35mm f/2.8 Summaron w/eyes vs 40mm f/2.0 Summicron on M3

[marc_lieberman1]

The 35mm f/2.8 Summaron w/eyes and the 40mm f/2.0 Summicron seem to

cost about the same in good, user condition. Besides 5 mm and 1 stop,

what are the qualitative differences between these lenses. (The

Summaron wins hands down for cool.)

[jerry_lehrer]

Marc-- Lose the "cool" idea. The 40mm Summicron C is one of the finest lenses to come out of Wetzlar. If you can live with the 5 extra

millimeters, that is the lens to go for.

 

Jerry

[marc_lieberman1]

Jerry:

 

Tomorrow, for the first time, I get dressed up in a 100% polyester/nylon blend outfit consisting of black knee socks, black shorts, a yellow shirt and a whistle to referee a soccer game for 5 year-olds. I need all the help I can get in the "cool" department.

 

I'm sure that the 40mm is probably a "better" lens optically under most objective criteria (sharpness, flare suppression, blah blah, blah). The 35mm w/eyes is heavier and slower, but easier to frame because of the eyes. Mechanically, it seems to be solid like a DR Summircron--I saw one today for the first time. I was wondering whether anyone thought it produced a different look than the 40mm.

[roy_lahay]

don't forget about the Rokkor 40mm

[torben_daltoft]

The Summaron was/is significantly underrated! But some weeks ago, one w.o. the goggles sold @ 500+ USD. In addition, quite often you don't need a hood, due to the recessed front element

[richard_saylor]

FWIW here are my opinions as a user of both those lenses on an M3. (I refrain from giving an evaluation of any lens unless I have personally shot several rolls with it.)

 

If you want to use filters, get the 40mm M-Rokkor which has standard 40.5mm filter threads. It is identical optically to the 40mm Summicron-C.

 

However, if you prefer 35mm, there's no reason not to get the Summaron. I have found no practical differences in image quality between the 40mm Rokkor/Summicron and the 35mm/2.8 Summaron w/eyes, both of which I use on the M3. As someone mentioned, it is easier to frame using the Summaron. (I just use the entire viewfinder for the Rokkor rather than getting a 40mm finder. Not perfect, but it's okay.)

[dan flanders]

BTW: If you want a good inexpensive VF for a 40mm lens find a junk Polaroid with the flip-up bright line finder and salvage it. I have two, one in the original flip-up mount and one I have rebuilt into a smaller unit. Both are excellent for the 40 and with a little guessing will do for the 35 & 50. I bought two old Polaroids for five bucks apiece and still have some interesting parts left over though I probably should junk them to keep the place a bit neater. Anyhow, I don't get bothered too much about VFs but with the current costs a good salvage job will be worth the effort.

[nzdavid]

The Summaron is a nice lens, just heavy!

[richard_saylor]

Assuming my scale is not too far off: Summaron w/eyes - 242g, 40mm Rokkor - 108g

[peter]

I have the Summaron (without eyes but optically identical.) I agree that it is under rated - its a fine lens. I do not have the 40 mm Summi but have two varieties of the summi 50 including the one with Near Focus eyes that is contemporary with the Summaron. To my eyes the rendition is similar (lowish contract and good resolution) although no doubt technically the Summi is better (eg in corners etc.)

[james_itard1]

I shot a quick test in b&w with the 2.8 Summaron and the 40 Summicron C on an M3.

The Summaron had signicantly better contrast wide open than the Summicron C. The

out of focus areas were better rendered, at least to my taste. The Summaron is terrific

with color--at night with Portra 800 and natural light interiors--very 3D. Putts

somewhere says it's better at 2.8 than the eight element Summicron of the same

generation is at 2.8.