Summaron 35mm f2.8

[Doug]

Question to all of you, what hood do you generally use? I’ve got the original cone-shaped hood as well as the vented hood originally designed for the Summicron 8-element. Is the latter effective. The cone hood blocks a bit more of the VF

My Summicron v.1 has the 12585H hood, and that's the hood I use on the goggled Summaron as well. Works fine!

 

[Derek Leath]

My Summicron v.1 has the 12585H hood, and that's the hood I use on the goggled Summaron as well. Works fine!

I use the same hood on both my Summaron and Summicron

 

[Alberti]

Can I take off the finder/goggles of a Summaron 35mm M3 lens and then use it on an M2 (or M9 etc. of course)?
It expect it will bring on the 50mm framelines.

- In that respect I refer to the M-Rokkor lens I have : the 40mm also natively engages the 50mm frame

so that looks like the same situation.

 

[Doug]

Can I take off the finder/goggles of a Summaron 35mm M3 lens and then use it on an M2 (or M9 etc. of course)?
It expect it will bring on the 50mm framelines.

- In that respect I refer to the M-Rokkor lens I have : the 40mm also natively engages the 50mm frame so that looks like the same situation.

It's a job to take the goggles off, and then you are left with two useless parts. The de-goggled lens will not focus correctly on any M camera's rangefinder, and the goggles can't be used in other ways either.

The goggled Summaron works fine on an M2 or M9 etc. It scales the 35mm framing view smaller to fit inside the usual 50mm framelines. Here is where it's fundamentally different than using the 40 Rokkor on an M2, where the 50mm framelines show you a cropped view of the 40mm image that will be captured on film.

The big advantage of it on the M2 is the visual compression, making the 35mm framing more visible by squeezing it into the 50 frame, with space around the outside. This was intended to allow the 35mm lens to function well with the M3 but it's handy on the M2 as well. With a regular non-goggled 35mm lens, I cannot see the entire 35mm framelines at once on an M2. Note that in later models Leica made all framelines smaller and changed the VF optics so as to fit the 28mm frames in. The effect of the goggled lens is like having a .58x viewfinder rather than .72x magnification. Minor downsides are slightly reducing the effective RF baseline which slightly reduces RF accuracy, a slight dimming of the VF, and the added bulk.

Here's my goggled 2.8/35mm Summaron on an M240:
(note lack of distortion!)

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Mine needs internal cleaning:

 

[Doug]

Quarters

Leica M240, goggled 2.8/35mm Summaron

 

[Derek Leath]

Leica M2 35mm Summicron 2.8 Tmax 100 from 2001


Covid19_SwingSet
by
Derek Leath,
on Flickr


Glassblocks
by
Derek Leath,
on Flickr

 

[Derek Leath]

Leica M2 Tmax 100 from 2001

JesusontheMirror
by
Derek Leath,
on Flickr

 

[DoK]

Summaron 35/2.8 + Sigma fp

_fp00472_iWE+f by D0K, on Flickr

 

[raydm6]

^^ Great combo @DoK.

 

[Alberti]

The fP is very good altogether, I notice.
Good = colours a bit saturated and in depthe, almost like M9. Or should I say M11?

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summaron 35mm f3.5 ltm) leica m5

Amsterdam, IJ, 2017

Erik.

 

[raydm6]

I always considered the Summaron 35f2.8 the "secret" perfect 35. It is very good, even by todays standards. It is in many ways a better lens than the Summicron v1/2/3 - particularly for close and tight shots. Less flare prone too. OK, it does have an infernal Infinity lock - but that can be disabled.
The only contender for best medium speed 35 has to be the new Zeiss ZM 35f2.8 Biogon - and, yes, it is a slightly better performer (contrast/resolution etc) - but it is a bit bigger and will not accept 39 mm filters. My contention is that if you have a Summicron 35f2.8 or a Biogon 35f2.8 - you are all set for summer and slow, hi-res film.
Another benefit of the Summaron 35f2.8 is that it was mainly bought by "hobby" users back when - and they kept them in nice shape and used UV filters too. You have a far better chance of finding an optically clean 35f2.8 after 40+ years than a Summicron 35f2 v1 - or a Summilux 35f1.4 from the 60's. Pro's bought the fast lenses as they needed them - and usually did unspeakable things to them too (cleaning front elements by spitting on the lens and wiping it clean with a shirtsleeve, keeping it in a pocket with no caps and rarely, if ever using UV filters).
I still have a Summaron 35f2.8 - getting a bit ratty looking on the outside - but glass is clean ( stopped the spitting/shirtsleeve cleaning decades ago) - and it looks really nice on a M2 - and always deliver! Ok, I also have the new Biogon 35f2.8 and I do use that more - but the Summaron can usually holds its own.

Some words of wisdom from Tom A. And one of the reasons I bought the Summaron 2.8 and it is my main lens on my M2. Tom also suggests getting in close with this lens as well.

 

[DoK]

The fP is very good altogether, I notice.
Good = colours a bit saturated and in depthe, almost like M9. Or should I say M11?

It's hard for me to say and compare. I've never owned a Leica camera. But the Leica M9 and M8 are a reference for me that I strive for when processing. And film, of course

_fp00160_iWE+f by D0K, on Flickr

_fp00158_iWE+f by D0K, on Flickr

 

[Deleted member 65559]

The Summaron 35mm 2.8 (& 3.5)....are terrific lenses.
I use the thin 12504 (Summilux) hood on all my 35mm lenses.

 

[Alberti]

The Summaron 35mm f/3.5 LTM is much easier to find and is a great lens too.
Erik.

Erik, I saw the picture on the pontoon (Amsterdam, IJ, 2017) and as far as I can tell, the lens looks good to the edges. I mean, no smearing.
How does it perform on a digital sensor? (I know you inhabit the Silver Gelatin Planet, but I ask anyway.)
The 35mm f3.5 was also used by telephone companies to take pictures of the 'meterstanden', these were recorded on microfilm. This means that the lens must record all elements with a very good precision, in the whole field of all the meters. And be selected for that quality.
[Example: an MDa 'Post'body with a fixed Summaron 35mm head, German with f2.8, other operators have used Leica film bodies with the Summaron 35/3.5. Also Alpa got some tenders for this purpose in telephone exchanges - Alpa Post 11a Camera with a fixed Alos 35mm F/3.5 Lens]

 

[Erik van Straten]

Alberti, the Summaron 35mm f3.5 is a great lens. No distortion. They can become cloudy, but they can be cleaned, afaik are the inner lenses hard coated. I have mine for many years, it is still clear as a bell. Together with the Summicron 50mm f2 rigid it forms a great pair. They are available both in screw mount and in M-mount.

gelatin silver print (summaron 35mm f3.5 ltm) leica m3

Rome, 2007

Erik.

 

[DoK]

_fp00406_iWE+f by D0K, on Flickr

 

[3oob]

35 Summaron 2,8 / Portra 160

 

[mfunnell]

Alberti, the Summaron 35mm f3.5 is a great lens. No distortion. They can become cloudy, but they can be cleaned, afaik are the inner lenses hard coated. I have mine for many years, it is still clear as a bell. Together with the Summicron 50mm f2 rigid it forms a great pair. They are available both in screw mount and in M-mount.

gelatin silver print (summaron 35mm f3.5 ltm) leica m3

Rome, 2007

Erik.

View attachment 4827334

That’s nice to know 😃

I haven’t used mine enough (I have the f3.5 and don’t have the f2.8). I’ll probably take mine for a walk, tomorrow, on my M240 (I’ve been through my 50mm collection: time to work with my smaller set of 35mm lenses).

…Mike