Summaron 35mm/2.8 - weight and dimensions

M

mmehres

Newbie
Local time
11:09 AM
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
5
Hi, I was just wondering if someone could please send me the weight (and if possible dimensions) of this lens, and specifically the version without goggles. I am thinking about getting one in lieu of my Summicron 35mm ASPH but I'm just curious to how much smaller the Summaron really is. Thx, Marc
 
1 inch long measured from the lens flange, and 9 ounces in weight.
 
Last edited:
it looks bulky in place on an M3, but not excessivley.

i've had mine (with goggles) for a few days now, it's added weight to the M3 is noticable but not an annoyance. I find it incredibly easy and quick to use too. i really do like this lens, i find the lens tab quick to find and the focus throw is good and responsive (and smooth).

in practice i would imagine that it would not feel or act all that differently to a standard 35mm lens. it perhaps sticks out a little more than some of the CV 35mm lenses, but not by much.

if you purchase one that has a 'fogged' or 'hazed' viewfinder, it is an easy clean - very easy - with a soft lens cloth. just make sure you that you lay out each of the pieces as they where removed, if you get one upside down it throws the RF patch off. I found out the hard way ;)
 
Last edited:
The Summaron's front element is deeply recessed, giving it a sort of built-in hood. When compactness counts, leaving the hood off can make the Summaron one of the tiniest lenses around! You'll get away with it in all but the most challenging flare situations.

I used to have one, and I miss it.
 
I measure 30mm long from the mounting flange, and 50mm in diameter at its widest. One of my favorite lenses: the handling, optical rendition, and appearance are sublime. It's relatively heavy for the size (blame the chrome-on-brass construction).
 
In my personal view, the Summaron is noticeably handier and easier to use (despite the irrelevant infinity lock) than the Summicron. I'm not sure you can get one in lieu of the other, because they are sufficiently different and each excellent in its own way that they aren't really interchangeable.
 
Last edited:
mmehres said:
Hi, I was just wondering if someone could please send me the weight (and if possible dimensions) of this lens, and specifically the version without goggles. I am thinking about getting one in lieu of my Summicron 35mm ASPH but I'm just curious to how much smaller the Summaron really is. Thx, Marc
Click to expand...

you can't really go wrong with either, but they are distinctly different lenses...

in my experience the summaron is much lighter than the chrome ASPH, and a bit smaller, but not by much.

bob
 
Thanks

Thanks

Thanks very much this is very helpful. I already have a 50mm Summilux ASPH and so I find that the 35mm Summicron ASPH does not get much use. The Summaron appeals because of its much smaller size and weight than the Summilux and its vintage look. Thanks again.
 
I wonder how the Canon 35/2.8 compares with the Summaron 35/2.8. I compared the two lenses once, but I am unable to recall the finer differences, if they exist.
 
It's a very compact lens. I have one and it stays on my M4 all the time.

According to the Leica Pocket Book it weighs 210 grams (that's for the non goggles version).

Ernst
 
QUESTION : Re: the Summaron 35mm2.8
serial #: 16664xx /1959 i think

I took Goggles off and use it w/ my M6ttl
it does not Bring up the 35 frameline
thought it is SPOT on Sharp ...no problems in focusing
Can it be adjusted somehow ???

The red dot/ back mount for goggles is still on ...Will that make a Difference if Removed ?

I would prefer to keep this Gem ...its Supreme in its Rendering
Thanx in Advance for your replies
and Apologies to MMEHRES: Not trying to Hijack your Thread :)
 
Last edited:
the Summaron 2.8 Edge...LOVE THIS LENS !
Eric shot this on 125th Street NYC
4532120574_bbbdeb6336_b.jpg
 
raid said:
I wonder how the Canon 35/2.8 compares with the Summaron 35/2.8. I compared the two lenses once, but I am unable to recall the finer differences, if they exist.
Click to expand...

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the Leitz Summaron 35/2.8 (in M-mount) vs. the Canon 35/2.8 in screw mount (with LTM-M adapter).

842783790_KqXDi-M.jpg


I don't have a scale handy, but the smaller Canon is noticeably heavier in the hand (with LTM-M adapter) than the Summaron. Note that the later black/chrome version of the Canon lens is larger and lighter than the earlier chrome version shown here (sorry, can't show it in comparison, since I sold it).

::Ari
 
helenhill said:
QUESTION : Re: the Summaron 35mm2.8
serial #: 16664xx /1959 i think

I took Goggles off and use it w/ my M6ttl
it does not Bring up the 35 frameline
thought it is SPOT on Sharp ...no problems in focusing
Can it be adjusted somehow ???

The red dot/ back mount for goggles is still on ...Will that make a Difference if Removed ?

I would prefer to keep this Gem ...its Supreme in its Rendering
Thanx in Advance for your replies
and Apologies to MMEHRES: Not trying to Hijack your Thread :)
Click to expand...

Hi Helen,

I'd always believed that if you took the goggles off a Summaron, then the focussing wouldn't be accurate on a non M3 camera. Are you saying that the rangefinder couples correctly and the focussing is OK?
Apparently the rangefinder cam on the goggles version is supposed to be different?

Regards
Ernst
 
helenhill said:
QUESTION :
I took Goggles off and use it w/ my M6ttl
it does not Bring up the 35 frameline
Click to expand...

When the goggles are removed, the focusing is OFF exept @ infinity. A goggled 35mm Leica-lens always needs it's goggles to focus correctly.
The goggled lenses have different inner helical mounts that activate the rangefinder. Therefore the goggled lenses focus closer than those without goggles. It makes no difference if they are used on an M3, M2, M4, M5, M4-2, M4-P, M6, M7, M8, M9 or MP, the goggles always have to stay on to focus correctly.

Erik.
 
Last edited:
Erik, that is my understanding of it too. Perhaps generous DOF at smaller apertures explains Helen's success with using her lens without goggles.
 
raid said:
If this is correct, then how is Helen having the focus spot on?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but any Leica-guide from the times the goggled lenses were made will tell you the same thing as I did.

This subject every now and then turns up in these threads. Just take a look at those and you will see that I am right.

Erik.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom