thoughts on the 35 summaron

shaaktiman · 02-19-2006

I have been considering buying an old 35 2.8 summaron for awhile but I have never spoken to anyone who has actually owned one yet. Anyone out there have any user feedback on this lens?

I already have the VC 35 2.5 classic and I wonder if the summaron's signature will be different or better enough to warrant buying it. It gets hard to compare brand new VC glass with older Leica lenses, sometimes they feel very similar aside from minor contrast differences, sometimes one slams the other outright and sometimes they are just really... different.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Adam

jaapv · 02-19-2006

I've got the 3.5 version and it is a great lens for atmospheric shots. In this shot I used it at full aperture and you can see the vignetting (which I like)

richard_l · 02-19-2006

Stopped down a bit, the f/2.8 Summaron is similar to the 35mm Summicrons. It is not low contrast like the old Elmars. The f/3.5 version is no slouch either. I have both, and they are my favorite 35s. There are a couple of albums in my gallery devoted to the Summarons.

Treb · 02-20-2006

The Summaron is a cool lens. Not quite like the v4 Summicron I now have but very nice in an Old Skool kinda way.

Tony Salce · 02-20-2006

Hi,

This is my first posting on this forum having lurked for some time.

I feel compelled to respond about the Summaron.

It is a very underrated lens. It is really a stellar performer equal to if not better and sharper than the 8 element Summicron.

It has a 3 dimensional quality unmatched by other 35's.

I like it so much I have two of them. A googled 35mm/2.8 and a normal one for an M2.

It is a great lens.

Get one if you can.

Regards,

Tony

jaapv · 02-20-2006

Hi Tony. Welcome on the forum. You have a good taste in camera's and lenses

Rico · 02-20-2006

I'm having a small love affair with the Summaron 35/2.8 in LTM. It delivers a fairly modern image. Besides the quality of finish and metal construction, I find the ergonomics to be addictive: great DOF scale, tab focus, full-aperture detents (for LTM anyways). The milled aperture ring is design perfection.

By way of comparison, the Summicron-M 35 version III has a less convenient aperture ring yet really nice DOF scale, while the version IV is the other way around! Maybe I'll use them again, one day.

All three lenses have very similar character image-wise. For the record, I only use the 35mm FL on my Leica.

Be aware that the Summaron 35/2.8 (in either mount) has an infinity lock.

Summaron portrait: http://patternassociates.com/rico/d30/misc/summaron.jpg

rover · 02-20-2006

Rico, that is a pretty deep front element, do you find it necessary to use a hood with it?

Rico · 02-20-2006

I have the 12504 (circular metal) and 12524 (square plastic) hoods which should fit the Summaron, but I don't like hoods. For RF cameras in particular, they get in the way of the VF and increase the bulk up front. But that's just me. I'll test stray-light effects at some point, but I find flare from most lenses to contribute positively to a pic. Call it photography vérité!

jaapv · 02-20-2006

The Heavystar hood is fine and looks rather nice classic style. It is somewhat smaller than the Leica hood and vented, so no or minimal VF impairment.

payasam · 02-21-2006

Agree entirely with Tony about the Summaron's three-dimensional quality.

doubs43 · 02-21-2006

Here's a shot taken with my 3.5 Summaron. It's a sharp lens and a nice improvement on the Elmar. IIRC, I used an orange filter for this picture. Film is Ilford FP-4.

Walker

Ken F. · 02-21-2006

Hey Shaak,

I also agree with Tony on this one.
Mine has been getting a lot of use lately!

Cheers,
kf

amateriat · 02-21-2006

I borrowed a (obviously early) 3.5cm Summaron from a fellow shooter a little while back and shot with it on one of my HRF bodies. Liked it a lot, and if I were to find one for not too heavy a price would likely consider it.

- Barrett

taffer · 02-21-2006

This forum is dangerous, I just agreed today to buy a nice M Summaron 35/2.8 for my M2

I've always loved that barrel shape, which I think it shares with some version of the Summicron.

I'm a sucker for 35s

wtl · 02-21-2006

Can someone show a couple of samples that this lens is sharper than Summicron? I am a bit surprised.

FrankS · 02-21-2006

I'm waiting at the moment for an f3.5 Summaron from Kyle! This is likely my last lens purchase unless some kind of amazing deal falls into my lap. (I'm done with cameras too.)

