Summaron 3.5 compare to Summaron 2.8 [Archive]

View Full Version : Summaron 3.5 compare to Summaron 2.8

terrafirmanada

08-23-2006, 18:21

First of all, I own the 3.5, and really like the images I have taken with it so far. But it does have some very slight haze. So, I am thimking about sending it to DAG for a CLA. The 2.8 seems to get more positive remarks, but this might be mostly due to older lense issues (fungus, cleaning marks, haze) in the 3.5.
I am wondering if any users have experience with both of these, and can comment on the optics, as well as other user impressions.
When I bought this lense I thought the 2.8 might be the more user friendly, but since I have other lenses with the 3.5 style tab, it felt very comfortable.
I do not really need more speed, so in that regard the 2.8 is not important.
I spent a great deal of time looking at flikr under Summaron- but that does not give you the distinction between models. However, you can tell by looking that it is a special lense.
So, if anyone has an opinion or images to compare, I would be interested in learning more.

FrankS

08-24-2006, 05:59

Sorry, I have jsut the 3.5 Summaron, also with a bit of haze. I won't replace it, it's a keeper. I will eventually get it cleaned.

jaapv

08-24-2006, 06:15

Erwin Puts claims the 2.8 is considerably better than the 3.5, I own just the 3.5, but considering the very appealing results it gives me, I don't even feel the need to compare :)

richard_l

08-24-2006, 06:18

I have both the 2.8 and the 3.5. Although I haven't subjected them to a rigorous comparison, I am just as pleased with the 3.5 images as the 2.8. It took maybe an hour to get comfortable with the controls on the 3.5, but it's worth it. That tiny lens is wonderful! There are a few shots from the Summarons in my Gallery.

Richard

jaapv

08-24-2006, 09:10

Try the Linkt to Richard_I (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=17998&what=allfields&name=richard&name=richard)
The way to do it is to go to the galleries and enter his namein the search menu.

phototone

08-24-2006, 13:36

I disassembled and cleaned my own 3.5 summaron. It is one of the sharpest lenses I have. If the lens is clean clear and haze-free it is one fine performer.

FrankS

08-24-2006, 13:39

Phototone, could you describe the procedure for disassembling the Summaron, please?

nrb

08-24-2006, 14:07

I use a 3.5 Summaron and am very pleased with the results.
I feel it gives photos a very classical look.

terrafirmanada

08-24-2006, 18:25

Thank you for your replies. I would also be interested in knowing how phototone disassembled and reassembled his lens. Anyone have pictures of this? If I were to do it I would need the visual first. Then is a bit of vinegar and water the cure? Is benzine a bad idea? Hmmm well I need to send my Summitar in since it has oil on it's blades. Perhaps I can get a two for one deal.

MinorTones

08-24-2006, 18:48

payasam

08-25-2006, 03:36

Haven't ever used the 2.8 or even seen it, but had a 3.5 from 1985 to 2002 and last year acquired another. Can't say if the 2.8 gives the almost three dimensional effect that the 3.5 does. My only grouse is that the whole thing rotates, which often makes focussed distance and aperture setting difficult to see and rules out the use of a rectangular hood without more fiddling than two hands can manage.

phototone

08-25-2006, 09:13

I took apart a collapsible 50 summicron LTM about 6 months ago. Like a noob I turned it upside down and all the blades fell out LOL.

So if you are gonna take it apart be really careful because those blades took me forever to get back in correctly.

I don't have a 35 cron though, so I can't help you in your comparison. I just thought I'd add some words of caution.

-Mitch

Yeah, the Summicron has "loose" blades that can be spilled when you take out (uscrew) the front lens block. Not easy to get back. (I know).

However the 35mm Summaron does not have this problem. It has been two years since I disassembled mine, so I can't give a blow-by-blow account as my memory is foggy. It is not easy, I do remember that. You need lens spanners, and other items. You need a suction cup lens element puller, etc. Best to clean elements with "lens cleaner", then use compressed air as you reassemble to blow away residiual dust that can collect as you place elements back in place.

dadsm3

08-25-2006, 09:38

I always loved both the 2.8 and 3.5 (which I just sold to member), but Gandy had some negative things to say about both in his Leica lens review (not up to snuff relatively speaking).

FrankS

08-25-2006, 09:58

I don't think many lenses, even modern ones, are as clinical as the newest asph 35 'cron. Still love my 'ron!

jk251

08-20-2007, 20:43

Hi

According to this page http://leicagallery.com/rarityratingslenses.htm (http://leicagallery.com/rarityratingslenses.htm)

The Summaron 35mm F2.8 Fixed Focus is rarer than other Summaron 35mm F2.8

Does anybody know what Fixed Focus means?

Thanks

payasam

08-21-2007, 01:24

Perhaps the fixed focus lenses were fitted to the special cameras designed to photograph electric meters.

peterm1

08-21-2007, 01:42

I cannot confirm this for sure but believe it to be true. Someone else will no doubt comment.

I have been told that the 2.8 differs from the 3.5 summaron in much the same way that the 50mm f2.0 summicron differs from the summitar - i.e. it uses the more modern lanthanum glass which in the case of the sumamron allowed the formula to be pushed an extra stop and gives better rendition.

Having said his I have never used the 2.8 - only the 3.5. As far as that goes however I can say I am very happy with it - So much so that I actually own two of them: The earlier 36mm filter screw mount version and the slightly later version in bayonet mount taking the 39mm filter. Both are lovely lenses that I would hate to part with.