Summaron or Serenar? :]

[B-9]

Hey everyone, just wondering what you think of the Leica Summaron 35/3.5

Im looking for a wider lens for my Canon IVSB and wile my hunt for a Rapidwinder is coming along really slow ive been snoopin around for a wider lens than the Summar I just got.

Along with the Leica ive been looking at the Canon 35mm f3.5
Anyone compare the two?

Any comments welcome!
Thanks.

 

[FrankS]

You won't go wrong with a good sample of either lens. I've had both and they have similar very good sharpness with medium/low contrast character.

 

[John Shriver]

The Canon 35/3.5 is a Tessar design, a clone of the Leica Elmar 35/3.5. I have the Elmar, it's charming, but has strong curvature of field, a Tessar formula doesn't make a great wide-angle lens.

The Summaron 35/3.5, by contrast, is a double-Gauss design, better starting point. The Canon (Serenar) 35/2.8 was strong competition to it, a better and faster lens. The Summaron is very prone to internal haze, and due to soft lens coating is nasty to clean properly. The Canon 35/2.8 is the more practical choice, far more likely to be in good shape.

The Summaron 35/2.8 is a very fine lens, but priced accordingly.

If you're on a tight budget, consider the "former Soviet Union" Jupiter-12 35/2.8. Wonderful Zeiss design.

For more money, don't dismiss the Canon 35/1.8 or 35/2.0. Great deal at the price.

 

[Bingley]

+1 what John said about the Canon 35/2.8. It's very small, sharp, and the moderate contrast suits b&w well (and I also like what it does w/ color).

 

[charjohncarter]

I have the 35mm Serenar f 3.5, it is very old (1952-3) and I had to have it cleaned and lubed. At first, I didn't like it but now I do. It is slow, but sharp. And it is very compact. Of course, it is LTM.

This is a garbage shot, but it shows the curvature of field:

another:

One thing is; it is prone to flare, or whatever this is:

 

[Burnnots]

One thing is; it is prone to flare, or whatever this is:

leica glow? 😀

 

[rogerzilla]

The Summaron f/3.5 is a bit soft at the corners, even stopped down (I have a 30" x 40" print from a tripod shot which shows this sharpness drop-off clearly at f/8). Not the highest contrast either. Stephen Gandy described it as "good but not great" and that's fair. Mechanically, it's a nice little lens.