Re: [Leica] Re: Summaron comments solicited

["Jim Shulman" <garcia@chesco.com>]

A few thoughts about Summarons and vintage equipment:

Remember, kids, that we're talking about something made when Mamie
Eisenhower was still dedicating roads and orphanages.  That's a loooong time
for an object to function at maximum utility.

Last summer I ran into a fellow shooting with a 3.5 35mm Summaron on his M3.
He said that initially the lens gave fairly disappointing results.  After a
complete CLA, it performed flawlessly.  The lens may have LOOKED fine, but
40+ years of accumulated stuff had taken a (reversable) toll on image
quality.

If you intend to use vintage equipment, budget for a good cleaning, or
select equipment which has just had a good cleaning.  I'm still amazed by
the number of old camera fans who are disappointed when they take a vintage
instrument off the shelf (or a dealer's table), plop it in their camera
case, and get less-than-flawless service.

Would you drive a 1959 Buick cross-country without a full systems check (and
restoration) first?  Why place a similar demand on a camera and lens?

All best,
Jim Shulman

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Todoroff <datamaster@humboldt1.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 8:20 PM
Subject: [Leica] Re: Summaron comments solicited


> Hi Mike -
>
> My first Leica lens was a 35/2.8 Summaron on a black M2, purchased used
when
> I worked in Stockholm many years ago. I was amazed at the quality, and
> thought all Leica lenses were this good. In fact, I was then disappointed
by
> the early 50/2.8 Elmar and 90/4 Elmar in comparison.  When a used 1st
> version 35 black Summicron came my way a couple months later, I traded the
> 35/2.8 for a 50 Elmar. Turns out the Summicron had numerous front element
> scratches, and was actually softer than the old Summaron.
>
> I now have a 2.8 Summaron again (M3 style with the attached finder) and am
> thrilled with the brilliance of the B&W negs from this lens. Altho I have
> not done any strict testing, I just know that there is something special
> about the resolution and contrast of the 2.8 Summaron.
>
> It's also a pretty  little lens and makes a neat  looking package on an
M2.
> (With M3, the goggles are a bit much on the small lens and it feels a
little
> bulky). If anyone were wanting a great "starter" Leica with minimum
> investment, it would be hard to beat the Summaron/M2 (altho a CL with 40mm
> Summicron is a great package, too - I just did some shots today with one
> while out on a sunny early morning walk)
>
> Regards,
> Gary Todoroff
> Tree LUGger
>
> > Mike Johnston wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm interested in hearing comments about either of the old Summaron-M
> > > lenses, either the f/2.8 or the f/3.5, either M-mount or screwmount.
> > > Anybody used one? Like it? Dislike it? Feelings and opinions much
> > > appreciated, on- or off-list.
> > >
> > > Thanks--
> > >
> > > --Mike
> >
>
>