Oh Two · 02-21-2006

I use the 2.8 Summaron 99% of the time on my M4. I prefer it to the early Summicrons. It gives the classic Leica image, small and light weight. I couple two filter adapter rings together to make a compact yet plenty deep hood that does not interfere with the rangefinder view and can be accomodated by an M3 leather case. I judge it to be one of the best classic Leica lenses of all time.

Peter Klein · 02-21-2006

For what it's worth: After I got my 50/2 Dual-Range Summicron, I was raving about its particular quality with a well-known official of the LHSA. He told me that if I liked the DR, I should try the 35/2.8 Summaron--that in his opinion, the two lenses drew similar images.

Those who love the 50 DR will know what I mean by this quality. It's sharp, but not painfully so like the modern ASPH lenses, the bokeh is very smooth, and there is a bit of flare at the micro-level which renders the edges of highlights exquisitely. I hate to bring up that much-lampooned term "Leica glow," but I know it when I see it, and the DR has it. From our discussion, I believe the LHSA gentleman was referring to the same quality.

I used to have a 35/3.5 Summaron, which I liked very much, but I've never owned the 35/2.8 version.

--Peter

tajart · 02-21-2006

I bought Peter's 35/3.5 and traded it to another rff member last summer. It was the second time I had the 35/3.5 having used one as my primary lens on my IIf during the late 70s through the end of 80s. It is a great performer and oh so compact.

SergioGuerra · 02-28-2006

Beeing a new user of a 35/3.5 I must admit that it really is my actual most compact lense.

Didnt had the time to shoot it a lot (only a test film) but seems to be sharp enough ehehe
Must test some more, and maybe post it here. A pitty I am more of a 50mm guy ehehe

Cheers,

Sergio

rich815 · 02-28-2006

I ran a roll through my MP with the 35/3.5 Summaron this week. I really like the compactness of the lens, the ergonomics, and the feel, and really want to like it. You see, I've not been overly impressed so far when I've used it from time to time as it seems to lack something in the character department, not seeming all that sharp or contrasty. But people insist its a good lens.

Well, this time I took good notes as to the apertures I used, the conditions, etc. Unfortunately still not impressed. There was intrusive flare any time the sun was even close to the frame and/or if there was a bright highlight such as through windows and such. Even my Jupiter-12 seems and better performer and if it was not such a awkward lens to use would just be happy with that. I will say that stopped down and if the frame was without flare-inducing highlights and such I got much better contrast than I remember before but that was about it.

I'm really looking for something that would perform close to the great results I get with my 50/2 Summicron DR. Supposedly the 35/2.8 Summaron is a much better performer in terms of sharpness and flare-resistance and I've also heard it's character is more along the lines of the 50/2 DR. So, I'm thinking to pick one of the 35/2.8 Summarons up.

So, if anyone wants to buy a nice M-mount 35/3.5 Summaron let me know.

shaaktiman · 02-28-2006

Well, aside from that last post there seems to be a pretty effusive consensus. I've decided to not buy anything now as I should probably focus on taking photos instead of on buying another 35. I relly love the 35mm length. I have 2 leicas in 50mm and I still use my voight CV in 35 90% of the time. (partly though this is because of the small size of the CV 35. the 50s are huge or awkward by comparison.) That's why I was thinking of the summaron, I was hoping to step up the quality over my CV a bit without sacraficing pocketability (or shelling out for a pre-asph cron which is never gonna happen.)

Thanks for all the great input. For now I'm going to just stop down my CV and maybe someday I'll sell those 2 50s and get a used 35 cron. Although at this rate by next year they'll probably be over $2000 for a user.

rich815 · 02-28-2006

Did not mean to be the party-pooper, but the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Maybe I have a bad one? Maybe one just needs to be congnizant of its flare propensity? Two images attached show the issues I described.

jaapv · 03-01-2006

I think it looks more vintage than bad. I assume you used a lens-hood and no filter. That is pretty essential with this lens. Having said that I tend to use it for low-contrast situations where its superior colour differentiation and subtle rendering of fine detail come into play. Look for instance at the plasticity of the rail in both shots and the rendering of the reflection in the tunnel in the left-hand one It shows the shadow of a person there that makes that small part a photo within the photo..