaron because it was a goggled M3 version, and though it worked fine on my M2 and M6, the goggles were a bit of a pain - one of these days I'll get an ungoggled one if I see one for sale at a decent price.
I only sold my Summaron because it was a goggled M3 version, and though it worked fine on my M2 and M6, the goggles were a bit of a pain - one of these days I'll get an ungoggled one if I see one for sale at a decent price.
cfc247
Established
Thank you for your contributions everyone...it seems the summaron will be a better fit more my needs, and given my other lenses, the drawing will blend well.
What's a good price for the non-goggled m mount? I see them on the bay for around 600-800...seems a bit high.
What's a good price for the non-goggled m mount? I see them on the bay for around 600-800...seems a bit high.
kermaier
Well-known
I have the Summaron in both M and LTM versions (selling the LTM). It's a wonderful lens. Sharp, very nice tonal rendering, great build and ergonomics. It's less contrasty than modern lenses tens to be, but not low-contrast like 1950s-era lenses. The only difference between M and LTM+adapter is that the M version focuses to 0.7m and the LTM focuses to 1m. If I weren't such a GAS addict, the Summaron and CV Nokton would be all the 35mm lenses I'd need.
I just recently picked up the Skopar too (couldn't resist the price) in LTM mount. I don't have much experience with it yet, but it seems like a really great, sharp lens, thoughuch more lightly built than the Summaron. If the Skopars turn out to be durable enough, I suspect they'll be considered classics in a couple of decades.
Ari
I just recently picked up the Skopar too (couldn't resist the price) in LTM mount. I don't have much experience with it yet, but it seems like a really great, sharp lens, thoughuch more lightly built than the Summaron. If the Skopars turn out to be durable enough, I suspect they'll be considered classics in a couple of decades.
Ari
cfc247
Established
Ari, thanks for the info, especially noting the difference between the M and LTM mounts. I definitely want the .7 min. focus distance, so it looks like an M mount for me. The Skopar is so inexpensive that I might just buy one and give it a try and some others here.
So what price range am I looking for in terms of a average/fair price for the M-mount w/o goggles? Serial numbers, other notable details? This will be my first purchase of an older lens so I don't really know what to watch out for. Any advice would be appreciated!
So what price range am I looking for in terms of a average/fair price for the M-mount w/o goggles? Serial numbers, other notable details? This will be my first purchase of an older lens so I don't really know what to watch out for. Any advice would be appreciated!
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Both lenses are very good. As stated, the Summaron 35f2.8 is a vintage lens (45 years+). For a mint glass, M2 mount, you pay substantial bucks today $600+. For a non-mint glass (haze, scratches etc) you still pay a premium!!!
I have both the Summaron 35f2.8 and several of the 35f2.5 Color Skopars.
The Summaron is lower contrast and more flare sensitive - and it does have that infernal infinity lock!!!! If you are primarily shooting bl/w and like the "older" style. The Summaron is a good deal - but, for the same money you can get a Summicron VII/VIII with some careful shopping.
The Color Skopar 35f2.5 II (the M-mount version) is smaller, "snappier" contrast for color, less flare prone. The higher contrast is really not that big a deal for bl/w with it either.
I find that I use my Color Skopar 35f2.5 II more than I use my Summaron 35f2.8. I think the 35f2.8 is mainly a "nostalgia" lens for me. From an optical point of view the VC 35f2.5 is a better lens ( as it should be with 45 years of lens design and optical engineering added).
If you are going to use it instead of a Pre-Asph Summilux 35 - the size difference is minimal. The Summaron is in the same mount as a 35f2 version I. The VC 35f2.5 II is truly "minimalistic" - without a hood you can slide it and a body into a jacket pocket. Both use the same 39 mm filters.
I admit that I like the Summaron 35f2.8 better than the vI/II Summicron's - particularly the close up performance - but the VC 35f2.5 is just as good there too.
As suggested, go to Flickr and type in the tags for these lenses and look what pops up. You can't really see sharpness as such (but either one will do well in that aspect), but contrast/color/ "fuzzy stuff" - i.e bokeh can be judged even on a low res screen image.
I have both the Summaron 35f2.8 and several of the 35f2.5 Color Skopars.
The Summaron is lower contrast and more flare sensitive - and it does have that infernal infinity lock!!!! If you are primarily shooting bl/w and like the "older" style. The Summaron is a good deal - but, for the same money you can get a Summicron VII/VIII with some careful shopping.
The Color Skopar 35f2.5 II (the M-mount version) is smaller, "snappier" contrast for color, less flare prone. The higher contrast is really not that big a deal for bl/w with it either.
I find that I use my Color Skopar 35f2.5 II more than I use my Summaron 35f2.8. I think the 35f2.8 is mainly a "nostalgia" lens for me. From an optical point of view the VC 35f2.5 is a better lens ( as it should be with 45 years of lens design and optical engineering added).
If you are going to use it instead of a Pre-Asph Summilux 35 - the size difference is minimal. The Summaron is in the same mount as a 35f2 version I. The VC 35f2.5 II is truly "minimalistic" - without a hood you can slide it and a body into a jacket pocket. Both use the same 39 mm filters.
