35mm 3.5 Summaron for M3?

[ToddB]

Hey guy, I've been on the hunt for a Summaron 35mm 3.5 collapsable for my M3. I've seen images shot with is lens , and looks to very sharp and detailed. For the most part I've seen some that won't cost and arm and a leg. However the lens is a screw mount. What adapter is needed to jive with M3?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Hey guy, I've been on the hunt for a Summaron 35mm 3.5 collapsable for my M3. I've seen images shot with is lens , and looks to very sharp and detailed. For the most part I've seen some that won't cost and arm and a leg. However the lens is a screw mount. What adapter is needed to jive with M3?

There's a specific adapter for this lens which brings up the appropriate framelines on either the m2 or m3, I forget which. You can also use an auxiliary finder. You'll have to research it.
Be advised that these are old lenses and may need cleaning to give of their best, and be very wary of cleaning marks. I had one a long time ago, I liked it very much. BUT... I now have a $50 Jupiter 12 35/2.8 for a Kiev 4, and I really can't see a significant difference between the lenses.

 

[ToddB]

That's interesting....? Jupiter 12 go on a M3?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

That's interesting....? Jupiter 12 go on a M3?

A screwmount J-12 will, with the proper adapter. Mine is not screwmount.

 

[bdial]

I use a J 12 with a generic LTM to M adaptor on an M4-2, it works well. It's a great lens for the money. So far as I know they work with most M's , except the M5, because of the meter.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I use a J 12 with a generic LTM to M adaptor on an M4-2, it works well. It's a great lens for the money. So far as I know they work with most M's , except the M5, because of the meter.

The J-12s are fraught, too. That scary rear glass often has marks. I was lucky to get a pristine one made at Arsenal in 1961 here from the classifieds,
the screwmount versions cost more than the Kiev/Contax versions.

 

[frank]

Hey guy, I've been on the hunt for a Summaron 35mm 3.5 collapsable for my M3. I've seen images shot with is lens , and looks to very sharp and detailed. For the most part I've seen some that won't cost and arm and a leg. However the lens is a screw mount. What adapter is needed to jive with M3?

a few points:

The Summaron 35f3.5 is not collapsible. It is a very small already, rigid lens.

You will need a screw mount to M mount adaptor to mount the non-goggled M2 version of this lens to your M3.

The M3 camera has no 35mm framelines. You need an external 35mm viewfinder, or just use the entire viewfinder outside the ever-present 50mm framelines.

You can find this lens with goggles for the M3 which converts the cameras 50mm framelines to 35.

The very first f3.5 Summarons made before the M2 came out, were non-goggled with no focusing collar. It was meant to be used on the M3 with external viewfinder and scale focused.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you are going to stick with the M3 then you would probably be better off getting a Summaron with the goggles. The goggles change the viewfinder to the appropriate field of view. A screw mount will certainly work, but you would need an external finder. The Jupiter is not a bad little lens, but it is a crapshoot to get a really good copy. The Summaron is a bit underrated IMO. I would rather have it than a Summicron. Personally, I plan on sticking with my Biogon but it is a whole different kind of lens. I went through a lot of 35s before getting it. I haven't looked back.

If you like the "older" look of the Summaron, you may want to take a look at the Canon 35mm f/1.8. I had one of those years ago when they sold for a song. It was an excellent lens stopped down a bit and has a similar look to the Summaron. I am guessing it would be less than the Summaron, but I don't follow Leica prices much anymore.


Edit: whoops, posted over Frank who said the same thing.

 

[frank]

If you are going to stick with the M3 then you would probably be better off getting a Summaron with the goggles. The goggles change the viewfinder to the appropriate field of view. A screw mount will certainly work, but you would need an external finder. The Jupiter is not a bad little lens, but it is a crapshoot to get a really good copy. The Summaron is a bit underrated IMO. I would rather have it than a Summicron. Personally, I plan on sticking with my Biogon but it is a whole different kind of lens. I went through a lot of 35s before getting it. I haven't looked back.

If you like the "older" look of the Summaron, you may want to take a look at the Canon 35mm f/1.8. I had one of those years ago when they sold for a song. It was an excellent lens stopped down a bit and has a similar look to the Summaron. I am guessing it would be less than the Summaron, but I don't follow Leica prices much anymore.


Edit: whoops, posted over Frank who said the same thing.

No worries Patrick!

I had a Summaron, both the f3.5 and f2.8 versions. Great lenses. Due to gear wheeling/dealing and trading, I now have a Canon 35f2. Here is a pic with the f3.5 Summaron.