Summicron 35mm 2 vs Summaron 35mm 2.8 - M3 usage?

Hi all,

 

I’m keen to add a 35mm lens to my M3 collection as I have been shooting a fair amount of 35mm on other bodies.

 

I’ve been looking at the Summicron 35mm f/2 V1 vs the Summaron f/2.8, both with goggles.

 

The Summicron demands a higher price on most that I’ve seen but I wonder whether the extra £££ is worth the outlay vs the cheaper Summaron. You’re losing .8 of a stop but I wonder what this translates to in real world usage?

 

Anyone have any experiences of these lenses and can offer some insight?

 

Thanks in advance.

The rendering is different. Puts details the differences at different apertures. Both render softer corners than more current designs. I had the models without the goggles for use on my M2 & M4, which made the lenses very compact and easy to use. I sold the Summicron and kept the Summaron for about 20 years. Eventually I wanted an overall crisper rendition at this focal length and tried the Cron IV (really an excellent lens) and the Lux 35 (IMHO pricy for similar rendition to the Cron as I rarely used it wide open). When I bought into some of the Barnack body models, I tried Voigtlander's Color Skopar, which really did the job for me as a landscape lens and was usable on both the LTM & M mount bodies, and sold the Leica Cron & Lux. Looking back, I probably should have kept the Summaron for its lowr contrast rendition, but given current proces I am not really tempted to bother. I have heard some really great comments about VC's 35mm Ultron, but it is a litle large for my tastes.

Knowing how old either a Summicron or Summaron with goggles is at this point, and most of either have one issue or another unless they've recently been serviced, I'd probably be more inclined to buy the first "good" one I found and could afford, no matter which one it is.

 

No doubt the goggled Summicron is both faster and fewer in original number due to the less-expensive original price of the Summaron, so good Summicron versions will be "up there", cost-wise.

I agree with Greg. I also think the goggles are not really worth the extra. When I had an M3 I had a non-goggled f2.8 Summaron and used a Russian external 35mm viewfinder. I was very happy with the Summaron, although I would always go for a faster lens if I could. If you are not set on the goggles, then there are more options.

Thanks for all your thoughts.

 

I was keen on the goggles as I felt it might make things easier in terms of speed - having the magnified framelines rather than switching between viewfinder and focus, although I guess it just take some getting used to.

 

If that was the case, should I be looking at a higher version of a 35 that would suit the M3?

If you dispense with the goggles and just use a 35mm VF in the accessory shoe, then any Leica 35mm M-mount lens will work, even any of the non-Leica 35's made by Voigtlander or Zeiss in M Mount, but I can definitely understand if one prefers to stick with Leica lenses. That's part of the draw of the system.

If you dispense with the goggles and just use a 35mm VF in the accessory shoe, then any Leica 35mm M-mount lens will work, even any of the non-Leica 35's made by Voigtlander or Zeiss in M Mount, but I can definitely understand if one prefers to stick with Leica lenses. That's part of the draw of the system.

 

Yes, I currently use a Zeiss 50mm on the M3 so was keen to get some Leica glass as well.

You’re losing .8 of a stop

 

Just a pedantic correction: you loose 1 stop ;-)

While I don't use a Leica M system (so can't comment on the lenses in particular), in general, whether that extra stop of light matters or not depends a lot of what kind of photos you make. I tend to shoot a reasonable amount in low to extremely low light, and then every stop counts, for example. For daylight work with normal speed film, it's not all that important. For shots with little depth of field, the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 isn't huge, but at closer ranges certainly noticeable.

Personally, I believe I'd probably opt for a Voigtlander Nokton Classic SC (similar renditions to the v1 Summicron and it's a full stop faster) and an external finder. You get used to an external finder - just be patient. OTOH, the goggled Summicron is a classic lens and would be tempting nostalgia (an M3 and goggled Summicron were what I learned photography on). But after examining the price differential I think I'd get over it..

Just a pedantic correction: you loose 1 stop ;-)

While I don't use a Leica M system (so can't comment on the lenses in particular), in general, whether that extra stop of light matters or not depends a lot of what kind of photos you make. I tend to shoot a reasonable amount in low to extremely low light, and then every stop counts, for example. For daylight work with normal speed film, it's not all that important. For shots with little depth of field, the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 isn't huge, but at closer ranges certainly noticeable.

 

Thanks re the stop! I tend to shot a variety of things including street scenes - therefore a decent extra stop is useful.

