Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,822   Posts: 1,581,943   Online: 928
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    681

    Summicron 35/2 with Eyes on a M-4

    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.
    RJ

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Athens Greece
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    75
    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.
    Last edited by antmar; 02-22-2014 at 11:24 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    681
    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?
    RJ

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,522
    The /2.8 wide open has a better MTF than the /2 @ /2.8...

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Athens Greece
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    75
    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.
    Last edited by antmar; 02-22-2014 at 01:23 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,008
    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."

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    681
    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.
    Last edited by Richard Jepsen; 02-22-2014 at 02:56 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    RJ

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ogden, Utah USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,321
    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.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    681
    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?
    RJ

  10. #10
    Barry Kirsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NE Victoria, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    20
    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin