Summicron 35/2.0: Which version? Does it Matter?

oldoc

oldoc

oldoc
Local time
4:20 AM
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
395
Now for a really important question for afficionadoes:
I have M8 and M6, and mostly Zeiss and Leica glass, but for cost reasons have CV 25 and CV 35/1.4 wide angles. Obviously, I want a cron 35, but WHICH version. Preasph? Later?
Can't afford the summilux, even a bargain, these days.
PLEASE, help with an opinion and reason....

Michael
 
I have a Type-III and a Type-IV. Maybe Erwin, or someone making deliberate tests, can spot the difference but in actual photo use, I can't and nobody who I've met has ever been able to, including a couple who initially bragged that they would easily be able to. The Type-III is a little bigger and a little heavier and way better constructed (this according to my observation and DAG also). I coded both of them for the M8 as a Type-IV because Leica doesn't supply a code for the earlier one. I also had at one time the 35-Cron-ASPH but sold it because it was heavier than I wanted. My only regret is that I didn't hang onto it until now when I could've gotten a lot more money for it. Another good one is the M-mount f/2.8 Summaron (without googles), if you can find one. I had it a long time ago, it was also a very good performer, but of course I never tried it on an M8.
 
I'm with Ben, I really like my version III. And yes, there is a difference between v3 and v4 (beside better built of v3): less flare due to one less element.

I own both Nokton and Summicron and am currently debating if I should sell my Summicron. There is nothing the Summicron does that the Nokton cann't for me. And the Nokton's speed, size, handling and color rendition are simply out-standing.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Some older versions have a bit lower contrast wide open, may appeal to you or may not. I had a 4th version years ago, very nice. I now have the asph. (current version) that has good contrast even wide open, it fits my needs well.

Todd
 
Hi Ben,

How about vignetting and Bokeh?

Thanks,
RLouzan

Ben Z said:
I have a Type-III and a Type-IV. Maybe Erwin, or someone making deliberate tests, can spot the difference but in actual photo use, I can't and nobody who I've met has ever been able to, including a couple who initially bragged that they would easily be able to. The Type-III is a little bigger and a little heavier and way better constructed (this according to my observation and DAG also). I coded both of them for the M8 as a Type-IV because Leica doesn't supply a code for the earlier one. I also had at one time the 35-Cron-ASPH but sold it because it was heavier than I wanted. My only regret is that I didn't hang onto it until now when I could've gotten a lot more money for it. Another good one is the M-mount f/2.8 Summaron (without googles), if you can find one. I had it a long time ago, it was also a very good performer, but of course I never tried it on an M8.
Click to expand...
 
I use a v.1 and an ASPH and love them both. The v.1 has the build and imagery of the classic Leica lenses of the 50's/60's era, the ASPH is stunning at all apertures. I think the ASPH lenses have been selling in the $1300 range recently and that would be an excellent buy.
 
I had a googled 35mm Summaron 2.8, a googled 35mm Summaron 3.5 and a 35mm Summicron-M IV. Of the three the 35mm Summicron-M was the worst regarding build quality and only mediocre regarding image quality and price. My former 40mm Summicron-C and the 40mm M-Rokkor I now own are much better build, cheaper and give better results compared with the 35m Summicron-M IV. :)
 
I have the first version 35mm/2 Summicron with "eyes" for the M3. It is built like no other lens. I also have the Canon 35mm/1.8, 35mm/2, and 35mm/2.8. Actually, I prefer 50mm lenses to 35mm lenses!
 
Well, Ferider, I have the Nokton at this point. So, you are saying keep the CV and don't worry. No difference, as far as you can tell in output?
 
So, Raid, you really don't find yourself using the 35 all that much. It's built well, but how about the quality of output?
 
oldoc said:
Well, Ferider, I have the Nokton at this point. So, you are saying keep the CV and don't worry. No difference, as far as you can tell in output?
Click to expand...

If you look very close, the Nokton has a little more barrel distortion, more field curvature and a bit harsher bokeh.

BUT, things like the following are simply not possible with the Summicron (due to speed in the DOF sense; here on Neopan 1600@1600):

477754229_zh6EQ-L.jpg


477754273_9ftTh-L.jpg


And here are the Nokton (SC in my case) colors (on 100 Reala):

446478574_JDfV8-L-3.jpg


It's a really special lens, IMO. Unless you get a Summilux ASPH, the Nokton cann't be beat, IMO.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
oldoc said:
So, Raid, you really don't find yourself using the 35 all that much. It's built well, but how about the quality of output?
Click to expand...

oldoc,

The Canon 35mm/2.8 is a high resolution but lower contrast lens with a very small size. The 35mm/1.8 is sharp from 2.8 an up,and it tends to flare. Some like the flare effect and some see it as " f la r e " that should not occur. I am in the former group.

I have yet to use the new old stock Canon 35/2. I may sell it to finance the buying of a Nokton.
 
Raid:
I had an old Canon 35/2 with an old rangefinder. Great resolution. I found contrast above f11 a bit too much, but below it was about right. Wondering where it is now....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom