summaron with specs on M3

[simonSE15]

Hello all,

I picked up a summaron 35/3.5 with specs for my M3 after deciding not to switch to an M2 just yet as my M3 works fine.

Initial impression is I will get on with it. I prefer this solution to having a seperate finder mounted on the shoe. Does anyone have any comments regarding stregths weaknesses of this lens? (Apart from it being bulky etc) I gather it is better for b/w?

I'd also love to see any examples of pics using this lens on an M3.

all the best,

Simon.

 

[RichardB]

The series of 'goggled' lenses built for the M3 because of the lack of finder frames is known as the RF or your lens would be a 35mm Summaron RF.
Your lens is suitable for color, B&W or whatever type of film you want to use. Don't be concerned about so called analysis of lens performance versas aperture or 'bokeh'. Just go and use the lens for its intended purpose.
I had a 35mm Summicron RF for many years for my M3. Replaced a number of years ago by M6 then M7 and 35mm Lux ASPH. Both lenses were/are excellent and unless you put them ubder a lens testing procedure, you can't tell the difference. Of course, some spend more time analyzing lens performance then taking photogrpahs to where the equipment becomes the object of desire rather than the photographic process.
Good luck and have fun with your lens.-Dick

 

[simonSE15]

thanks Richard

 

[dfoo]

Just go and use the lens for its intended purpose.

What would that be? Surely the purpose of a lens is to take pictures 🙂

 

[RichardB]

What would that be? Surely the purpose of a lens is to take pictures 🙂

Did you add anything that supplied information about what the Post wanted?-Dick

 

[payasam]

Simon, I've had two examples of the LTM Summaron 35/3.5, both without goggles and used with accessory finders (SBLOO on M3, VIOOH on IIIc). The lens is prone to haze, alas. I found that it gives what can be called a "plastic" effect to images. Some call it 3D.

 

[simonSE15]

Simon, I've had two examples of the LTM Summaron 35/3.5, both without goggles and used with accessory finders (SBLOO on M3, VIOOH on IIIc). The lens is prone to haze, alas. I found that it gives what can be called a "plastic" effect to images. Some call it 3D.

I read on one eBay listing that a pen light can be used to test for haze, is that correct?

unfortunately my initial test pics have been banjaxed by developing error 😱

 

[dlove5]

I read on one eBay listing that a pen light can be used to test for haze, is that correct?

Yes, a pen light will often show haze that otherwise might be hard to see. My goggled Summaron was so hazy a pen light was not necessary. I just got it back from a CLA at DAG Camera and Don did a superb job cleaning it up. Even as hazy as it was, the lens did fine, except sometimes shooting against the light. I can't wait to go try it out now that the haze is gone. The viewfinder looks a lot better, too.

 

[Windscale]

You NEED a lens hood with this lens. This is true with all older lenses. Provided your sample is not already 'fogged', you should get very good pictures. As to the so-called 3D effect, try make a blowup to 16x20 (hand print not digital scan) and you will know what the others are talking about.

 

[simonSE15]

Thanks all. Here's some samples from the first roll (not counting the one I messed up in developing). The lens DOES look weird with goggles in my opinion but I am happy with its performance so no immediate plans to change to M2. 🙂

 

[simonSE15]

ok getting used to this lens now, having taken RichardB's advice! fairly pleased with it. so a little more self-promotion ;-)

 

[elude]

it is in my opinion the best (2.8 included) 35 leica produced for black and white when focused at a close range. Unless you have huge enlargements to make it's just awesome.

 

[simonSE15]

it is in my opinion the best (2.8 included) 35 leica produced for black and white when focused at a close range. Unless you have huge enlargements to make it's just awesome.

hi Elude, would you say mid/far distances dont look so good?

 

[elude]

Just that it's particularly good, even against modern lenses, in that department. Craaazy sharp in the center at 2.8. Take the summicron of the same era, it kinda sucked at close range.
(I have had 2 summarons).