summilux 35, M3 type

[kafir2]

Dear all,
I'm asking a question that may sound silly so please forgive me if the answer it's rather obvious.
I'm searching for a nice chrome 'lux 35 for my M2 and I stumbled upon a M3 model with the famous goggles (see pics).
My question is if it is possible to detach the googles and use it on a M2 or if I have to but strictly the M2 model which is, unfortunately, fetching rather higher prices (around 2000 EUR) here in EU.
I attach the picture of this lens and it seems that a couple of screws are actually retaining the whole google apparatus so it shoudn't be problematic to take it off and use it on an M2.
Any of you had some advice to share?
Thanks in advance, cheers
K

View attachment 42609

 

[ferider]

It will not focus properly without goggles on the M2. It will work with goggles though, using the 50mm framelines.

Roland.

 

[drewbarb]

Roland is right- I won't work properly on any camera without the goggles. But it will work on any M body with them. Try it- otherwise, get a regular version. Either way, the images from any pre-ASPH 35mm lux will look the same, which is pretty nice.

 

[kafir2]

I see...if I got it right then the lens is designed to show the 50 framelines on M cameras.
This would not be a big inconvenience with an M2 since I would compose using the whole field of view but I recognise it's not that elegant.
What bothers me is the story of mis-focussing: why so? the focus cam should be the same, regardless of the goggles...or not?
ciao
k

 

[telenous]

I had this lens for a little while about a year ago and used it with both the M2 and the M3. If memory serves the goggles magnified the 50 framelines - so it was absolutely usable with the M2. No focusing issues whatsoever, in my experience. The nice thing about this version of the Summilux 35 was that it was focusing down to 0.65m (the concurrent version without the goggles focuses down to 1m I believe).

 

[ferider]

I
What bothers me is the story of mis-focussing: why so? the focus cam should be the same, regardless of the goggles...or not?
ciao
k

Think about it this way:

With the goggles, the lens uses 50mm lines for a 35mm FOV. I.e., the viewfinder FOV angle is enlarged
by factor 1.4 ( = 50 / 35). The lens RF helical has to account for this. Let's assume you manage to take
the goggles off and collimate the lens to infinity. At any distance less than infinity, the
distance measured by the camera's RF will be factor 1.4 different than the distance shown on the lens
focus scale.

As Alkis said, this is why this lens can go down to .65m distance on the M3 (which originally had a .9m minimum
focus distance). .65 * 1.4 = 0.9.

Roland.

 

[kafir2]

Ok, now I understand.
It is basically necessary then to keep the googles on...which I find not too acceptable...I must surrender then and look for a black modern 'lux.
Speaking about modern (pre-asph) 'lux 35: were they ever produced in chrome? I never found one of these lens in chrome, just some titan badly overpriced.
Any ideas?
Ciao
k

 

[ferider]

Yes, it was made in chrome. Check out 7600977905.

Prices are real bad though ....

I am not 100% sure but it might even exist in chrome and screw mount.

Roland.

 

[kafir2]

Yes, it was made in chrome. Check out 7600977905.

Prices are real bad though ....

I am not 100% sure but it might even exist in chrome and screw mount.

Roland.

thanks for the suggestion, I actually missed that auction.
and yes, prices are really too bad for such an item in questionable conditions...let's keep searching then.
ciao
k