Has anyone had any experience with 35mm M3 lenses with eyes? Do the eyes reduce the magnification of the viewfinder to accomodate the 35mm field of view? How different is using the eyes as opposed to using other M cameras with built-in 35mm frame lines? Do the eyes add much weight? Is there anything in particular to look out for when shopping for a used 35mm M3 lens? Are these lenses more difficult to dismantle for cleaning and service? Thanks in advance for the info.

Dennis

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), April 06, 2002

Answers

Dennis:

I have a 35 f:3.5 Summaron with eyes. The lens weighs 7.5 ounces without the eyes are 2.75 ounces. The eyes are removeable. This is not one of my favorite lenses, but it corrects the viewfinder on the M's to the correct field for the 35mm lens. The lens brings up the framelines for the 50, and the magnification is reduced to match the lens. The lens does not focus properly without the eyes. The lens is awkward to store with the eyes on, and not practical to remove the eyes and store them separately. With a lens with the eyes, I need to use the focus lever to focus, as the barrel is obscured by the eyes. The magnification on the M3 with the eyes is about equal to an M6 .72 viewfinder by comparison. As far as dismantling for cleaning, I do not know, but inspect the lens as one would inspect any other Leica lens for fogging.

-- Mark J. (logical1@catholic.org), April 06, 2002.

I have owned several of these style lenses for an M3. The 2.8 Summaron version is actually quite an amazing lens and gives a modern Summicron a run for the money. The finder works fine if it is clear, and I enjoy using mine. The lenses are bulks by M standards, and the eyes are not removeable (in the way the ones for the DR 50 are). Every lens I have ever seen has some fog in the finders which makes viewing less sharp than it should be-some finders can be really Hazy. It is very costly to have the finder professionally cleaned, as parts of it have been cemented in place and alligning everything after it has been fully taken apart is a beast.(otherwise the double image won't line up) I figured out a way to clean about 80% of the finder without throwing the allignment off or messing with the glued together elements, and that made a day and night difference. Cleaning the lens itself from fog isn't very difficult for a Leica technicion-- about an hours worth of work.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 06, 2002.

Dennis,

Reduce magnification? Yes and No. It's still a 0.91 finder. But to expand the view, the practical effect is the same as a lower magnification. Don't worry about focusing accuracy. You're shooting with 35mm lenses. (But see note at end.)

Different than lines? Yes, there is more distortion in the VF image. But you get used to it. Besides, you see the 50mm lines in the M3 VF when an "eyes' lens is mounted and they are the best set of VF lines Leitz/Leica ever made before or since.

Weight? Never weighed them but they still probably weigh close to or less than say a 50mm DR or most certainly a 50 Summilux of the same vintage.

What to look for? As with all lenses of that vintage, particularly for chrome ones, look for fog/fungus. As far as the eye portion, look to see if the rectangular optic particularly, appears to be "chipped" or fractured in the corners. Have seen this on a lot of them. Don't know if the optic is one piece and just has a stress fracture when struck, or perhaps is a multi element optic that separates. Suspect the former.

Cleaning and service? Lens portion should not differ from a non-eyes lens of same type (although focusing cam is said to differ) so a CLA for that portion shouldn't change. I suspect a full CLA may run a tad more though as you can disassemble the eyes to clean.

Note mentioned above: The eye optic is a thick chunk of glass. Although it has slightly more area than the VF, it will still give a brightness that isn't quite as much as the regular VF. How much? Don't know but you'll notice it. If pressed I'd say perhaps the difference you'd see in an SLR VF with an f/2 vs. say an f/3.4, or a stop and a half. Only a possible bother in low light situations.

On lens vs. lens price comparisons where condition is equal, the eyes lens should run about 75% of the no eyes lenses. They just aren't as popular. Optically of course they're just as good.

Other comments. If you use an ERC with your M3, be sure to get the one with the angled flap that allows this lens to be mounted when closed. Will work on the M2 through M6 with perhaps not quite the focusing accuracy due to the cam difference but not the TTL version with the taller top cover and VF windows.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 06, 2002.

When I used to use an M3 with a summicron with eyes, I never noticed the drop in brightness. Now, when I go backwards from my M6 the M3 is darker, and the eyes are much darker still. They do cut down noticably on brightness, IMO.

-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 07, 2002.

Charles,

Forgive me but I did not follow your answer.

Window glass, UV filters, even eye glasses (all "clear" in make-up) will all impede the transmission of light, effectively darkening the view.

As I noted, the eyes, particularly the one in front of the viewers eye, is a thick piece of glass, only slightly larger than the VF window itself. Certainly not enough larger than the window itself to compensate in light capturing ability for the loss in light transmission.

The VF view just as bright with or without the "eyes"? No way, physics rules!

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 07, 2002.

Charles,

Apologies for my "correction". I re-read your post and find that you stated "do cut down" where I read "don't cut down".

Uhdoubtedly my mistake due to the lower light transmission of my monitor glass!

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 07, 2002.

I some times use my 35/2.8 with eyes on my M4P, it shows 50mm frame lines, and agree with Andrew, it is a nice lens.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 07, 2002.

Leitz made an amazing variety of these "goggled" lenses for the M3, though of course they are perfectly usable on other M models (I'm not sure about M6TTL & M7 with 2 mm taller bodies). The variations include the following: 35/3.5 RF Summaron (early version with black paint specs, later black crinkle metal). Wetzlar made only. 35/2.8 RF Summaron. Wetzlar only. 35/2.0 RF Summicron. chrome 8-element, black paint 8-element, black anodized (6-element). Leitz Canada and Leitz Wetzlar. 35/1.4 RF Summilux. chrome 1st version, black paint 1st version, black anodized 2nd version. Leitz Canada only.

Optically, the best spectacled 35 mm lens is probably the 35/2.0 RF Summicron, though the 35/2.8 RF Summaron is also very good. The black paint versions of these lenses are quite rare and expensive.

The chrome RF lenses for M3 are a little less expensive than the corresponding M2 versions, so you can save a few bucks by buying the M3 lens, However, as noted above, they are less convenient to use because of the bulk of the eyes. I have noticed that the 35/2.0 RF Summicrons have been inching up in price, even though the Leica collectible market is very soft. The 35/2.8 RF Summaron is more reasonably priced.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 07, 2002.

I've used a 35mm RF-Summicron on my M3 for 20 years or so. The short answer is that "bugeye" lenses are by far the most effective way of using the 35mm focal length on an M3. The other choices are 1) use a seperate VF on top (which I detest) or 2)buy a different body.

-- Mark Sampson (MSampson45@aol.com), April 08, 2002.