thoughts on the 35 summaron

[SergioGuerra]

Beeing a new user of a 35/3.5 I must admit that it really is my actual most compact lense.

Didnt had the time to shoot it a lot (only a test film) but seems to be sharp enough ehehe
Must test some more, and maybe post it here. A pitty I am more of a 50mm guy ehehe

Cheers,

Sergio

 

[rich815]

I ran a roll through my MP with the 35/3.5 Summaron this week. I really like the compactness of the lens, the ergonomics, and the feel, and really want to like it. You see, I've not been overly impressed so far when I've used it from time to time as it seems to lack something in the character department, not seeming all that sharp or contrasty. But people insist its a good lens.

Well, this time I took good notes as to the apertures I used, the conditions, etc. Unfortunately still not impressed. There was intrusive flare any time the sun was even close to the frame and/or if there was a bright highlight such as through windows and such. Even my Jupiter-12 seems and better performer and if it was not such a awkward lens to use would just be happy with that. I will say that stopped down and if the frame was without flare-inducing highlights and such I got much better contrast than I remember before but that was about it.

I'm really looking for something that would perform close to the great results I get with my 50/2 Summicron DR. Supposedly the 35/2.8 Summaron is a much better performer in terms of sharpness and flare-resistance and I've also heard it's character is more along the lines of the 50/2 DR. So, I'm thinking to pick one of the 35/2.8 Summarons up.

So, if anyone wants to buy a nice M-mount 35/3.5 Summaron let me know.

 

[shaaktiman]

Well, aside from that last post there seems to be a pretty effusive consensus. I've decided to not buy anything now as I should probably focus on taking photos instead of on buying another 35. I relly love the 35mm length. I have 2 leicas in 50mm and I still use my voight CV in 35 90% of the time. (partly though this is because of the small size of the CV 35. the 50s are huge or awkward by comparison.) That's why I was thinking of the summaron, I was hoping to step up the quality over my CV a bit without sacraficing pocketability (or shelling out for a pre-asph cron which is never gonna happen.)

Thanks for all the great input. For now I'm going to just stop down my CV and maybe someday I'll sell those 2 50s and get a used 35 cron. Although at this rate by next year they'll probably be over $2000 for a user.

 

[rich815]

Did not mean to be the party-pooper, but the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Maybe I have a bad one? Maybe one just needs to be congnizant of its flare propensity? Two images attached show the issues I described.

 

[jaapv]

I think it looks more vintage than bad. I assume you used a lens-hood and no filter. That is pretty essential with this lens. Having said that I tend to use it for low-contrast situations where its superior colour differentiation and subtle rendering of fine detail come into play. Look for instance at the plasticity of the rail in both shots and the rendering of the reflection in the tunnel in the left-hand one It shows the shadow of a person there that makes that small part a photo within the photo..

 

[FrankS]

I quite like those results too, Rich. That slight amount of flare gives it atmosphere. But I understand that I'm looking at a computer monitor. You've got the prints in hand and can make a more informed judgement.

 

[dcsang]

As someone who's had one of these delightful little lenses (purchased here from Roland - aka Ferider) I was extremely happy to see the results. It makes me think that the 50mm Elmar may be "just as good" (still searching for one).

Sure it's not "fast" but really... it's compact and does the job.

both photos: Neopan 1600, 1/4 sec, f3.5, Leica IIIc

Cheers
Dave

 

[jaapv]

iI find the Summaron a whole lot nicer than the Elmar 50.

 

[dcsang]

iI find the Summaron a whole lot nicer than the Elmar 50.

Thanks Jaap 🙂
I was considering the Elmar merely because of compactness.. .I think I just may let that Summaron live on the IIIc and when I need a 50.. I'll bring along my Jupiter 8 🙂

Cheers
Dave

 

[jaapv]

Thanks Jaap 🙂
I was considering the Elmar merely because of compactness.. .I think I just may let that Summaron live on the IIIc and when I need a 50.. I'll bring along my Jupiter 8 🙂

Cheers
Dave

I'll elaborate: I find the rendering of fine detail more clear on the Summaron and the corners seem to resolve better than the Elmar, at least on the ones I have. The Summaron tends to vignette slightly, but that is not a drawback for me.On the whole I prefer the Summaron "look" .

 

[rich815]

As someone who's had one of these delightful little lenses (purchased here from Roland - aka Ferider) I was extremely happy to see the results. It makes me think that the 50mm Elmar may be "just as good" (still searching for one).

