Hi, It's finally occurred to me I can't afford a Summicron right now. I love the 35mm framing though and have scraped together $400 for a 35mm Summaron. On a little investigation I see there are some that wont activate the bright lines finders on my M6 and some that will. I guess I can tell by serial number what's what but haven't found any specifics anywhere. I don't think I need nor do I want to deal with the eyes either . Also any opinions on the 2.8 vs. 3.5 besides the obvious extra stop. Thanks, Warren Allen

-- Warren Allen (whatrix@home.com), December 10, 2001

Answers

This is a classical double gauss six elements design, leitz designers upgraded it with two extra elements in the first design of the 35 summicron; it gets the benefits of lanthar glass so it´s up luminocity from 3.5 to 2.8.

May I say that 2.8 performace is below of thet of the first 35/2 at F/2; but from 4 contrast gets up; a good lent to use at day ligth with slow or medium speed film.

I don´t recoment to buy the M3 version (the one with the eyes), even you could use it direct on your M6, the regular version would be the most comfortable.

And very important, look for discementing all over lens surfaces, you don´t want it.

Good luck.

here an example at 2.8

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.

I have had several examples of both the f/2.8 and f/3.5 lenses, and while the f/3.5 was a good lens in its time, the f/2.8 performs better in my opinion. On paper, there is not a full stop of difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8, but my two f/3.5 lenses wide open under exposed the film (slides), so they may have been closer to f/4.0 than the marked f/3.5.

The f/2.8 lenses that I had were very nice, and while I did use them wide open when needed, they were outstanding in the middle apertures. I only traded up to a Summicron because of the need for a faster aperture, but in good light, the f/2.8 has given me hundreds of great slides.

One thing I did like the old f/3.5 for was deep focus effects. The Summicron only closes to f/16, and diffraction occurs about f/11. With the old Summaron f/3.5, the image doesn't degrade at small apertures, and it went to f/22, so I could get those deep near / far relationships in landscapes better.

FYI the codes and cat. no. for the two lenses are as follows: f/2.8 version SIMOM for M2 type(cat no 11306) and SIMOW for M3 type (cat no 11106). And f/3.5 version SOONC-M for the M2 and SOONC-MW for the M3.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 10, 2001.

Warren, I had the same dilema except I am a LTM user mostly using a IIIc and a Canon-P. I wanted a Summicron 35 my only choice being the limited edition screw version for over $1000. I was going to purchase the Ultron 1.7 but decided upon the Canon 35/2 after reading the LUG archives and mostly outstanding reviews of this lens there. People there compare it to the 2nd or 3rd version of the Summicron.I picked one up for $300. I had a Summaron 3.5 on a M2 for many years and was not impressed. Maybe the 2.8 is better or I had a bad example. I am currently using a Jupiter 35/2.8 and it is a pretty decent lens. I wanted the extra stop and am hoping the Canon gives slightly better results. My suggestion would be since you have $400 would be to try the Jupiter which is probably comparable to the Summaron, and can be had for around $60-70. See if you like the 35mm length and use the money leftover to save for the Summaron later on.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), December 10, 2001.

If you've "scraped together $400," then you certainly might want to give the Ultron 35mm f/1.7 a look, since you should be able to find it new for less than that, including the price of an LTM to M adapter ring. Getting the right ring will ensure that it brings up the right lines in the finder, too. It's big compared to the older 35s (about like a 50mm Summicron, maybe), but I think it's a nice size to use on an M camera. It cuts into the 35mm finder frame on a Bessa-R, but it's not as much of a problem on an M.

If you're waiting to afford a Summicron, and you don't want to try a Jupiter, you might also check the smaller Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5. It's much smaller than the Ultron, and cheaper. And since it's small, cheap, and only f/2.5, you'll have an easier time justifying a Leica purchase when you decide that what you really want is a 35mm Summilux ASPH.

-- John Morris (jtmorris@slb.com), December 10, 2001.

Warren:

Tamarkin.com had a 35mm Summicron on sale for $599 a few days ago. The Summaron is an older design. The Summicron is obviously better and is a stop faster. If you can increase your lens budget, I would recommend getting the Summicron. I have the latest Summicron ASPH, and it is a stunning performer!

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), December 10, 2001.

Warren,

The Voigtlander 35mm Ultron 1.7 is your best bet.

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@lsqgroup.com), December 10, 2001.

I hate the 35mm focal length, but I have to admit that my 35/1.7 Ultron is one spectacular lens for the $$$!

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.

The 2.8 Summaron is a very useable lens with good contrast. Its only fault is that it won't open up to F/2! In practical photograpy in daily use, there's nothing not to like.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 10, 2001.

If you like the look of the older classic lenses, the 2.8 Summaron is a very good one. It is considerably better than the f3.5 version at the wider openings, and perfectly useable at f2.8. (I had the f3.5, and it wan't that sharp until f8.0).

I did some side by side comparisons with the 2.8 version and my 40 Rokkor, and couldn't tell the difference. And the 40 Rokkor is superb--every bit as good as the pre-aspheric Summicron, so that says a lot. The Voiglander lens is excellent optically, but it is rather large, and doesn't have the same focus feel and look as the classic Leica lenses.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 10, 2001.

Warren: I have used the 3.5 Summaron for years, first with my M3 (lens with "eyes") then I purchased one without "eyes" for my M6. Excellent lens and the price is right. I traded a 90mm Elmar C lens for the Summaron without the eyes. The dealer here was asking $275.00 for the lens. I traded my lens for the Summaron then sent the lens off to Leica for a CLA. This cost about $114.00 but the lens is like new and produces excellent images. I especially like its small size. Great alternative to purchasing the much more expensive Summicron 35.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), December 11, 2001.

I just compared in equal conditions three double-Gauss-type lenses: the Summaron 35mm f2.8, the Summaron (2 items) 35mm f3.5 (both with eyes, coated, 6e/4g), and the Summicron 35mm f2.0 (the first version of 1958, 8 elements in 6 groups). The film: Kodak 100 Pro, cameras: two M3 and the M4P. All three lenses are in perfect condition, absolutely clean and clear with no any cleaning marks, spots and fog. The conditions of shooting: 1) sun shining, slightly cloudy, F-stop: full open, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 16; lens shade; 2) interior, F-stop: full open only, lens shade, the heavy Linhof tripod, no flash.

All three films were developed and printed in the same pro lab on format 15 X 21.5cm.

Results of expertise by three (including me) independent experts made: there is no any flare at all on the pics having either the sun or its water reflections in the frame along with full resolving of fine details in deep shadows. There is no any* difference between shots made with ‘cron and both (+1) Summaron’s: a very crisp rendering with subtle color saturation, high contrast and resolving power either wide open or stopped down. *The Summicron shows very slightly less contrast in any conditions, as two experts (including me) do notice (issue of 12 borders air/glass vs 8 ones). The pics taken with Summaron’s full open have no any difference between them, while they differ a bit from the ones taken with the Summicron full open: the last make slightly less contrast. All three lenses make a good-looking bokeh. The pics made in the interior have less contrast than ones taken in exterior, while they still show a very good resolving of fine details and color rendition. The bottom line: all three lens are great performers.(Believe my words as I have no a scanner yet).

Happy holidays to everybody at this forum.

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), December 18, 2001.