I'm in the market to purchase an M2 with either a 35 summaron or possibly a 35 summacron.(early 60's vintage or maybe later) I am fully aware of the general consensus that the summacron is the sharper of the two. I would like to find out from anyone familiar with both of these lenses on how they compare overall including contrast. I have been shooting street photagraphy for many years and have used a Rolleiflex 2 1/4x 2 1/4 almost exclusively and so I want to do more 35 work without compromising hugely on quality on 11x14 prints.

-- Steve Sharf (jedimaster888@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001

Answers

Steve:

I have been shooting street photagraphy for many years and have used a Rolleiflex 2 1/4x 2 1/4 almost exclusively and so I want to do more 35 work without compromising hugely on quality on 11x14 prints.

I use both and you will compromise going from the 6 x 6 to 35 mm at 11 x 14 [of course this depends on your definition of quality]. Still, you may get better photographs with the Leica. I have noticed a big difference in the perspectives that I get between waist level and eye level finders. It really is amazing [I assume you aren't using a prism on the Rolleiflex]. Like it isn't the same scene.

It has been decades since I have used the older Leica lenses. I use a 35 mm ASPH. It does a good job at 11 x 14. As I remember the older ones, they had less contrast, but did, indeed, produce pleasant photographs. Maybe it is just my memory that is slipping.

Others here use both to this day and can answer that one better.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

I have used both of these lenses, in the M3 versions with goggles, and IMHO there is nothing to choose between them beyond the extra stop, though neither produces negatives with the level of information you may be used to from a Xenotar or Planar. Especially in low light, you will find the inherent depth-of-focus quite liberating. Be prepared for a shock when you switch to the Leica for street photography, though. Compared to the Rollei the Leica makes a heck of a racket; you have to face what you are shooting and maybe even hold the camera up to your eye. People are likely to notice you and think "He is taking my picture" instead of "He is checking his fly.".

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

"He is taking my picture" instead of "He is checking his fly.".

which one nails the image?

I am thinking, 'what is he doing with his zipper' might yield the best expression!

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), October 21, 2001.

As a user of Leica, Nikon and Hasselblad I can't say that I can always tell or remember which 35mm shot was made with which brand, but I can always tell the medium-format (and not just because it's square)even comparing a 4x6 to 5x5. Before the Blad I used a Horseman VHR and before that a Pentax 67, and medium format always was a league ahead of 35mm in terms of detail. However, that level of fine detail that really makes a huge impact in a landscape shot but I'm not sure if it's something that will really disappoint you for street shooting. Contrast-wise, the older Leitz lenses are more in the realm of the Rolleiflex (unless yours is a GX with the HFT lens). I've got a 1963 vintage 2.8F Planar and there are similarities in the medium to medium-low contrast at wider apertures as with Leica lenses of that vintage. However for someone moving from medium format, I would tend to go for Leica lenses such as the 35/2 or 35/1.4 ASPH's, or a current 50/2. There you've got the best chance of getting some extra snap, crackle and pop out of 35mm format. Another option you might consider is a Mamiya 7 which is a medium-format rangefinder camera with interchangeable lenses and a built-in meter. If you just want a 35mm-focal-length-equivalent lens and don't miss an internal meter, the Fuji GW670III is a sweet camera with a very similar layout (albeit quite a bit larger) to the Leica, and it's maybe even quieter. It features an interlens leaf shutter that syncs all the way to 1/500, which is nice for daylight fill flash.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 21, 2001.

I am sitting here firing my M3 and Rolleiflex after reading the comment above, and I don't think I'd say the Rollei is the quieter of the two. It's a shorter, higher pitched noise than the Leica's cloth focal plane shutter, different, but not quieter in my opinion. Both the cameras are so quiet that unless you were in a deprivation tank, the noise from either isn't going to be noticed by anyone.

I use the 35 Summaron and it is very good at 2.8 and superb from f4.0 down. Mine benefited from a recent internal cleaning, and is a first rate performer in all respects--very low distortion, nice bokeh, and smooth as silk to focus. I use it with the hood and have had little problem with the various types of flare as well. I'll never sell mine. If you got a line on a nice one, grab it.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), October 21, 2001.

Stick to the Rollei.

-- Wilhelm (bmitch@home.com), October 21, 2001.

And another opinion...

Get one of the 35 asphs - 'cron or 'lux, doesn't matter - and go out and shoot a few rolls of film. You'll likely do what I did and ditch the medium format camera. The little Leica is just sooooo darn convenient!

I'd also put in a plug for an M6 over the M2. The M2 is a great camera to be sure, and it is smoother than the M6, but the built-in meter on the M6 is VERY convenient and accurate...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 21, 2001.

Why are you looking just for an M2? If it's cost, why not an M4-P or M4-2, both of which generally sell for about the same as an M2 and are 20 years newer?