I admit that I like the Summaron 35f2.8 better than the vI/II Summicron's - particularly the close up performance - but the VC 35f2.5 is just as good there too.
As suggested, go to Flickr and type in the tags for these lenses and look what pops up. You can't really see sharpness as such (but either one will do well in that aspect), but contrast/color/ "fuzzy stuff" - i.e bokeh can be judged even on a low res screen image.
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
I find my Pancake II a better performer overall then the summaron 2.8. If you want better flare resistance and overall sharpness, this is the one, but the Leics lens certainly has that classical look. That said, as Tom says, and as I have been saying an awfully long time, contrast is no issue in B&W a long as you expose and develop accordingly. The result is still 'cleaner' looking images due to improved optics, however. The build of the summaron is better, but then again i dont feel my pancake II is exactly going to fall apart. Feels nice and solid to me, but not a brass tank like the Leica.
cfc247
Established
Tom, thanks for the helpful post.
I am definitely planning to give the CV 35 at least a try. I'm not really concerned about "bokeh," but more interested in the mid-tones and contrast for b/w work, which I don't do exclusively, but prefer the lower contrast when I do. In fact, even on my 35 lux asph, I only shoot f1.4 only when I really need the speed. Hence, if I can get away with f2.5, I might even sell the lux later. I will have to put the lens through its paces to determine this however.
I guess it time to shop around for a lens now. Thanks everyone for the helpful replies!
I am definitely planning to give the CV 35 at least a try. I'm not really concerned about "bokeh," but more interested in the mid-tones and contrast for b/w work, which I don't do exclusively, but prefer the lower contrast when I do. In fact, even on my 35 lux asph, I only shoot f1.4 only when I really need the speed. Hence, if I can get away with f2.5, I might even sell the lux later. I will have to put the lens through its paces to determine this however.
I guess it time to shop around for a lens now. Thanks everyone for the helpful replies!
bob338
Well-known
check out this unscientific test i did a while back. there are some pictures at the beginning, decide which you like, then scroll down to see if you preferred the summaron. the skopar isn't part of the test but you can get an idea of what a modern lens(summicron ASPH) looks like compared to the summaron.
something else to consider is the f3.5 summaron. i got one a few months ago and almost gave it away because i had read somewhere that it was a stinker. turns out it's great for b/w(haven't used it for color yet) and considerably cheaper than the f2.8. i think they go for a couple hundred versus 6-800 for a f2.8. avoid the ltm version, as stated above they're rare and expensive.
one last thing to mention is that if you can deal with a goggled lens, they're usually much cheaper than non-goggled lenses. same glass, you just have to deal with the goggles.
bob
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60487
something else to consider is the f3.5 summaron. i got one a few months ago and almost gave it away because i had read somewhere that it was a stinker. turns out it's great for b/w(haven't used it for color yet) and considerably cheaper than the f2.8. i think they go for a couple hundred versus 6-800 for a f2.8. avoid the ltm version, as stated above they're rare and expensive.
one last thing to mention is that if you can deal with a goggled lens, they're usually much cheaper than non-goggled lenses. same glass, you just have to deal with the goggles.
bob
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60487
cfc247
Established
Bob, thanks for the info. At this point, it seems I will have to give both lenses a try and see for myself. They both seem to be enjoyed by many and have their merits.
Do you know if the f3.5 is optically the same as the f2.8? Or was it a new design? What's a fair price for the f3.5 m mount? I've been seeing them for 350-400.
Do you know if the f3.5 is optically the same as the f2.8? Or was it a new design? What's a fair price for the f3.5 m mount? I've been seeing them for 350-400.
Turtle
Veteran
The bokeh from teh CV Pancake version II (dont know about teh LTM version) is fine. I own plenty of Leica and ZM lenses and the CV pancake II is my overall most used. I am shooting project work that is very important to me and I would not be using that lens unless it was really good. It is, and the bokeh I find generally very smooth and pleasant.
Turtle
Veteran
The bokeh from teh CV Pancake version II (dont know about teh LTM version) is fine. I own plenty of Leica and ZM lenses and the CV pancake II is my overall most used. I am shooting project work that is very important to me and I would not be using that lens unless it was really good. It is, and the bokeh I find generally very smooth and pleasant.
Vincent.G
Well-known
I have a summaron 35mm f2.8 as my first lens when I got my M2. I like the way it handles contrast. I think it is a sharp lens. The focusing tab is very very well-damped and silky smooth. You can focus very fast and accurately with it after some practice. I use this wonderful little lens on my M2. It looks good on the M2 as it is chrome finish. I have not used the CV35PII before so cannot comment much on it but I think it is a good lens too. I believe a skilled user will produce good photos with it for sure.
Here are some photos I shot with my summaron 35mm f2.8 using M2 on XP2 rated at ISO400. They are all lab-scanned.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Here are some photos I shot with my summaron 35mm f2.8 using M2 on XP2 rated at ISO400. They are all lab-scanned.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Sparrow
Veteran
What Frank said, I have and use both. The Summaron with monochrome and the Skopar with colour print, where it’s extra bite is helpful. Mostly in daylight and around f8
Can't fault the Skopar's value, delightful little lens