Sure it's not "fast" but really... it's compact and does the job.

both photos: Neopan 1600, 1/4 sec, f3.5, Leica IIIc

Cheers
Dave

Dave, nice shots. I'll have to say your 35/3.5 Summaron certainly seems to handle "creeping" highlights a heck of a lot better than mine does.

I have no problem with a "vintage" look, in fact one of my favorite lenses is the uncoated Tessar on my Rolleiflex 622, now to me that's classic look! See here:

http://static.flickr.com/39/106334980_aede1e896d_o.jpg

But in that photo I feel that although the highlights indeed seem to flare it does not seem to overly "bleed over" into effecting the contrast of the rest of the photo as much which I feel the 35/3.5 Summaron does.

I can see how the 35/3.5 Summaron does have a nice old school look, but while I do not mind lenses that show some flare, I dislike it when it shows up even from simply brighter highlights and in the fashion in which it does with this lens.

I have the first version of the 50/2.8 Elmar and much prefer that. It still has a wonderful, subdued vintage look but handles flare better and seems a bit more sharper than the 35/3.5 Summaron. But as I said, I am looking for a 35 with more a softer contrast but still good sharp look of an older Summicron. My ideal would be someting between the look of the 50/2 Summicron and the first m-mount version of the 50/2.8 Elmar. I simply must try out a 50/2.8 Summaron, I think.....

Of course, to each his own! And one of the main reasons I branched out from my very fine Contax G2 and its wonderful lenses was to find a wider variety of character and look that one can find in the great selection of Leica-mount lenses out there. The oh-so-sharp, contrasty, 3-D look of the Contax G lenses, while wonderful, can get boring and is certainly not for everything!

Richard

 

[Roninman]

I am very pleased to be a part of this forum. This is my first post, and it just so happens to concern my current favorite lens, LTM 35mm Summaron f3.5. I am an amateur photog so I claim no real expertise, however,as an owner of a new asph 35mm Summicron with which to compare, I'm not sure I agree with the poster who says that the Summaron is sharper. I do agree that the lens produces extremely high quality images with that certain character we all appreciate. For roughly one fifth of the cost of the new Asph! I would not hesitate to recommend this lens to anyone. The build quality alone makes it feel like it will last another generation.
Thanks for having me and here's a pic with my IIIf and my Summaron f3.5. Cheers!
Okay, how do I do that?

 

[dcsang]

Richard, I understand where you're coming from based on the images that you posted.

I don't know if I've seen that sort of result with my copy however I will certainly be using it again in all sorts of situations and I'll keep my eyes open for it.

Roninman, welcome to the forum 🙂

Here's a link to the FAQ that may help you with sorting out your attachments in a post 🙂
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/faq.php?faq=vb_read_and_post#faq_vb_attachment_explain

Cheers
Dave

 

[SergioGuerra]

Hmmm Do you guys use a hood with your Summaron 35? Wich one is the better one?


Regards,

Sergio

 

[payasam]

Sergio, I can speak only of the screw mount 35/3.5 I had. The neat little hood for it (which could be used also on the 35mm Elmar) was the FOOKH. The black cap was ingenious: it fitted into the hood and over the lens if the hood was not mounted. M3 with Summaron and hood could comfortably be carried in a pocket, with the accessory finder in another pocket. I now have an identical lens, but no hood (wretched thing costs upwards of $125) and the usual metal lens cap. I've managed to procure a hood, but it's a good bit larger than the FOOKH. I go by the old rule that there's no photograph which cannot be improved with the use of a hood. The 35/3.5 needs a push-on hood (the FOOKH has a screw to clamp it on). I wouldn't know about the 35/2.8. In addition, the 35/3.5 must have a round hood since the whole thing rotates when focussing. Can't say if the 35/2.8 also does. Either way, you have to choose a hood which is neither so wide as to be ineffective nor so narrow as to cause vignetting.

 

[jaapv]

Hmmm Do you guys use a hood with your Summaron 35? Wich one is the better one?


Regards,

Sergio

Heavystar Summicron vented hood.

 

[FPjohn]

Atmosphere

Atmosphere

Hello:

My M Summaron f3.5 (neither compact or elegant) is to my mind a lens with moderate contrast and sharp. It has a mild tendency to flare without swamping an image. Is this example generally acceptable in that it exhibits "atmosphere" due to the characteristics of the lens? Orange filter and 12585 hood.

yours
Frank