Any of the Leica lenses in good condition will do an excellent job. I have the latest 35/2 ASPH myself and love it, but my older Leica lenses were very sweet too.

The look of a 35mm print will always be different from a 6x6 print at the 11x14 size. I shoot with Leica and Rolleiflex too. They're just different. Excellent results can be had with either.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), October 21, 2001.

Just kidding, andrew!..........

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), October 22, 2001.

Get an M4 instead of the M2 for quicker film loading. Even better would be to get the M6 with its TTL light meter. Since you are already used to medium format quality, a recent 35mm lens would be better in terms of contrast and sharpness than any of the earlier designs. Check out Erwin Puts' website for lens test reports. If you are working with a limited budget, then these recommendations may be irrelevant! :-)

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), October 22, 2001.

The reason I'm looking at an M2 as opposed to later models is that I find them more aesthetically pleasing. I,m a user of many vintage cameras and maybe I should have been clearer in my original query. I should have stated that I am quite aware of the inherent differences of images produced by my Rollei Planar 2.8 and images that are made by any 35mm sized negative. I do shoot 35mm as well but use medium format primarily. What I am after is simple. I like the M2. I find it to be a beautiful design. The M3 as well obviously. I want the 35 frame though without the use of eyes on the lens as would be required with an M3. So my question becomes simply this. Is there really a considerable difference between 60's M summaron and summacron lenses in the 35 focal length?

-- Steve Sharf (jedimaster888@hotmail.com), October 22, 2001.

Steve:

Simply put, the answer to your re-stated question is "YES". The newer lenses are sharper, have notably higher contrast, harder lens coatings, and are more resistant to flare. However that being said, the older lenses are still quite excellent, especially when compared to current offerings from contemporary SLR manufacturers. The increased performance of the newer lenses may not be realized when you are using slow shutter speeds hand-held, but the differences will easily be seen when the camera is tripod mounted. Also, the biggest gains in performance of the newer lenses generally fall at the wider apertures - which is where many Leica M shooters find their lenses regularly set to.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 22, 2001.

I have used two different versions of the 35mm 3.5 Summaron. One with the "eyes" with my M3 and the other without the "eyes" with my M6. Both lenses are excellent. I happen to think that no one lens is any better than any other, they are all just different with different characteristics. True, the Summicron is "sharper" but there are other lens qualities besides sharpness. The Summarons produce a "softer"image with that "vintage" look.They are also a lot less expensive than the current aspherical version of the Summicron 35 wide angle lens.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), October 22, 2001.

Steve:

One other point FYI in regard to the earlier Summaron v Summicron - The Summarons had huge curvature issues; like when you were at infinity focus in the center, the edges were in focus at just a few feet...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 23, 2001.

I have never experienced the curvature mentioned in the above response at all. Have taken many images with my 2.8 Summaron that are tack sharp corner to corner, with rich saturated colors. That lens is one of the nicest for the money for Leica M, maybe second only to the 40mm Rokkor/Summicron in value per dollar in a Leica M lens. I also happen like the look and feel of the 2.8 Summaron. If you are a vintage camera lover as you mentioned, there is something special about the older chrome Summaron/ Summicrons compared to the newer black lenses. I like the optics on the new stuff, but I don''t think they have the same feel to them. The 2.8 Summaron is a perfect match for an M2 in my opinion.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), October 23, 2001.

Andrew: In response to your last response to my original question I am interested in the fact that you are very satisfied with your 35 summaron as I read your earlier response that you also have a Rolleiflex and so are aware of 2 1/4 images. My Rollei has an ultra sharp Planar 2.8. I realize that the modern M's are most likely going to be sharper and offer more punch and this is important to me as I exhibit my work and the detail in my street work is part of my style. I know I will give up some detail , but I'm trying to lesson the punch in the changeover to 35mm while using an M2. I guess the 60's aesthetic of the classic M stuff is more important to me, strangely enough, than the final image. A large part of the satisfaction of photography to me comes from using the classic stuff. I have a line on a nice clean recently overhauled M2 with a 35 Summaron and I guess I just want to know that the lens will not be that different than a 35 Summicron of the same era and what those differences would be in hand held, usually stopped down a bit, street work.

-- Steve Sharf (jedimaster888@hotmail.com), October 23, 2001.

Steve, yes, you can safely assume the Summaron will be fine. I used to have the f/2.8 version. I never had the first complaint about its optical performance.

On theoretical grounds, the Summaron should have higher contrast. It is only a six-element design, while the 60's Cron has eight. I remember mine as very contrasty. In practical use, the Summicron is just as good, though. Eventually I traded it for a 60's 'cron which I still use. I feel the only difference is that the Summaron doesn't open out to f/2.

There seems to be some consensus on this forum that the f/3.5 Summaron was not as good as the f/2.8. But since you have located an f/2.8, that won't be a problem for you.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), October 25, 2001.