Dralowid
Michael
I seem to remember a thread about this...
Is it true that 35mm Summarons, both 3.5 and 2.8, that were sold as M fitting actually are LTM fitting plus adaptor locked by a little grub screw? (tiny screw on outside of flange on 2.8 lens)
If so, is the next step obvious as it looks?
Apologies in adavance, I'll post this on M and LTM list.
Michael
Is it true that 35mm Summarons, both 3.5 and 2.8, that were sold as M fitting actually are LTM fitting plus adaptor locked by a little grub screw? (tiny screw on outside of flange on 2.8 lens)
If so, is the next step obvious as it looks?
Apologies in adavance, I'll post this on M and LTM list.
Michael
richard_l
Well-known
Interesting conjecture. It would, however, not be true of the M3 Summarons equipped with goggles, because they focus differently in order to accomodate the rangefinder to an optically modified 50mm viewfinder.
John Shriver
Well-known
Yes, many early M Summarons were based on the LTM Summaron plus a grub-screw secured convertor. Particularly the 35/2.8. But it wasn't the standard convertor, it had somewhat of a skirt up the side of the lens.
HOWEVER, the focusing mount on the M version had the stop set at 0.7 meters, and was engraved to that distance, whereas the true LTM version stopped at 1.0 meters.
There's no functional problem using the M version with the adapter removed on an LTM camera. But you need to be careful not to pay the "collector's scarcity based price" for such a lens. The true LTM 35/2.8 is much rarer than the M mount one, and commands a much higher price.
A Summaron that focuses to 0.7 meters in LTM should be priced at LESS than an M mount one, since something is missing, not more.
As ever, as Richard noted, goggled 35mm lenses will not rangefinder focus without their goggles. Buying one of those "converted" to LTM would be a particular sucker game. It would be a very tempting thing for a rascal to do, since the goggled versions are by far the cheapest. I don't know how to identify them, other than by comparing the action of the rangefinder cam to a known good 35mm lens.
HOWEVER, the focusing mount on the M version had the stop set at 0.7 meters, and was engraved to that distance, whereas the true LTM version stopped at 1.0 meters.
There's no functional problem using the M version with the adapter removed on an LTM camera. But you need to be careful not to pay the "collector's scarcity based price" for such a lens. The true LTM 35/2.8 is much rarer than the M mount one, and commands a much higher price.
A Summaron that focuses to 0.7 meters in LTM should be priced at LESS than an M mount one, since something is missing, not more.
As ever, as Richard noted, goggled 35mm lenses will not rangefinder focus without their goggles. Buying one of those "converted" to LTM would be a particular sucker game. It would be a very tempting thing for a rascal to do, since the goggled versions are by far the cheapest. I don't know how to identify them, other than by comparing the action of the rangefinder cam to a known good 35mm lens.
Dralowid
Michael
As to price, it's not a problem, I already have an M 2.8 Summaron and it is one of my favorites. Just looking forward to using it on an old III.
I will have a go at the grub screw this weekend.
Michael
I will have a go at the grub screw this weekend.
Michael
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Reviving this since I am looking at a Summaron 2.8/35mm with potentially a removable M-mount.
The red dot is on the rear metal ring, not on the barrel. And I seem to recall reading here (but where?) that this indicates that the rear metal ring with its red dot can be removed, leaving the lens to fit a Leica LTM as well.
Anybody that can confirm or clarify this, possibly with a picture?
Thanks!
The red dot is on the rear metal ring, not on the barrel. And I seem to recall reading here (but where?) that this indicates that the rear metal ring with its red dot can be removed, leaving the lens to fit a Leica LTM as well.
Anybody that can confirm or clarify this, possibly with a picture?
Thanks!
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
Actually, it's the other way around. On M/LTM lenses the red dot is NOT on the rear ring being the removable M-mount, but on the lens body. Thus, the red dot remains on the lens when it is mounted on LTM cameras. I have a couple of pictures showing a convertible 2.8 Summaron mounted on an LTM and an M body here. Although still having both M-mount only and original LTM mount Summarons, I still regret selling my dual mount Summaron about two years ago.
