Eyeballing the 75mm Summitar

[sean_reid]

The current 75 Summicron shows slightly higher resolution on center than the CV (at the tested 6 foot focus distance) but the CV out-resolves it in the outer zones, just as I saw when those two lenses were last compared. The copy of the Summicron used for this test was different from the one used for the last one. Of course, at further subjects distances, the results might or might not change a bit but the fact is that the CV provides a much less expensive and very competent alternative to the Summicron if one is willing to give up a half-stop in lens speed.

The 75 Summarit's performance is first rate and I think the results in the test speak for themselves. Frankly, some of the resolution differences among these three lenses are small enough that tiny human or RF focus errors may influence res. more than which of these 75 mm lenses one was using.

The 75 Summarit deserves to sell well. Whether it is or not it actually does is a different question.

Carl, I wouldn't bother swapping a CV 75 for a 75 Summarit either even though the latter is technically, a slightly better lens.

Cheers,

Sean

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by Ivar B

I read the test - very interesting. We know that Erwin Puts conclusion is the opposite, albeit Puts also says that the Summarit is not far behind, in his own words "The Summarit 75 is not as highly color corrected as the Apo version, but in all other respects quite close". Maybe we have some differences in performance between lenses of the same type. The dirt cheap Cosina also came out on par with the 2/75 tested, and if I owned that particular 2/75 I would have it inspected to see if it performs according to specifications. There is no reason to question Reids methodology.

I don't know that focus bracketing technique, if any, Erwin uses (I'm not aware of him having published about that) but I suspect that if we both actually compared tests samples, etc. our conclusions might not be that far apart. I also don't know what focus distance he tested at. If he's going by MTF numbers, those of course are partly influenced by contrast and, as such, can't describe resolution alone.

I haven't read Erwin's review of the 75 Summarit but I think we might both concur that it is excellent. My real feeling, in the end, is that all three of these 75s are excellent - one can just pick any of three and get back to concentrating on pictures.

Cheers,

Sean

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by lct

How could Leica sell a Summarit 5 times the price of a good CV lens?

That is their competition for the 75 Summarit. The potential sample variation problems should be less with the Leica, the long-term durability may be better and the lens is coded. But, of course, good samples of the best CV lenses are always nipping at the heels of Leica lens sales. Ditto for Zeiss. The competition is good for us but creates a bigger challenge for Leica.

Cheers,

Sean

[stunsworth]

I wonder how many lenses Voigtlander and Zeiss actually sell?

Voigtlander seem to have been rather quiet recently, or is that my imagination? The last lens I can think of them releasing - 35mm f1.4 - seemed to get mixed reviews at best, but then perhaps that was aimed at people who wanted a pre-ASPH Summilux.

[jimmy pro]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

My real feeling, in the end, is that all three of these 75s are excellent - one can just pick any of three and get back to concentrating on pictures.

Cheers,

Sean

It's really hard to find any medium-speed 50's in the last thirty years that aren't excellent (even if there are slight differences that you can squeeze out on a side-by-side test but never show up in day-to-day picture taking), so I don't imagine it's much worse with 75's. Get really wide or really long, or even in the mild focals if you get really fast, and there's where your gonna see the men seperated from the boys. The C/V 35-1.4 is a case in point, and I think if C/V tried to make a 75-1.4 that cost under a grand they'd have trouble making it as good as one Leica could make for five grand. Though maybe it would stand up to the 75 Summilux on account of it's a real old design.

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by jimmy pro

It's really hard to find any medium-speed 50's in the last thirty years that aren't excellent (even if there are slight differences that you can squeeze out on a side-by-side test but never show up in day-to-day picture taking), so I don't imagine it's much worse with 75's. Get really wide or really long, or even in the mild focals if you get really fast, and there's where your gonna see the men seperated from the boys. The C/V 35-1.4 is a case in point, and I think if C/V tried to make a 75-1.4 that cost under a grand they'd have trouble making it as good as one Leica could make for five grand. Though maybe it would stand up to the 75 Summilux on account of it's a real old design.

