Vincent.G
Well-known
Nokton48
Veteran
I sold my 35mm F2.5 Skopar after I bought my Canon 35mm F2. My V1 M2 35mm F2.8 Summaron I will never ever sell. It is better IMO than my old V1 Summicron, that I had twenty-five years ago. Handles just like it, too. I think the Canon beats the V1 Summicron IMO. Now I want a 35mm F1.5 Canon, been looking for one for awhile.
The Summaron and the Canon are a nice pair for me, I prefer the images I get with the older lenses. The Skopar was great but a little too contrasty for my tastes. I still have my CV 28 F3.5 and 25mm F4 Skopars, those I am keeping.
The Summaron and the Canon are a nice pair for me, I prefer the images I get with the older lenses. The Skopar was great but a little too contrasty for my tastes. I still have my CV 28 F3.5 and 25mm F4 Skopars, those I am keeping.
cfc247
Established
There seems to be little doubt about the optical performance of the Skopar, especially for the price. For certain types of shots, it may be the more suitable lens than the Summaron.
cfc247
Established
Vicent, thanks for the photos. i really like the look of the Summaron; its sharp enough without that clinical look, very smooth and gracious.
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
cfc247
Established
Nokton, like you, I prefer the lower contrast older lenses, though this is my first purchase of an older lens. I started with the 28 elmarit asph, didn't like it at all, moved to the 28 cron' and now have settled for the 35 lux asph. My other lenses are the 21 elmarit pre asph and the 90 tel-elmarit, both Mandler designs. From what I have seen online, the Summaron draws much like the 21.
I have just ordered the 35 Summaron m-mount. I still might give the Skopar a test drive as well, just to compare actual prints though.
Thanks for all the comments everyone. It seems that both lenses are favored and loved by many and my choice boils down to the drawing, in which case, I tend to lean towards the more classical look.
BTW--what's a fair price for a mint 35 2.8 summaron m-mount w/caps and bubble box? i'm wondering if i overpaid or not.
I have just ordered the 35 Summaron m-mount. I still might give the Skopar a test drive as well, just to compare actual prints though.
Thanks for all the comments everyone. It seems that both lenses are favored and loved by many and my choice boils down to the drawing, in which case, I tend to lean towards the more classical look.
BTW--what's a fair price for a mint 35 2.8 summaron m-mount w/caps and bubble box? i'm wondering if i overpaid or not.
raid
Dad Photographer
The 35mm lens comparison which I put together with Roland has both these lenses and maybe another twnety five 35mm lenses, all compared side by side. Study the results and make your decison afterwards.
PentHassyKon
Established
Would you be so kind as to post a link to this comparison?
I'm the process of receiving a new to me Leica CL - however, it comes with no lens and I'm in the research phase for a wide/normal lens set for it.
Vincent.G
Well-known
I think a complete set of summaron 35 f2.8 with caps and bubble case should be around $600-700+ depending on condition. If you have paid for it then I think you should not look back anymore. The amount of usage and the fulfillment to your shooting needs would decide whether this lens is worth it or not. There's no point buying a reputable lens that is worth a few grands and use it sparingly because you worry about scratching or dinging it.
raid
Dad Photographer
You need to read through the last 1/4 of the postings .... Roland will at one place give his smumug website link for the carefully done comparisons.
Link: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38002
cfc247
Established
cfc247
Established
It looks like I paid about average. The condition is supposed to be Mint, both optics and body. Buying the lens was the only way of trying it out. While it seems that I will most likely keep the lens, just in case I wanted to resell, I was hoping not to take a hit.
Not sure what you meant by spending a few grand "on a reputable lens" and not using it. But if you are referring to my 35 lux, I'm trying out the Summaron to see if I can get by with f2.8. If I find myself content with the speed, I will most likely sell the lux asph in the future. If the Summaron offers a different rendering, I might keep it to shoot b&w and color with the lux. It will depend on how well we get along.
BTW--Based on your preference for lower contrast lenses, I'm surprised you mentioned the Canon 35 1.5 in your other comment since the contrast appears quite high based on the comparisons done by Raid.
Not sure what you meant by spending a few grand "on a reputable lens" and not using it. But if you are referring to my 35 lux, I'm trying out the Summaron to see if I can get by with f2.8. If I find myself content with the speed, I will most likely sell the lux asph in the future. If the Summaron offers a different rendering, I might keep it to shoot b&w and color with the lux. It will depend on how well we get along.
BTW--Based on your preference for lower contrast lenses, I'm surprised you mentioned the Canon 35 1.5 in your other comment since the contrast appears quite high based on the comparisons done by Raid.
Last edited:
Vincent.G
Well-known
Hi Mark
I think it was nokton48 who mentioned about the canon lens, not me.
Regarding your other question, I have come across a few who bought really expensive leica lenses (and bodies) but ended up taking pictures of them rather than with them. I just don't understand. They seem scared of scratches and dings that devalue their expensive gear. Perhaps they can afford to do so as they may have deep pockets or maybe they are collectors. But to a poor user like me, it is really a waste of money if one doesn't use their gear they bought whether they are affordable or expensive.
I think it was nokton48 who mentioned about the canon lens, not me.
Regarding your other question, I have come across a few who bought really expensive leica lenses (and bodies) but ended up taking pictures of them rather than with them. I just don't understand. They seem scared of scratches and dings that devalue their expensive gear. Perhaps they can afford to do so as they may have deep pockets or maybe they are collectors. But to a poor user like me, it is really a waste of money if one doesn't use their gear they bought whether they are affordable or expensive.
