Leica LTM Summaron 35/3.5 and Elmar 50/3.5

[msbarnes]

I'm thinking of grabbing these lenses and a LTM camera (canon/Leica) for a compact shooter. I plan on shooting stopped down and so wide-open performance doesn't matter to me and neither does clinical sharpness or flare resistance...

Well, what is the simplest lens-hood solution?

Any samples of the Summaron? I've seen plenty from the Elmar.

 

[eavis]

The Summaron 35mm is a truly excellent lens, but I don't see that many people raving about it. Maybe it is just me, but this lens produces an amazingly delicate range of tones on B&W film. It's not just the images it produces that make me want to use it continually, but also its size. Because it's relatively small, you are always more likely to take your camera out with you when this lens is on it. It works well wide open. I don't think you need a hood -- I've never used one -- because the lens is set deep within the lens casing, creating a hood effect.

Here are some samples:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=summaron&w=98047718@N00

One I took last week at a party:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eavis/12376243804/

The incredible tones:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/980477...GFZ-6AG4b4-7dWoow-7CqJSN-7CqJuu-7C8rBT-7VPMiS

 

[philipus]

About hoods, perhaps someone would know - will IROOA fit both these lenses, provided the Elmar is v.III?

You could also consider the Summitar if you want a faster lens for indoors/evenings shooting. I use mine on a Leica II for a very compact carry around kit.

indoors/bar: http://www.flickr.com/photos/philipus/10359923356/
flare: http://www.flickr.com/photos/philipus/8379455473/

Then you'll want to add the absolutely tiny Hektor 2,8 f6.3 for street photography 🙂

cheers
Philip

 

[Dralowid]

What do you mean by 50mm Elmar V3?

Summaron 3.5 is eclipsed (IMHO in a big way) by Summaron 2.8 which is about as Leica as lenses get.

IROOA for 35mm, ITOOY for 50mm but I guess they actually fit both. Dunno.

Beware, with clip on hoods, some obscure the f numbers on lenses for which they were not designed.

 

[bonatto]

What do you mean by 50mm Elmar V3?

Summaron 3.5 is eclipsed (IMHO in a big way) by Summaron 2.8 which is about as Leica as lenses get.

Curious as to how they are different. Does the same hold true for the M mount versions?

 

[Bingley]

I use a FISON hood on my Elmar 50/3.5. I understand that FOOKH hood works on the Elmar as well as the summaron 3.5 it was designed for, although I haven't tried this hood.

I'm in the market for a VALOO hood, which also makes it easier to adjust apertures on the Elmar 50/3.5.

 

[maddoc]

I just sold my Summaron 35/3.5 locally, a nice lens for BW but a little slow. The VALOO hood (I have one) adds quite some volume and weight to the 50/3.5 Elmar, without this hood a screwmount Leica is easily to slip into a pocket with collapsed lens. However, when using the Elmar as enlarging lens the VALOO is really useful.

 

[brusby]

+1 for the Summaron. It's one of my absolute favorite lenses.

While I love the newer Summiluxes, particularly for their speed, Summaron is hard to beat for image quality. I've no personal experience with the F3.5, but I've got the 2.8 version in LTM and M mounts and they're both wonderful -- essentially the same except LTM focuses to 1 meter, while M mount focuses to .7.

 

[Robert Lai]

Summaron 35mm 3.5 vs 2.8 vs Summicron ASPH

Summaron 35mm 3.5 vs 2.8 vs Summicron ASPH

I had both lenses at one time. The 3.5 had haze cleaned out of it by Gus Lazzari. The 2.8 was overhauled by the seller in Japan before it was shipped to me. Both seem to have no visible distortion.

For a long time, I had problems with flare with the 3.5, even after the haze cleaning. It was very susceptible to backlighting. Then I tried it without the A36 uncoated Leitz UV filter, and it was a revelation! (Yes, I know that this should have been obvious, but I was duhhh). Both lenses seem sharp wide open and just get sharper as you stop down.

With the 2.8, I noticed that there is significant light fall-off into the corners wide open. Depth of field is slightly shallower on the 2.8 vs the 3.5. I didn't do a direct comparison between the two lenses, but looking at Erwin Put's information, it does seem that the 2.8 version is sharper. Maybe not as sharp into the corners wide open as the 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH that I had in LTM, but very decent. I think that the Summicron ASPH had less vignetting too. But the ASPH was very heavy in chrome, and way too expensive/collectible to use on a regular basis. So, the ASPH got sold.

Once you get a SOOGZ adapter and 39mm screw on lens hood on the 3.5, it becomes a rather bulky lens. Also, I found the ergonomics of the lens a bit difficult. So, it was sold off too. At this time all I have is the Summaron 2.8 in LTM.

 

[ottluuk]

For clarity: the f/3.5 Summaron comes in several versions that share the same optics: LTM with A36 slip-on filters (smallest but awkward controls), LTM E39 (mechanics like the M-mount variants), M-mount E39 with goggles (0,65 m close focus), M-mount E39 without goggles - 1m close focus, most (all in non-modified state?) bring up the 50mm frame lines - these were meant to be used with the M3 and an expernal VF.

I have the A36 LTM version. It delivers beautiful results at smaller apertures - as sharp as I ever need. Add a medium yellow filter and things get very contrasty as well. Wide open it tends to smear small details, especially away from the center of the frame. Maybe some internal cleaning would help.

I've been considering a switch to the E39 version, though: I hate the "upside down" DOF scale on the A36 version and the aperture ring is finicky as well - very faint click stops and crowded spacing down from f/8. The E39 version has equally spaced aperture control with full stop clicks. The front element is also more recessed on the E39 variants so probably a little more flare resistant on its own.

The f/2.8 version is supposed to much better at wide apertures and has 0,7 m close focus (M version) but the non-goggled ones have gotten almost as expensive as v.2-3 Summicrons. Some f/2.8 Summarons were made in LTM and some convertible - with removable M-adapters on their mounts.

 

[philipus]

What do you mean by 50mm Elmar V3?

I was only trying to find a way to have one hood for both. I meant v3 as described in the LUF wiki. As I understand it, the IROOA fits lenses with E39, and there are such versions of both the Summaron and the Elmar. But it seems not in M mount so my idea wouldn't work (sorry).

cheers
philip

 

[Simon Bruxelles]

I have a 1930s FLQOO lens hood for the Elmar 3,5cm lens which vignettes quite badly with the 35mm F3.5 Summaron, especially when used with a filter. There is no vignetting with the Elmar and a filter. The later FOOKH is marked for both lenses and is a litle shorter though I don't have one to test.

 

[traveler_101]

The Summaron 35mm is a truly excellent lens, but I don't see that many people raving about it. Maybe it is just me, but this lens produces an amazingly delicate range of tones on B&W film. It's not just the images it produces that make me want to use it continually, but also its size. Because it's relatively small, you are always more likely to take your camera out with you when this lens is on it. It works well wide open. I don't think you need a hood -- I've never used one -- because the lens is set deep within the lens casing, creating a hood effect.

Here are some samples:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=summaron&w=98047718@N00

One I took last week at a party:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eavis/12376243804/

The incredible tones:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/980477...GFZ-6AG4b4-7dWoow-7CqJSN-7CqJuu-7C8rBT-7VPMiS

The last set are really nice captures. Is that a 3.5 Summaron? (And just out of curiosity what camera do you use?) Very, very nice work.

 

[bonatto]

With the Summaron 3.5 in M-mount.