Jump to content

Summaron 35/3.5


luis_rives

Recommended Posts

I have come across a Summaron 35/3.5 with the finder attachment, however it appears to be detachable similar to

the 50/2 DR. My understanding is that the focus scale on the lens barrel is related to the magnification factor

produced by the finder attachment, so that if you use the lens without the finder attachment (in addition to

calling up the 50 frame lines) the distance read on the lens at a particular focus point will not be accurate.

Can the experts on this forum, clarify this particular lens for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To clarify the earlier response: The distance read on the lens is correct. The rangefinder cam is ground such that the lens will ONLY focus properly with the finder attachment on while using the rangefinder. I ran several tests on mine years ago and can personally attest to this. I found the lens on the soft side and preferred a faster one.</p>

<p>Mark J.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood, however it does not make sense that the finder device is removable from the lens (see the attached photo, knob on top of finder device and slots in the finder device for the lens to slide into, just like the 50 DR). If the lens did not focus properly thru the rf without the finder device, what purpose could have been served by making it removable? In later versions of this lens the finder device could not be separated from the lens without unscrewing from the lens, clearly intending both items to work as a unit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To confirm what everybody's saying, simply focus on a subject with "googles" on then off.<br /> If you have to move the focus helical each time to put the RF back to focus, then the "rabbit ears" need to stay on.</p>

<p>The cool thing about this design, is that it's made for <strong>quick use</strong> with Leica M3 <strong>and</strong> mirrorless cameras...<br /> (Mirrorless cameras of course doesn't care about the cam or scale error, it becomes a SLR lens)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>You should stay away from that lens. Try to get the 2.8, which is much much better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 2.8 Summaron is a great lens. I've had one for years. But I've never heard anything bad about the 3.5. Why should he stay away?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...