35mm Summicron 1st ver. with eyes

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by raymond_tai, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. I notice the 8-element 35mm Summicron with eyes goes for significantly less than
    the M2 version. Are there any problems associated with the eyes? Can anyone with
    this lens describe what it looks like looking through a viewfinder with the eyes
    attached? Is it heavily distorted and dimmer? Thanks.
  2. a m

    a m

    Some answers:

    1. The 35 8-element with eyes may be cheaper because it is only needed with the M3. All other M cameras can use the non-eye version because they have the 35 mm frame built in to their viewfinders.

    2. You CAN use the version with eyes on any M camera. It brings up the 50 mm frame but optically corrects the view to be appropriate for the 35 mm coverage. I use the 35 often with my m2 cameras.

    3. Problem 1: it is difficult to keep the eyes in correct alignment. A vertical mismatch is irritating but not a major problem. A horizontal error is also not important because a minor focus shift is insignificant with a 35 mm focal length.

    4. Problem 2: If the eyes are dirty or have fungus, they may be difficult to clean. They were made with the infamous soft coating.

    5. Problem 3. The lens is a bit bulky, but I keep mine is a soft cloth pouch in my camera bag.

    6. Dimmer: no

    7. Distorted: maybe a slight amount but I do not notice it at all.

    8. Advantage on the M3: closer focussing than the non-eye version.

    9. Advantage 2: Cool retro look.
  3. Andrew has it covered. I find the viewfinder distortion from the eyes annoying. The distortion is a very slight curvature of straight lines near the edges of the frame. I suppose it is a bit dimmer than using a lens without eyes but not enough that you'd notice. If you don't mind the extra bulk enjoy your monetary savings!
  4. Al, out of curiousity, are there any leica lenses you have not tried personally?
  5. advantage number three: great quality, even wide open as in this picture.
  6. "melktandjes" means first teeth...
  7. lovely shot Kurt

  8. Travis, hell yes, there are lots of Leica lenses I've never tried! 21/4 Super Angulon and 28/6.3 Hektor to start, but I owned a 28/5.6! I also owned a 50/2.5 Hektor at one point. I've seen the 50/1.5 Xenon but never used it, same with the 90/2.2 Thambar and 85/1.5 Summarex. Never tried a Nokti in either f/1 or 1.2 versions. Never used a 50 Elmar. I did shoot with the Visoflex mount 180/2.8 Elmarit once, but stupid me, did't try to come up with the $200 the guy wanted. Never tried the 560 or 800mm Telyts either. And keeping up wih all the editions and variations - forget it.
  9. <<Al, out of curiousity, are there any leica lenses you have not tried personally?>>

    If he hasn't, I probably have ;>)
  10. The lens RF cam on the eyes version is ground differently than that of the non-eyed version. Hence if use it on other than an M3, in particular at the more open aperatures and close up, you will not be focusing accurately.

    DOF will only do so much.

    Using the "taller" top cover bodies might pose a problem also, but I don't have any so don't know.


  11. a m

    a m

    "The lens RF cam on the eyes version is ground differently than that of the non-eyed version."

    Not true, it is not possible. Where did you hear this? Just think about the geometry of the mechanism. It takes a certain number of mm excursion of the rangefinder arm to move from infinity to 1 m. A 35 mm lens is a 35 mm lens. How can one 35 mm lens focus at both infinity and at close distance if it moves the arm a certain no. of mm, and another 35 mm lens have a different excursion? What the goggle and non-goggle versions of the 35 are doing are activating different viewfinder frames, but the focus cam has to be identical.
  12. Don't know about the 'cron, but a number of people say the similar (AND slower) Summaron does not work without the goggles: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004sww
  13. "The lens RF cam on the eyes version is ground differently than that of the non-eyed version."
    Not true, it is not possible. Where did you hear this?

    This come up often here. I know, not from theory, but from trying with two lenses that the eyes are needed to focus correctly. I tried to minimize the size of my bug-eyed 35mm lenses when I got my M2, and upon removing the eyes, the only distance that was correct was infinity. I put the eyes back on (only two screws) and all was well. Sold both of my eyed lenses and bought a proper stand alone 35mm lens.
    Here is a link from the archives on this topic, and while some exclaimed that the eyes couldn't effect the focusing, one person, Andrew Schank took my up on my challenge and removed the eye from his lens. He reported his results in a simple..."not even close." referring to the distance from the lens' scale against the actual distance. From archives
    Additionally, there are often query's on the LUG about this... I link three: From the LUG 1 , From the LUG 2 , From the LUG 3
  14. rgh


    I have both lenses in front of me here: a 35mm Summicron 1st version M2 mount and
    a M3 goggled version. You can see the difference in the focus cam height, also this is
    confirmed when I removed the goggles of the M3 version and the focus is off by
    quite a bit - example: M2 version focused at 3 meter, the M3 version (removed
    goggles) focus at 2
    meters. This is a big difference. The goggles do change the viewing angle of the
    rangefinder it seems.

    Personally I don't like the goggles - bulk, weight, and view distortion, but the M3
    version is the same glass, just a less compact mount since the goggles ARE needed,
    but a 'bargain' compared to the 'collectors' M2 version.
  15. Can the goggled version be used accurately on the M2, M6, (with the goggles on) or
    is it for the M3 only?
  16. rgh


    The goggled version can be used on any M-series camera with correct focus and
    framing, it brings up the 50mm
    frames and corrects the view with the goggles for 35mm.
  17. Just to clarify - the goggled lenses can be used on any M camera (assumming they physically fit) SO LONG AS you use the goggles.

    A goggled lens will focus incorrectly on any M camera (including the M3) if the goggles are NOT used.

    The image reduction (or, in the case of the 135, enlargement) produced by the goggles changes the geometry of the rangefinder optical system, thus the cams in goggled lenses are cut differently to match the 'goggled' geometry - and only work correctly in that setting.

    Since I used rangefinders mostly for their compactness, the goggled lenses have zero attraction for me at any price - they're just too bulky, on or off the camera. There is a very good reason why Leica shifted away from the M3 magnification viewfinder (with no 35 frame built-in) to something that didn't need goggled lenses for all subsequent M bodies. The goggles are a royal PITA and the pros using their cameras told them to knock it off.

Share This Page