ari_kermaier

<p>I really love my Canon 25/3.5 LTM. I hope one day to have an M9 for it, but for now it does well on my Epson R-D1s:</p> <p><img src="http://kermaier.smugmug.com/Photography/Public-Samples/i-xsvzbPV/0/L/_EPS9877_bw-M.jpg" alt="" /> <br /><strong>R-D1s, ISO 1600, Canon 25/3.5 @ f/4</strong></p> <p>The copy I used for this shot had lots of fine coating scratches on the front lens element, so it had an even greater tendency than normal to flare.<br> BTW, I'd be interested if you could comment on the corner/edge performance of the lens on your M9, given it's deep rear element -- is there much color shift or resolution loss/smearing? (The R-D1 has a 1.5x crop sensor, so I'm not seeing the edges of the lens' image circle in my pictures.)</p>

<p>I just noticed that your last post indicated you were returning the lens -- it's a shame that you didn't actually film-test it first, because it's certainly not a hacked M3 version, and the Summaron 35/2.8 is a wonderful lens, especially wide open and up close. Oh well.</p>

<p>It is definitely not an M3 "googles" version of the Summaron, which can be definitively seen by the focus scale. The M3 version focuses to 0.65m, while the M2/M4 version focuses to 0.7m.<br /> FYI, there were 4 version of the 35/2.8 Summaron produced:<br /> 1. M-mount (min focus 0.7m)<br /> 2. Screw-mount (min focus 1m)<br /> 3. M-mount convertible to screw mount (min focus 0.7m)<br /> 4. M-mount with goggles (min focus 0.65m)<br /> As you originally surmised, your lens is an example of #3, with the chrome finish worn off the outer edge of the removable mounting flange. (John Shriver is correct that a hacked goggled version will not focus correctly on a non-M3 body, but your lens isn't one of those.)</p>