Turtle
Veteran
You have to be kidding! Those images look very modern to my eye and would be more typical of what you'd get with a Skopar (ironically) than a summaron.
You should be able to find much more representative samples online than those posted. i think its the combo of XP2 and scans (and USM) that have given a very modern signature.
cfc247
Established
Hi Vincent,
I'm not rich and neither am I a collector. I shoot with all my gear and have no interest in collecting lenses as trophies. I got a great deal on the 35 lux asph and would have been a fool not to have bought it at such a price.
I'm not a "bokeh" lover who has to have f1.x lenses, although the speed does come in handy for indoor shots. And I'm beginning to think that I don't mind using ISO1250 on the M8 (still have to try more prints to know for sure though), in certain conditions. I've been thinking about a 35mm that could perhaps replace the lux, with a classical drawing and good overall performance. So far, the 35 Summaron looks promising. A few months of shooting should make it clear.
Sorry for confusion with Nokton.
I'm not rich and neither am I a collector. I shoot with all my gear and have no interest in collecting lenses as trophies. I got a great deal on the 35 lux asph and would have been a fool not to have bought it at such a price.
I'm not a "bokeh" lover who has to have f1.x lenses, although the speed does come in handy for indoor shots. And I'm beginning to think that I don't mind using ISO1250 on the M8 (still have to try more prints to know for sure though), in certain conditions. I've been thinking about a 35mm that could perhaps replace the lux, with a classical drawing and good overall performance. So far, the 35 Summaron looks promising. A few months of shooting should make it clear.
Sorry for confusion with Nokton.
Hi Mark
I think it was nokton48 who mentioned about the canon lens, not me.
Regarding your other question, I have come across a few who bought really expensive leica lenses (and bodies) but ended up taking pictures of them rather than with them. I just don't understand. They seem scared of scratches and dings that devalue their expensive gear. Perhaps they can afford to do so as they may have deep pockets or maybe they are collectors. But to a poor user like me, it is really a waste of money if one doesn't use their gear they bought whether they are affordable or expensive.
cfc247
Established
Yes, you are absolutely right. I've been scouring pbase and flickr for shots with lens and have been pleased with what I have seen. My comments were actually based on the lens performance I have seen in general and not in the particular photos.
Its precisely because of my preference for the more classical look that I have decided not to even try out the Skopar, though a technically competent lens.
Sorry for the confusion. I have so many image samples running through my mind!
Its precisely because of my preference for the more classical look that I have decided not to even try out the Skopar, though a technically competent lens.
Sorry for the confusion. I have so many image samples running through my mind!
Vincent.G
Well-known
Hi Mark
If I can get a good deal on a 35 lux, and if I can afford, I will get it as well. What I am trying to say is that, if the lens satisfies your needs, then it is a good lens to you.
As what turtle mentioned, perhaps he is right. My shots are not representative of what a summaron can do. By the way, those photos are without any post-processing. Only #5 is shot wide open. The rest should be at around f5.6 or f8. You can search fickr for better photos.
The summaron was the best leica 35mm lens I could afford given my tight budget when I started out on RF photography. I have learnt to live with its slow f2.8 aperture. It does not bother me. During the day, ISO400 film works well with it. For low light or during night time, probably the 35 lux will outshine the 35 summaron. But I overcome this with uprated film.
Turtle
Veteran
Any f1.4 lens will only outshine a slower lens when the wide aperture DOF effects are also acceptable. People forget that the speed advantage of wider apertures come with thinner DOF and that very often this is not at all desirable. In such instances, faster film is the only option (or digital ISO). The difference between F1.4 and f2.8 in terms of percieved DOF on a 35mm can be very considerable. Personally, for the work I do, while a 1.4 would be handy, the DOF issue is often more pressing and so I use fast film.
Vincenzo Maielli
Well-known
I own a Summaron 35/2.8 and work perfectly on my M cameras.
Ciao.
Vincenzo
Ciao.
Vincenzo
raid
Dad Photographer
I use more often a 50mm 1.5 lens than a fast 35mm lens. The 35 2.8 Summaron differs greatly from the 35mm 3.5 Summaron.
ferider
Veteran
1.) I personally think a clean 2.8 Summaron is contrasty and not less so than a Color Skopar. Much like a Summicron 35/2 v3 (similar design), the most contrasty of the pre-asph Summicrons. I would believe much of the "low contrast" comments come from the use of lenses with (even the slightest) haze, typical for early Leica lenses.
2.) The Summaron has some veiling flare wide open, missing in the Color Skopar. Resolution and distortion-wise the lenses are similar, but the Color Skopar OOF behavior is smoother. And of course, the Color Skopar is smaller and half stop faster - a speed difference people pay a lot of money for when thinking about fast 50s, for example.
3.) Higher/lower contrast is much easier to obtain via exposure and film changes, than picking a lens, IMO.
Roland.
2.) The Summaron has some veiling flare wide open, missing in the Color Skopar. Resolution and distortion-wise the lenses are similar, but the Color Skopar OOF behavior is smoother. And of course, the Color Skopar is smaller and half stop faster - a speed difference people pay a lot of money for when thinking about fast 50s, for example.
3.) Higher/lower contrast is much easier to obtain via exposure and film changes, than picking a lens, IMO.
Roland.
Last edited: