Summaron 35mm f2.8

[Erik van Straten]

In the beginning it was never legendary, it was the cheaper option for those who could not stretch to a Summicron.

Not exactly, because the Summaron (35mm f/3.5) existed earlier (in LTM) than the Summicron 35mm f/2. The Summaron 35mm f/2.8 appeared at about the same time as the Summicron 35mm f/2, and was of course a cheaper option.

Erik.

 

[teddy]

The Summaron 35/2.8 has legendary performance. It is not perfect on the corners, but almost. The most important aspect of this lens is the black and white rendering of this lens and it's character. And it is also good on colour work. I don't have an ASPH Leica - and I have no interest in acquiring one - but I have read this lens is sharper then the current lenses in the centre. The reason to get a current lens is higher contrast and more corner performance. It is my favourite lens in the Leica family.

 

[lamefrog]

Leica M4 - Summaron 35mm f2.8 - TX400
Philadelphia (RFF outing)

Leica M6 - Summaron 35mm f2.8 - TX400
Canal St Martin Paris

 

[fer_fdi]

beautiful images from you all
and delightful render from lens
congratulations

 

[dhyratoro@gmail.com]

M4
Summaron 35mm 2.8
TMY 400

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[karlin]

Love this lens

m6
trix
summaron M 35 2.8


img170 by ophir segal, on Flickr

 

[karlin]

fp4+
m6
summaron M 35 2.8


img277 by ophir segal, on Flickr

 

[walla]

I've been researching this lens, thanks to this thread, and I've read on other forums that dealers will take off the goggles from the M3 type, and just sell the lens as the SIMOO or SIMOM versions. Is this correct, and is there an easy way to tell if that is the case? And if that is indeed the case, does it matter?

 

[splitimageview]

I don't believe the goggled version will focus correctly without the goggles.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I've been researching this lens, thanks to this thread, and I've read on other forums that dealers will take off the goggles from the M3 type, and just sell the lens as the SIMOO or SIMOM versions. Is this correct, and is there an easy way to tell if that is the case? And if that is indeed the case, does it matter?

That is a double criminal act: not only the lens becomes useless, also the goggles do.

Always check: if the lens focuses to 0.65cm it is a goggled one. (The bayonet version without goggles focuses to 0.7cm and the LTM version to 1m.)

Erik.

 

[walla]

That is a double criminal act: not only the lens becomes useless, also the goggles do.

Always check: if the lens focuses to 0.65cm it is a goggled one. (The bayonet version without goggles focuses to 0.7cm and the LTM version to 1m.)

Erik.

Very helpful, thanks Erik! I hope to find my copy soon, and when I do I'll post some shots with it.

 

[Rob-F]

In some cases the goggles have been repurposed by installing them on the 21mm Super-Angulon to make the 21mm FOV appear within the 28mm framelines.

 

[kiemchacsu]

I re-purchased a 35/2,8 m2 version to accompany with my favorite lens the 35/2 type 4. I will try to keep both even though i have to admit that i feel redundant a bit sometimes.
Interesting that both lens have increased prices significantly lately.
People knows their values.
Example below shows how good the summaron renders black and white.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lamefrog]

 

[karlin]

M6
summaron M 35 2.8
fp4+


img228 by ophir segal, on Flickr

 

[bucs]

summaron 35 2.8
kodak 5222


img957 (2) by ophir segal, on Flickr

Love this!

 

[nguyendkhoa]

m2 + summaron 2.8
fujicolor 100

A kitten in the afternoon by Ngyuen Khoa, on Flickr

 

[fer_fdi]

Wow! love it Ngyuen!

 

[nguyendkhoa]

m2 + summaron 2.8
HP5 Plus 400

Rainy day by Ngyuen Khoa, on Flickr

 

[DominikDUK]

summaron 35 2.8
M6
tmax 100


img527 by ophir segal, on Flickr

Beautiful photograph