using the Summaron f/3.5 35mm

[Volver]

I've used summaron on M3 and cant say that it's hard to focus, but the patch becomes less contrasty and it's harder to focus in low light. But it's quit ok to use with googles in daylight.
I gave mine back (i already had good 28mm lens), because i found it too contrasty for my taste (low details in shadows, or maybe i didnt get used to 35mm) and added some to buy Contax T3.

 

[taemo]

bumping this again as I've been lusting for a 35mm lens on my M3 again.
currently only have 25/50/90 for the M3 but I feel like I'm needing a 35mm.

is everyone happy with the 3.5 or wished they went with the 2.8 instead?

 

[Emile de Leon]

Just get a 35mm FLE...and call it a day...lol..
The 3.5 flares a lot and is fiddly but nice resolution in controlled conditions....I heard the 2.8 is better for general useage..
I like the v4 late German "bokeh king" for B&W and the pre f1.4 titanium except for close focus...
And the pre FLE asph f1.4 for color..
If I had to get 1..it would be ver 4 or titanium pre..
I have the pre FLE asph for color and its nice...but for B&W..hate it..
No lens is perfect..the photo content is where the weight should be..not the glass these days..

 

[Daryl J.]

The goggled version on an M3 got me back into film photography. I love it and the images it produces. Enough so that when a freshly CLA'ed non-goggled M mount (1957) came into the local shop I bought it to use on my M4. And every image is flared/hazed badly. Hmmmm....

I always presume operator error so will shoot more film (FP4) with a yellow 2x multicoated filter and a lens hood before passing any judgement.


I like the ergos better than my 35 Summicron ASPH-1, Voigtlander 1.4/35 Nokton Classic, and Voightlander 2.5/35 Color Skopar.

 

[Huss]

bumping this again as I've been lusting for a 35mm lens on my M3 again.
currently only have 25/50/90 for the M3 but I feel like I'm needing a 35mm.

is everyone happy with the 3.5 or wished they went with the 2.8 instead?

I recently acquired a 35 Summaron goggled. I already have a cv 35 1.2, Summicron Asph 35 2, Zm 35 1.4.
And the Summaron is great! It flares more than the ZM and CV, bit honestly pretty much the same as the Summicron Asph. But as you know it can flare, you use that in the image.
I'm actually disappointed as to how much modern Leica lenses flare. My Summilux 50 Asph is terrible. Cron is terrible. 28mm Elmarit Asph actually is good.

Also, the Summaron that I bought off this site was advertised as perfect condition, recent CLA. I got it with serious 'cleaning marks'. So much for buying off this site.. I still kept it because the price was good and I tested it with my M240 to see if those marks did anything. I could not see any difference between its flare resistance and that of my perfect glass Cron..

 

[creenus]

I have a 3.5 LTM with a slew of A36 filters. I keep intending to sell the little guy and then I read threads such as this one. They're rather sharp for their age, aren't they? I have used mine in Europe in 2015 on a iiic with good results. So I will probably keep it.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Yes, keep it.

Leica M5, Summaron 35mm f/3.5, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

 

[taemo]

Just get a 35mm FLE...and call it a day...lol..
The 3.5 flares a lot and is fiddly but nice resolution in controlled conditions....I heard the 2.8 is better for general useage..
I like the v4 late German "bokeh king" for B&W and the pre f1.4 titanium except for close focus...
And the pre FLE asph f1.4 for color..
If I had to get 1..it would be ver 4 or titanium pre..
I have the pre FLE asph for color and its nice...but for B&W..hate it..
No lens is perfect..the photo content is where the weight should be..not the glass these days..

TBH the FLE or f/1.4 lenses doesnt do anything for me, i just want a fun 35mm to play with on the M3 and the goggled version entices me as I wouldn't need an aux finder mounted.
other 35mm that i would like to play with is a jupiter-12 or canon 35mm f2 ltm.
note (i owned a 35mm cron iv in the past) but no longer own a 0.72 body

 

[Carey M]

is everyone happy with the 3.5 or wished they went with the 2.8 instead?

