Summicron 35/2 with Eyes on a M-4

[Richard Jepsen]

I am considering the purchase of a 8 element 35/2 for use on a M4. I understand the 35 field of view is presented in the 50 frame. This seems an advantage if you wear glasses and need eye relief. The disadvantage is the clunky appearance and the finders flair.

Does anyone use the 35/2 v1 googled version with a non M-3 and do you like it.

 

[antmar]

I am using for more than two years now my 35/2 v1 Summicron without goggles & my 35/2 Summaron with googlies on my M6, M2 & M3. As I am wearing glasses I find easier and more pleasant to use the Summaron on the M2 and the Summicron on the M6. Focusing is never a problem as the goggles have a very clear view although a little shallow. When I have to use the Summicron on the M2 or the Summaron on the M3, which would be the natural pares, then I can't see the framelines easily and for this reason I always move my eye here and there and I always do lesser compositions.
I like more the images that I take from the Summaron but I am using more often the Summicron because of the extra weight, volume and fragility of the goggles.
Hope that I helped a little.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Antmar, you confirm using the eyes "finder" attachment akesit easier to see the whole frame with a .72x finder. The 50 frame becomes the 35mm field of view...I think I'm saying that right. Why do you like the images from the Summaron?

 

[Xmas]

The /2.8 wide open has a better MTF than the /2 @ /2.8...

 

[antmar]

Dear Richard
I am using my 35mm Summicron without eyes on my M6 and my 35mm Summaron with eyes on my M2.
Summaron has better contrast in B&W, better bokeh and absolutely no flare no matter if the sun is in the frame (I like to shoot against the light very often).
Summicron is an excellent lens (no one could deny this) but is more sterile than I would like. Both the lenses are more sharp that needed even from wide open and I don't think that sharpness is so important. If this matters to you I find that the Summaron is sharper at f:8 or f:11 and equally sharp at f:2.8 (I never did a side by side comparison but I used them both for more that 300 films).
I have to say that I love both my lenses and maybe a reason that I like more the Summaron is the insane price of the 35mm v1 summicron.

 

[elekm]

I had the lens + "goggles" and found that it added significantly (and unnecessarily) to the weight of the camera.

It's debatable whether a lens + separate viewfinder is the better route, compared with the extra weight of the "goggles."

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Atmar, I agree with you sharpness is overrated. The Mandler designed Leitz optics are perfect for B&W. The latest designs are clinical. I heard it said the less perfect the lens the more interesting the picture.

The Leica Historical Society published a very favorable article on the high resolution and overall image quality of the Summaron.

I'm shooting with a mint 50/2 collapsible and printing with a Valoy 2. The 8x12 prints are rich, grainless and full of detail. Film was FP-4 developed in XTOL 1:1 shot during a late Oklahoma spring in full sunshine and cross light. Extended development 1 min to better match Galerie's contrast curve and counter lens contrast.

The 35/2 just happens to be available locally....I'm not even sure of the price but the 8 element "eyes" should be less expensive. I'm forever surprised at prices.

I have been so impressed with the collapsible's resolution and how it draws it has me thinking of a 35 v1.

 

[summicron1]

The googles are made with the M3 in mind but work on all M cameras just fine.

i wouldn't stress out over whether you have the 8 or 7 element lens -- the most important aspect of the picture is you, not the lens. The googles on the lens do make the camera heavier and a bit clunkier, they also make the image a titch dimmer. If that is a problem, find a 35mm lens that doesn't have them and use the 35mm frame.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

The Summaron is 6 elements in 4 groups. Is the background OOF smooth or is the 8 element draw a nicer image. Does the Summaron have issues vignetting wide open?

 

[Barry Kirsten]

I'm thinking about getting a Leica sometime soon, either a IIIf or an M3. In either case (and I may get a roasting for this question) may I ask is a finder really necessary? The field at 35 mm is only slightly larger than 50 mm, so isn't it possible to judge fairly closely by using the 50 mm frame? As I understand the Leica rangefinders, focus is independent of the viewfinder so that each lens will work with the rangefinder. Over the years I've accumulated so much unnecessary equipment and am now aware that I need to simplify my equipment. If there really is a need to get a finder or goggles, so be it, but as I mainly do landscape work, I feel confident to take a risk. Am I off track? Thanks,

Barry

 

[elekm]

You might be able to do this with an M but not with a IIIf.

