Does the Summaron 35/2.8 get enough love?

Thanks for the replies. It doesn't lock until infinity, but I can feel the spring-loaded mechanism starting to make the "button" move from the 3m mark. I've jammed a thin piece of plastic down the back of the button for now, which seems to be holding it in the pressed position. Ideally, I'd still like to have it removed.
 
I just remembered that TomA here at RFF is in your camp (not keen at all about infinity locks) and removed his. There might even be a hint in one of his threads here on RFF if you search, or you could ask him.
All the best, Ljós
 
The auto lock is for the screw mount version and carried over to t he M mount. On the screw mount this is believed to be an aid in removing (un screwing) the lens from the body.

Ken
 
I actually have one of Tom A’s Summaron’s
It still has the infinity lock on it ...
and a social security # etched on the side but not crudely, it's nicely done script ;)
Military personnel did this to tag their lenses and prevent theft, oh well
 
Tom A said:
... Here you can see the crudely scratched in Social Security # on the barrel. Never could figure out why people did that.
Click to expand...

There was a period in time when people were told to inscribe their SSID or driver's license ID (with various levels of crudeness) onto valuable objects, ostensibly to help in recovery from theft or possibly to discourage theft and pawning of an item. At some point this practice disappeared.

whited3 said:
Soo, anyone have a list of such lenses we do not talk about?
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes, there is. We can't show it to you or talk about it. But I can tell you with some authority that the 90/2.8 Elmarit-M is a total dog.


UWcarpenter said:
... radioactive...
Click to expand...

Excellent. In addition to this lens having the optical qualities of a Coke bottle, handling it will cause your fingers to turn red and fall off. Ship these lenses to me and I will dispose of them safely.
 
froyd said:
DO NOT remove the goggles. It will definitely not focus accurately on a regular body because the goggles change the magnification of the VF.

Regarding the deterioration in VF quality, I agree that the image darkens a bit with the goggles on, but a significant advantage is that now you get to use 50mm frame lines instead of 35, with all the added space around the frame vs 35 frame lines.

Another point regarding the Summaron: it's one of the best "feeling" lenses I've ever used in terms of smoothness of focus tab. It even makes me forget about that darned focus lock.
Click to expand...
Surely a lens focussed at 15 feet with goggles will read at 15 feet on the scale on the lens. How will it focus at a different place when goggles are removed. This is a range finder. It only requires matching of the patches to focus which should be the same regardless of how magnified the viewfinder is. If you were right then adding auxilary viewfinder magnifiers to the rear of the viewfinder would throw the focussing off.
 
Do not remove the Goggles from the Summaron - it will not focus correctly using the Rangefinder without them. You can use the distance scale to focus without them, and can make a correction scale to use the RF- but will not be able to use it to set the focus directly. I was sent a 35 Summicron some years ago that someone removed the goggles. I generated the distance scale conversion for it. The Cam used in 35mm goggled lenses requires the goggles to be in place.

A Magnifier attached to the eyepiece magnified both optical paths as they are combined before hitting the magnifier. The goggles magnify the viewfinder and RF window separately. The optics in front of the RF windows alter the parallax used to measure distance.
 
People should not overlook the Summaron 35mm f3.5 either. Although the f2.8 is a cut above (I think it was made using lanthanum glass as was the Summicron - but I am relying on memory here and too lazy to go hunting to confirm it.) Oops too late, I could not help myself and just found the reference online which confirms the above. But as I was saying the little 35mm f3.5 is very nice too with very classic Leica rendering of a type I really like. Its optical formula started in the LTM era and then in the M mount era it received a body upgrade though I believe the formula was the same. The LTM form of this lens is a little smaller in size but in my view it looks and handles less well on a M body (but is just right for an LTM). I still use my M mount version on an M8. Its only slight deficit in my view is that the earliest M version was designed for use on the M3 with an accessory mounted viewfinder as the M3 did not have 35mm framelines. Unfortunately this means that without slight modification this lens does not bring up 35mm framelines even on later cameras which have them. But this is a small price to pay for owning such a jewel and this 'problem" can be rectified by either using the cameras manual frameline lever or by modifying the lens so it triggers the correct frameline - a trivial mod although one which I have not undertaken. An alternative is to buy a "goggled" version of this lens but this tends to go for a good deal more money.
All of the above is just an option to put the f2.8 lens in perspective.
Here are some nice examples of images made with the f3.5 lens-albeit, the googled version of the lens. (Not taken by me but I thought they demonstrated what I like about this lens in its rendering).

Dan Kerin

dankerinphotography.com dankerinphotography.com
 
RBCAMERA said:
Surely a lens focussed at 15 feet with goggles will read at 15 feet on the scale on the lens. How will it focus at a different place when goggles are removed. This is a range finder. It only requires matching of the patches to focus which should be the same regardless of how magnified the viewfinder is. If you were right then adding auxilary viewfinder magnifiers to the rear of the viewfinder would throw the focussing off.
Click to expand...

Yes it seems logical but the goggle mechanism is complicated and the focusing requires the entire unit to be intact. The focusing will be way off without the goggle. Believe me I tried.
 
Last edited:
I bought mine on TomA’s urging and have it paired to my M2:







Nice descriptive article in the spirit of this thread:
fieldphotographer.org

LEICA-M SUMMARON 35mm ƒ2.8

ARLINGTON — Of all the Leica M lenses out in the world, there is one in particular that does not seem to gets its due. That lens is the 35mm f/2.8 Summaron, a lens made from 1958-1974.&…
fieldphotographer.org fieldphotographer.org
 
I cannot say how much "love" this lens gets, but it gets a lot of--use especially on my M4. I use this lens about as often as my 35 Summicron that is used mostly on my M4-P bodies. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase another one if the need arose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top