I own and very often use a 1950's vintage Summaron f3.5 35mm lens.It recently returned from a trip to Leica New Jersey for a complete overhaul. Looks and acts like new. Is there any real difference, aside from speed, between the Summaron f 2.8 and the f 3.5 lenses? I am very happy with my Summaron and am always quite surprised at the results it produces, especially when I use transparency film.This lens is small, compact, and an excellent all round performer.Thanks for any and all responses.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), November 08, 2001

Answers

I have used both lenses. The 3.5 is an outstanding performer from f8 to f22, and I used mine mostly as a landscape lens. It was an improved version of the old 35mm f3.5 Elmar screw mount lens. Wide open to f5.6, it is noticeable less sharp/contrasty than the 2.8 version. At the smaller f stops, both lenses are comparable to a Summicron in my opinion. The 2.8 version is quite good even wide open, and opens up more opportunity for low existing light shots over the 3.5 version. Great vintage Leica lens.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 08, 2001.

I had both lenses in both the standard and bug-eyed versions and found them both to be very good. Prior to finally getting a Summicron, I settled on the f/2.8 version simply because of the speed. There is not a lot of difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5, but both of my f/3.5 lenses seemed to under expose a bit at full aperture, so I would estimate that they were both a bit closer to f/4.0 on film (slide film anyway). At all other apertures, both the lenses gave the same exposure. For good light and middle apertures, I would use either without reservation.

If you are in the state of mind to buy another lens, I would by-pass the f/2.8, and jump to f/2.0 for a real difference. I'd keep the older Summaron for those situations when that lens' fingerprint would make the shot interesting. I use to think that multiple generations of glass was a useless extravagance, but when I look at the old slides and prints taken with long gone glass, I miss the look I was able to achieve with that older gear. It would be nice to pick and choose the "look" for the subject.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), November 08, 2001.

John,

Leica says that a Summaron f2.8/35 is as good as its predecessor f 3.5/35 but has the additional 2/3 f-stop.

In distinction of the complex triplet type Elmar f3.5/35 (4/3) the Summaron has a modern optical design of symmetrical Hauss-type: six elements in four groups (6/4) that gives (from my comparing) a better contrast, equal resolving power in both directions (vertical and horizontal), smoother bokeh. I checked a few Smmarons (28mm, 35mm f2.8&3.5) on the optical bench, all of them have perfect centering, while a pare of older Elmars showed “near perfect centering”. The only drawbacks you could see is fogging that declines the T-factor (transparensy), and cleaning marks or scratches on the front and rear glass surface that decline a resolve power and microcontrast. If in these respect your lens is perfect you couldn’t find any difference between shots made with Summaron wide open and either a collapsible or next rigid version of Summicron at f3.5. Use a lens hood.

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), November 09, 2001.