Although purists would say that you should get a Leica viewfinder, you could in fact get an inexpensive third-party finder and use that instead.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Barry, if you attach any non googled 35 M mount to a M camera it brings up the 35 frame line. The Minolta 40/2 released with the CLE and CL brings up the 50. If you shoot with a 40/2 you can estimate the 35 frame as you compose inside the 50 frame; or toggle the 35 frame and compose.

The 35 field of view on M cameras with a 28 frame line records more image on film than composed inside the 35 frame line.

Leica squeezed the 28 frame line into the finder system by shrinking the 50 and 35 frames.

"I only wanted Uncle Vernon standing by his own car (a Hudson) on a clear day, I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary’s laundry and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on the fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It’s a generous medium, photography." - Lee Friedlander

The 40/2 will match on film what you see in the 35 frame line.

 

[Barry Kirsten]

Thanks Mike and Richard for your helpful replies. If I may pursue the matter a little further... The IIIf only has a 50 mm viewfinder, and the M3 has 50, 90 and 135 framelines, correct? As I understand it, with a 35 mm lens attached to either of these you would only see the 50 mm field, which is about 70% of the 35 mm lens field. So if a photographer was reckless (mad/stupid/sloppy) enough to work like that, would the Leica would still focus correctly? (I would of course get the genuine article if goggles or finder were necessary.) Many thanks,

Barry

 

[davela]

In my bettered financially healed days I owned the 35/2.8 Summaron with eyes and used it on M2's and M3's. It was an incredible lens and the build quality of the whole setup has never really been exceeded by anything I've owned since. I found it very natural to use in practice as well. I can only imagine how nice the 35/2 Cron would be. I'd go for it if I were you!

 

[Barry Kirsten]

Thanks Dave, sounds like solid advice. I found your blog very interesting.

Barry

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

I'm thinking about getting a Leica sometime soon, either a IIIf or an M3. In either case (and I may get a roasting for this question) may I ask is a finder really necessary? The field at 35 mm is only slightly larger than 50 mm, so isn't it possible to judge fairly closely by using the 50 mm frame? As I understand the Leica rangefinders, focus is independent of the viewfinder so that each lens will work with the rangefinder. Over the years I've accumulated so much unnecessary equipment and am now aware that I need to simplify my equipment. If there really is a need to get a finder or goggles, so be it, but as I mainly do landscape work, I feel confident to take a risk. Am I off track? Thanks,

Barry

On the M3, 35mm field of view pretty much corresponds to everything you see in the finder (outside the 50mm framelines). This only works if you don't wear glasses...

Rolfe

 

[Barry Kirsten]

Thanks Rolfe, I had a feeling that might be the case. I don't yet own a Leica and am doing a lot of homework before I take the plunge. I am open minded about goggles and accessory viewfinders, but still want to keep things simple. I've made too many costly mistakes in the past, accumulating gear I really didn't need. Time for a sale methinks.

Thanks everyone,

Barry

 

[blind_sparks]

This is the set-up that I use on my M4 - I love it. I used to use an Canon 35 on my M2 and was always having to move my eye around the finder to get an idea of exact framing. In my opinion the added bulk is nothing to get too worried about - The finder does 'ghost' in certain conditions, and one can see the 'tunnel' of the finder optics extending into the viewfinder area. Other than those two things, it's my favorite combination. The 8-element Summicron is a real gem, finder optics or not!

 

[davela]

Yes I agree. The "eyes" approach while seeming a little weird to those who've not used it is, IMO is actually a brilliant piece of engineering that Leica pulled off quite well. One reason it works, even though on the surface it might appear a little "Rube Goldberg" in nature, is that Leica built the eyes and their lenses to exceedingly high standards - no junk or marginal pieces here folks. The quality and results are really inspiring and unique.