You know, I think there's a lot of truth in that point of view. It does get trickier when one gets into the very fast lenses and CV's stars there are the 35/1.2 and the 50/1.5. I do these lens tests so that people will have the information to make their own choices but I hope that what also comes through from them is that we really do have a lot of good RF lens options at wide range of prices.

Cheers,

Sean

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

I wonder how many lenses Voigtlander and Zeiss actually sell?

Voigtlander seem to have been rather quiet recently, or is that my imagination? The last lens I can think of them releasing - 35mm f1.4 - seemed to get mixed reviews at best, but then perhaps that was aimed at people who wanted a pre-ASPH Summilux.

Hi Steve,

CV's new lens release schedule tends to be fairly leisurely in general. Most of their lenses have been out for a long time. As to how many lenses each company sells....those who know aren't about to say. I don't know myself.

Cheers,

Sean

[Ivar B]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

I wonder how many lenses Voigtlander and Zeiss actually sell?

Voigtlander seem to have been rather quiet recently, or is that my imagination? The last lens I can think of them releasing - 35mm f1.4 - seemed to get mixed reviews at best, but then perhaps that was aimed at people who wanted a pre-ASPH Summilux.

At least in Germany, Leica assumed that Zeiss did not sell that many lenses. Their distribution network is fairly limited, although many users may be buying their lenses outside Europe.

[cbretteville]

Popflash charges $1107 for a ZM21/2.8. Robert White in the UK charges 695 GBP and Leica Shop in Vienna 950 Euro. All prices are excl. sales tax/VAT so they are comparable. In the other two currencies Popflash's price is (according to Google at the time of writing) 565 GBP and 715 Euro.

The lens from Popflash has had its bayonet flange changed to bring up the 28/90 lines (needed for coding), AFAIK remember that is another €80 when purchased from Zeiss or $120 from John Millich (with coding recesses).

The decision was easy: I got the lens from Popflash.

- Carl

[mhoersch]

Traditionally, Leica charged top prices for top quality lenses. I never understood the marketing idea of the new Summarits - Leica quality for much less money - because they inevitably run into a logical trap they set for themselves:

If the Summarits were really (almost) as good as the well known traditional Leica lenses - why should anyone looking for quality, not prestige, still buy the traditional lenses for three times the money?

If, on the other hand, the Summarits are not only much less expensive but also of noticably lower quality - why should anyone whom Leica expects to spend 4.800.- Euros on their digital body settle for a cheapo Summarit?

So, whatever way you look at it, Leica's marketing strategy for the Summarits damages sales - either of their old range of lenses or of the Summarits, or both - and it quite certainly does nothing to improve sales of the M8.

Quite predictable results, if you ask me...

[mhoersch]

...and another thing:

That Leica saw this coming can be deducted from the strange aperture value of 2.5. Had they chosen 2.0 or 2.8 they would have had to face direct comparisons with other Leica lenses. With 2.5, they must have thought, they would leave their well to do customers a justification for buying the more expensive 2.0 lens - which does not work, of course.

So, I keep wondering if it wasn't the contradictory issues of the severe M8 price increase and the introduction of the Summarit line which got Mr. L. fired. Leica increased prices for a product that is even today still not quite up to Leica's quality standards, and with the Summarits they reversed Leica's traditional politics of pushing the technical limits for image quality with almost every new lens they issued.

I find it hard to imagine a better way to damage Leica's reputation and sales than these two steps combined.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by mhoersch

...why should anyone whom Leica expects to spend 4.800.- Euros on their digital body settle for a cheapo Summarit?

Maybe because they've spend 4,800 Euros on a digital body?

[lct]

[Ivar B]

Originally Posted by mhoersch

...and another thing:

That Leica saw this coming can be deducted from the strange aperture value of 2.5. Had they chosen 2.0 or 2.8 they would have had to face direct comparisons with other Leica lenses. With 2.5, they must have thought, they would leave their well to do customers a justification for buying the more expensive 2.0 lens - which does not work, of course.

