35mm 2.8 0r 3.5 Summaron prices vary greatly

[Matus]

You guys really give me a hard time. For some reason I am very attracted by the Summaron 35/28, but the prices for a nice one aro 500+ € and I even do not have a camera to mount it on (the choice would probably be M6 as I need a light meter on board). But maybe one day I will drop my prejudice towards the 'tiny' format and get the M6 and Summaron ... or M6 and a 35/25.5 Summarit? ... not sure ...

[heliographer]

I've wanted the F2.8 version for years, but I'm very leery of them. Over the past 10 years I found two in my price range ($4-500) and each one had the same defect: element separation (Canadian balsam failure?). I've had two of the 3.5 Summarons and have taken some of my best pictures with them, simply because they are what I had. But even the Summaron 2.8s with the separation (I tried both before sending them back) were lovely--really lovely--in the way they rendered.

I needed something faster and got the CV Ultron 35mm F1.7 for low light. It's very nice. But I still use the Summaron when there is enough light, because it's lovely (esp. after DAG cleaned it).

One advantage of the F3.5 (and I could be remembering this wrong): I think it has the least falloff in the corners of the 35s. But the 2.8 is probably better in every other way.

[raid]

It is easier to design and produce a 35mm lens with smaller max apertures than lenses with large apertures. Each lens has its charm. I now like using the version two 35mm 1.4 Lux. The 2.8 Summaron is slow in comparison.