Old 05-26-2014   #41
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 573
Ive set up some macro shots with extension tubes with the Summaron f3.5 lens at f16..and its nothing less than ..astonishing..
  Reply With Quote

A Comparison
Old 05-26-2014   #42
Dektol Dan
Registered User
 
Dektol Dan is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 891
A Comparison

I recently bought a 1952 Canon 35mm 2.8 Serenar from a forum member, and I have posted shots from my 3.5 Summaron. For comparison here is a shot from this lens of the same period and construction. Even though it is claimed to be a 2.8, that is a tad optimistic (like most Japanese lenses, even today, ever buy a late model CV?). This is followed by 1949 35mm 3.5 Nikkor, an Elmar rather than Planar design. Note the distortion.




  Reply With Quote

Old 05-26-2014   #43
trip-xa
Registered User
 
trip-xa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 94
I have the f/3.5 LTM version also. It is a nice lens. You just can't work quickly with it.

Double Parking (some Summaron 3.5 street shots) by Fogel's Focus, on Flickr

On Line for Coffee by Fogel's Focus, on Flickr
__________________
- Dan

Leica M2, Olympus OM-1n (black), Yashica Mat (Lumaxar), marathon runner

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danfogel
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-26-2014   #44
lrochfort
Registered User
 
lrochfort is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Murphy View Post
I've used them both. They are both first rate lenses. Both nice and compact, but the 35/3.5, at least in LTM, is extraordinarily compact - a wonderful lens, particularly at home on a Leica bottom loader. For use on an M3 (or even an M2, M4), nothing is finer than a Summaron 35/2.8 with eyes (OK maybe a Summicron 35/2 with eyes!).
How do you find the goggles on the M3, David? Do they reduce the clarity of the VF or ability to focus? I'm trying to decide between an M3 and an M2 at present and think the f/3.5 Summaron would be my primary lens combined with occasional 50mm.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-26-2014   #45
Volver
Registered User
 
Volver is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #46
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 905
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?
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #47
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 573
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..
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #48
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 301
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #49
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by taemo View Post
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..

My point.. two pics with the sun at flare inducing angles. First one with the sun to the side the lens shrugged it off.

[

Second one with the sun overhead and behind the subject, deliberately framed to get flare, and I got flare.



Correct lens hood used for both shots.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #50
creenus
Registered User
 
creenus is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 34
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #51
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,736
Yes, keep it.

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

Erik.

  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #52
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post
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
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #53
Carey M
Registered User
 
Carey M is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by taemo View Post
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.
__________________
Analogue at heart.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #54
ale_f
Registered User
 
ale_f is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Milan
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey M View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #55
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,256
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
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #56
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,256
Another example:

Scallions and Leeks by bingley0522, on Flickr
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #57
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 301
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #58
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 573
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..
35mm f3.5 Summaron...


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..
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #59
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by taemo View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #60
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post

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.



  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #61
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post

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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #62
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 573
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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #63
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post
...
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #64
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 905
thanks everyone for your input.
I'm on the hunt for a goggled 5mm 3.5 summaron now
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #65
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post
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?
It's the metal lens hood from Leica that is marked Summicron 50, Summaron 3.5 (or something to that effect). I already had one for my Summicron v1 so it worked out nicely.

I have to say I am really surprised by the Summaron 35. I pixel peeped with my M240 and the lens looks really freakin' good. Bottom line, Leica does not, and never did, make weak lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #66
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,010
Summaron 3.5 goggled, M3, sun in frame, deliberate use of flare:


Same set up, backlit, sun of out frame, no flare


All images - film scanned with a Nikon D750.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #67
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 573
Thx you guys for the hood suggestions..!
I gotta get one and start using my Summaron 3.5 more..its build quality and resolution is outstanding.
Maybe I have something that fits..in my old Leica lens hood collection..
The 3.5 is also great on a micro 4/3's cam..works as a 70mm and just uses the best center part of the glass..
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #68
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 905
I received my Goggled 35mm 3.5 Summaron and ran a test roll of HP5 @1600 over the weekend
Fantastic result, matches well on my M3 DS and50mm collapsible summicron and ITDOO hood.
Leica M3 + 35mm Summaron + HP5+ @ 1600 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr

Leica M3 + 35mm Summaron + HP5+ @ 1600 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr

Leica M3 + 35mm Summaron + HP5+ @ 1600 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 16:47.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.