Dralowid
Michael
Here goes...
IMG_1423 by dralowid, on Flickr
The first picture shows that the red dot is on the barrel, the same piece of metal as the distance scale.
IMG_1424 by dralowid, on Flickr
The second picture shows the little grub screw in the M mount ring towards the right. Surely this is the key.
As you can see my Summaron is well used! That grub screw has also seen much action...
To be honest, however great it is, I think this Summaron sits better on an M even though I am very impressed by the picture of the IIa syn (?) with 2.8 Summaron that has just been posted.
I use this lens and a late Elmar M on my M the most.
IMG_1423 by dralowid, on Flickr
The first picture shows that the red dot is on the barrel, the same piece of metal as the distance scale.
IMG_1424 by dralowid, on Flickr
The second picture shows the little grub screw in the M mount ring towards the right. Surely this is the key.
As you can see my Summaron is well used! That grub screw has also seen much action...
To be honest, however great it is, I think this Summaron sits better on an M even though I am very impressed by the picture of the IIa syn (?) with 2.8 Summaron that has just been posted.
I use this lens and a late Elmar M on my M the most.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
On the IIa sync sits a genuine LTM summaron: there is a clear difference with the convertibele summaron, since it has a closest distance of 1m, so truly made for the Barnack Leica...I guess
It's my most used lens on my LTM cameras (one Barnack and some Zorki's)
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Right, thanks guys.
For a moment I was thinking the lens I was looking at would be LTM&M mount. I'll be picking it up sometime tomorrow and selling it for a profit, although I did not plan to.
Had a sale where the buyer wanted to return the bought lens due to some perceived 'issues' and revenues from selling this 2.8/35mm Summaron will be put towards a refund...:bang:
For a moment I was thinking the lens I was looking at would be LTM&M mount. I'll be picking it up sometime tomorrow and selling it for a profit, although I did not plan to.
Had a sale where the buyer wanted to return the bought lens due to some perceived 'issues' and revenues from selling this 2.8/35mm Summaron will be put towards a refund...:bang:
Dralowid
Michael
Ron my apologies, you have the real deal!
At least we all agree that we love the 2.8 Summaron!
It is a cold and snowy morning, perhaps I should warm everyone up by starting a thread titled...'Leica lenses I hate'...!
At least we all agree that we love the 2.8 Summaron!
It is a cold and snowy morning, perhaps I should warm everyone up by starting a thread titled...'Leica lenses I hate'...!
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
I had three of them in my 'collection', the genuine M, genuine LTM and the convertible, ...never had the goggled one. I took a shot of them together so you could clearly see the different coatings Leitz applied over the years:
1. blue coating - 1960 Summaron convertible (Ltm & M-mount)
2. yellow-brown coating - 1962 Summaron Ltm (the one sitting on my Barnack)
3. purple coating - 1968 Summaron M-mount
1. blue coating - 1960 Summaron convertible (Ltm & M-mount)
2. yellow-brown coating - 1962 Summaron Ltm (the one sitting on my Barnack)
3. purple coating - 1968 Summaron M-mount
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
More shots of the M, LTM and dual-mount Summarons here:
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
Hoi Ron, je hebt ook een leuk setje...
Lukt het met het spiegeltje?
Lukt het met het spiegeltje?
Ahh. The convertible Summaron. Fantastisch! Best of both worlds, with 0.7m close focus. Unmatched build quality, and the glass is pretty good, too.
Monochrom
Well-known
Those summarons are really fine glass, once i got by chance a dual mount....of course sold it quickly for a great price...
The much cheaper 3.5 version are as good as the 2.8 ones...never found any dfference between them beside from price tag....
The y do have distortion in the edges that´s why i didn´t keep any summaron...
The much cheaper 3.5 version are as good as the 2.8 ones...never found any dfference between them beside from price tag....
The y do have distortion in the edges that´s why i didn´t keep any summaron...