I find it hard to imagine a better way to damage Leica's reputation and sales than these two steps combined.

The story goes (I have no idea if it is true or not) that SKL objected to using 2.4. Apparently the number 4 signals death in some cultures, hence 2.5.

[ho_co]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Herr Puts imply that some of these lenses were actually a tad faster than the nominal f/2.5?

Maybe you've just shone a bit more light on the matter, Ivar!


>> Just one more reason to buy the Summarits--you get more than you pay for in more ways than one! <<

[stunsworth]

f2.5 is half a stop slower than f2 is it not?

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by lct

How could Leica sell a Summarit 5 times the price of a good CV lens?

As for 75s, the ratio is at the moment around 3,5... anyway, this is an interesting question, for me, expecially for I bought, well consciuous of the CV 75 (and owner of a CV 15) a Summarit 75 last december... : I have thought a little about this, and my opinion is that there is a basic factor :

DURATION . as a user of Leica gear for 25 years about, and with several Leitz lenses of the '60s still in use, I'm accustomed to think of a Leica lens as an item I can count on for MANY years... a price difference to be spread along, say, 10-20 years in the future, at the end doesn't count too much. I think this is a mental attitude common to many oldtime Leica users. For a newbie, expecially if not new to digital, this can be surely very different: I decide to invest on a M8... I don't know if 5 years from now I'll still have it, or another Leica, or another brand of camera... I decide to buy a 75.. 2,5 is good for me... I read something in magazines, in forums, in Reid, in Puts... see that the IQ,at the end, is about the same... why hell spending 3-4 times more ? No contest... and to buy, say, 75+28 CV for less than Leica 75 may close the discussion.
Are we (we oldtime Leica users, I mean) RIGHT and LOGIC to keep the above attitude ? Are we really CONFIDENT and SURE that in 10-15 years we will still enjoy a lens in M mount coupled to Leica BM rangefinder ? Our attitude would prove it'so... but, rationally speaking, I admit is a hard bet... ; and for the moment, of course, I enjoy a lot my Summarit 75... probably the same way I'd enjoy the CV equivalent...

This is all the "Summarit paradox" : for a Leiciste, they are a sort of "half breed", so the "prestige halo" tied to some Summilux isn't a factor... we are well conscius that "oh, ok, the Summarits, you know..." but at the same time we cannot resist to the mental attitude that "oh, well, at the end it's anyway a Leica lens, you know...."

Life is full of paradoxes: can live with one more, for now... in 10 years or so we'll ahve THE ANSWER, if any...

[jc_braconi]

I tested 75 Summilux, 75 Summicron and 75 Summarit with the M8 and the M7 with kodacolor 200, at quite the same aperture 2.8 - 2.5 and for my feeling the rendering is in the same order as the listing above.
The pictures I get with the 75 Summilux are not comparable with these get with the other 2 lens. the most is about the separating power for colors.

Just my feeling about.

here is an exemple of a print scanned on a flat bed scanner.(pict got with the Summilux)
http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/59059-2/sanpi__.jpg

Now may be you remember what I replied on December 26th
December 26th, 2007, 09:53 PM #27 (permalink)
jc_braconi
Erfahrener Benutzer




Join Date: March 20th, 2004
Posts: 442 Re: Summarit 75 on M8 - focus test

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Luigi,
My theory about the Summarit's issue was in fact about the focus point, with 2,5 aperture you have a wider latitude in hyperfocusing, this did not replace for sure an AF but the result are less frustating for people who use a range finder for the first time.
I know people who are resselling their M8 because they find them spartian tools to use.

Using the Noctilux at 1 or the Summilux 50 & 75 at 1.4 I must take care twice before shooting at near and medium ranges.

After so much time using M's, seeing the speed displayed in the M8 viewfinder is the top of luxus !

Cheers
JC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by jc_braconi : December 26th, 2007 at 09:56 PM.