 

Personally, I believe I'd probably opt for a Voigtlander Nokton Classic SC (similar renditions to the v1 Summicron and it's a full stop faster) and an external finder. You get used to an external finder - just be patient. OTOH, the goggled Summicron is a classic lens and would be tempting nostalgia (an M3 and goggled Summicron were what I learned photography on). But after examining the price differential I think I'd get over it..

 

That's a good tip. Would you go for a SBLOO viewfinder or a Voigtlander to match the lens make? As you say I would need to get used to it...

See my post December 14, 2017 and the forum's 20 responses. I'm using my M3 with a external viewfinder and it works fine. The very bright M3 rangefinder really works in low light together with the external viewfinder. I've also tried it on an M4-2; the trade-off is focusing brightness v. framing. I prefer the M3 because of the bright rangefinder.

"... Would you go for a SBLOO viewfinder or a Voigtlander to match the lens make? As you say I would need to get used to it."

 

It's only a finder and those made by CV are pretty good. Of these, I much prefer the now discontinued 35mm plastic (glass optics) finders compared to the metal ones they're making now, but they're getting hard to find.

I have the Summicron and Summilux with bugeye finders. Definitely worth having with the M3.

IMHO the Summicron is overpriced compared with the 2.8 Summiron, while the 3.5 Summiron is definitely a grade below.

I have owned Summicron with googles for at least three decades. A comfortable way to shoot 35 using M3. Use SBLOO mainly with ltm cameras, but like the low profile of the CV 28/35 finder with pancake lens when traveling light with M3. By the way, could never get this CV finder onto shoe of Leica ltm cameras.

One advantage of not using the goggled version is that they are a lot harder to fit into a small camera bag. A non-goggled Summicron or Summicron is tiny, and will fit into the smallest bag compartments or in the pockets!

 

External finders are nothing to be afraid of. For wide angle lenses especially, they are easy to frame with!

advantage of not using the goggled version is that they are a lot harder to fit into a small camera bag" Rob F.

Other reasons NOT to use or buy the 'Googled/Rabbit Ears' version:

1. The permanent viewfinder is RF focus calibrated individually. So if the 'googles' are slightly off, then your perfectly RF calibrated Leica M3 is now off.
   
2. The extra six pieces of glass in the Perm VF, easily accumulate fog/haze due to age, environment and adhesive out-gassing.
   
3. The 'Stick-out-like-a-sore-thumb' cumbersome design is easily 'bumped' causing a shock or impact loss of RF calibration.
   
4. Though usable on modern mirrorless digitals, removal of Perm VF doesn't allow for proper LTM or M mount RF & film plane focus.
   
5. Performing the labor intensive calibration of the lens elements and then also the Perm VF, raises the service fees approx 50% !
   

Below are images from the right-side edge cropped to approx 80% from Full Frame.

All lenses have been serviced...

 

First is the "Full Frame" with the best performer of the three samples (8-Element 35mm Summicron) shot at f/5.6

#2 is 80% of the 8-Element 35mm Summicron LTM-M f/2 shot @ f/5.6

#3 is a 35mm Summaron-M f/2.8 shot @ f/2.8 (Wide Open)

#4 is a 8-Element 35mm Summicron LTM-M f/2 shot @ f/2.8

#5 is a 35mm Summilux ver.2 f/1.4 shot @ f/2.8

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Gus Lazzari

I tested the "Cheaper" 35mm ASPH Summicron, and a serviced 1960's no coating damage 8-Element 35mm Summicron

(Kind of rare to find due to soft coatings). Overall, it's still IMHO better than its modern 'great grandson' equivalent...

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Gus Lazzari

Other reasons NOT to use or buy the 'Goggled/Rabbit Ears' version:

They're historically called goggles - not googles.

 

But The Great Gus can call them whatever he likes. ...

That's too funny Bill - You're absolutely right ! I think "Goggles" fits best...

Goggles - Googles - Bugeye - Rabbit Ears - Finder Attachment - Perm VF

Anymore out there ?

 

Odd (Design), micro lenses sensor, 'focus shift' &/or DOF - These 100% crops near the center zone, showed wood planks on a distant barn to be 'sharp'.

But some other portions were also 'crazy' in-focus. Focused on the distant planks, both lenses were shot at f/2 !!!

 

First is "Full Frame" (Showing its heavy vignetting & 'Glow'), an 8-Element 35mm Summicron shot at f/2

Both were shot with a Leica M240 digital.

 

#2 is a 100% crop of the 8-Element 35mm Summicron Goggled-M f/2 shot @ f/2 (Yes, a very impressive 50 year old lens !)

#3 is a 100% crop of the ASPH 35mm Summicron f/2 shot @ f/2 (Computer designed with modern glass)