I had both, sold the 2.8 and kept the 3.5. It is sharp enough and I prefer the looks/feel. Mine is a 1955 M mount version and it really is like a little jewel.

I wouldn't waste time on the J-12. I've tried a couple and found them inferior to the Summarons. Optically and especially haptically.

 

[s_zemliakov]

I had both, sold the 2.8 and kept the 3.5. It is sharp enough and I prefer the looks/feel. Mine is a 1955 M mount version and it really is like a little jewel.

Agreed! Love my ltm 3.5


Senza titolo by del Rey., su Flickr

 

[Bingley]

I have the tiny LTM version of this lens. I love it, and shoot it mainly on my IIIc:

Morning walk by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[Bingley]

Another example:

Scallions and Leeks by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[Daryl J.]

Elaborating on the above issue with mine:

I just lit it up with a bright LED flashlight from multiple angles. It is beautifully clear. The Leitz UVa filter on it, however, is covered in cleaning marks and one deep scratch. Is that filter a cause for photograph haze?

Thanks.

 

[Emile de Leon]

My 3.5 Summaron I basically got for free in mint/LN cond..with a lot of other free screwmount stuff..LTM Leica cams and lenses..
In the right conditions..it is actually astonishing..but..I don't have a lens hood for it...so it flares..

Huss..I always wanted to get that lil 28mm 2.8 asph..but was wary because people actually said it was too contrasty..but so tiny..maybe I'll splurge someday..
I really should get a digital M body someday too..to try these L lenses on..
Back to my tunafish sandwich....lol..

 

[Ko.Fe.]

bumping this again as I've been lusting for a 35mm lens on my M3 again.
currently only have 25/50/90 for the M3 but I feel like I'm needing a 35mm.

is everyone happy with the 3.5 or wished they went with the 2.8 instead?

I used M3 version on M4-2 and it was handy. On M3 it will be as great as 50mm lens. But goggles needs to be clean and clear. I used M2 version on M4-2 as well. To me it is Leitz lens with less Leica character in it. Best by the build, so-so by the rendering. Colors are ... retro.

After reading Puts book where 3.5 was compared to 2.8 and conclusion was it is same at 5.6 I posted 3.5 images on 2.8 thread. I was told to get lost because 2.8 is very different from 3.5. I revisited this 2.8 thread just few days ago. Nice pictures, but is it worth of paying 800-1000$ as on eBay now for 2.8 M2 version? Not for me.

But#2, goggled 3.5 and 2.8 are still the reasonable and cool option on M3 if you hate external VF as I do.

 

[Huss]

Huss..I always wanted to get that lil 28mm 2.8 asph..but was wary because people actually said it was too contrasty..but so tiny..maybe I'll splurge someday..
I really should get a digital M body someday too..to try these L lenses on..
Back to my tunafish sandwich....lol..

Emile, I've never had issues with the 28. I think people like to repeat what they hear. It has always given me fantastic images.
Tiny, crazy sharp, does not flare.

 

[Huss]

But#2, goggled 3.5 and 2.8 are still the reasonable and cool option on M3 if you hate external VF as I do.

I agree. I already had the external finders for the M3 before I got the goggled Summaron, and it is so much better to use the goggles than the finder. It adjusts for parallax and allows you to focus and shoot seamlessly w/o having to reframe.
I now keep those finders for use on my MD-A and 1f.

 

[Emile de Leon]

Huss..I want that 28 2.8 asph...no distortion to be seen.. what a great travel lens..
What do you use for a lenshood on the Summaron f3.5?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...
What do you use for a lenshood on the Summaron f3.5?

My M2 3.5 35 was with Leica original (very) hood. My 3.5 35 M3 was with MiC ebay 39mm conical hood I purchased to kill the flare on CS CV 35 2.5 PII. IMO, it was much more awesome than Leica very original hood.

 

[taemo]

thanks everyone for your input.
I'm on the hunt for a goggled 5mm 3.5 summaron now 🙂