Leica "goggled" lenses

[Todd.Hanz]

I bought a 35/3.5 summaron (with goggles for my M3) last week, have shot a couple rolls with good results. So today I am fiddling around with it and figured out how to remove the goggles (all by myself). The lens looks better without it anyway so I slapped on an external finder I had on it and went out to finish my roll, disaster!
The images I shot were slightly out of focus, the ones shot with the goggles, on the same roll, were sharp. :bang:
So I guess my question is did Leica design this lens to focus with the goggles on only, or is there another issue?
The lens was designed for the M3 specifically so I wonder if the googles must be on.:confused:

Todd

[back alley]

there is a post on just this over at photo.net.
it would appear you need the googles to focus properly.

joe

here (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AS6q)

[Todd.Hanz]

Thanks Joe, aparently the goggles are needed on mine, so they are going back on!

Todd

[Brian Sweeney]

When you focus without the goggles, have you checked the distance as indicated on the lens against an actual known distance? As the flange-to-film range is unaffected my the goggles, the only think I can think of is that they change the rangefinder's behavior. That should cause the RF to disagree with the lens' distance scale.

Guess I will not take the "eyes" off of my F2.8 Summaron! But, I have the ever-ready case to use the lens with "eyes" on the camera.

[Nikon Bob]

Joe

That was the post I had in mind when replying to Mercifuls post. Nice to know that it was not the cold weather affecting my brain. I knew there was a glitch somewhere with to goggle or not to goggle.

Bob

[Todd.Hanz]

Brian,
I checked the distance and there is a difference in goggles on and off.( by about 2.5 feet) I don't think the 35/2.8 that you have needs the goggles for focus, from what I've read elsewhere. This has been a good learning experience.

Todd