Eyeballing the 75mm Summitar

[lars_bergquist]

I have now owned the lens for some ten days and have had time to run some informal tersts. Here are my personal expressions.

First, this is a lens of a very high caliber. Build quality is excellent. If there is a nit to pick, then it is the very short focusing throw (infinity to 0.9m in about 60°) and the consequently very steep pitch of the helical. This means that fine focusing is nor quite as smooth and easy as one might wish. This may of course improve with time; but it may get worse instead (admittedly not soon!)

The optical quality is excellent. What strikes me is the good flare control. On a day with a strong sun about 25° above the horizon in a hazy sky, I took a series of pictures from 90° from the sun's azimuth to directly under it, with a B+W 486 filter but without the hood. Below the horizon was dark woods. There was no trace of internal reflections, and the shadows remained dark and saturated throughout. This is impressive.

Edge flare too is quite low. The classical 'tree branches against the light' test gave a very satisfactory result.

The old man from the Age of the Elmar

[Ivar B]

I am certain that optical quality is excellent, and according to Puts it is not far behind the Apo 2/75. But are you really pleased with the mechanics also? Most users who tested the lenses during the Forum meeting in Germany were very disappointed indeed as the lenses felt "very cheap" in our opion.

The producion line in Solms making Summitars was actually idle when we visited Leica, and the explanation given by Leica was that the Summitars were not selling as they had hoped.

[Saloti]

I have a silly question, what is a Summitar lens ?
Do you mean Summarit ?

[dennersten]

Originally Posted by Ivar B

I am certain that optical quality is excellent, and according to Puts it is not far behind the Apo 2/75. But are you really pleased with the mechanics also? Most users who tested the lenses during the Forum meeting in Germany were very disappointed indeed as the lenses felt "very cheap" in our opion.

The producion line in Solms making Summitars was actually idle when we visited Leica, and the explanation given by Leica was that the Summitars were not selling as they had hoped.

I don't agree, it feels good as any of the modern lenses.

/HD

[Ivar B]

Originally Posted by Saloti

I have a silly question, what is a Summitar lens ?
Do you mean Summarit ?

Sorry - the Summitar name has not been brought back to life yet. It is of course a totally personal opinion if one likes the Summarits or not, but the judgement of the marketplace is that they are not appreciated and hence they are not selling.

I asked Leica during the factory tour if they knew why the Summarits were not selling and if possibly people bought Zeiss or something instead, but at least a leakage to Zeiss was not considered likely.

[lars_bergquist]

First of course I typoed – a Summarit is a Summarit. The only Leitz Summitar was an f:2 5cm lens that filled the hole between the Summar and the first Summicron, during 1940–1953. I have just demonstrated why the Summitar name will never be revived: It is too similar to Summarit!

Now the mechanical quality of the 75mm Summarit (which is the only one I have handled). I must say that I cannot see any evidence that Leica have skimped on the mechanical construction. The lens gives an impression of solidity, superior to e.g. the C/V Color-Heliar. This is not a Japanese plastic-mounted lens either. And would a manufacturer intent on skimping put in an eleven-bladed aperture mechanism?

My only question mark is that about the steep, short-throw focusing helicoid. This is in fact more a matter of ergonomics than build quality – that design decision cannot have saved Leica much labour or cost.

Now there is of course always the famous Leica Is Going To The Dogs school of criticism. According to its adherents, this going to the canines has been going on since at least the M3, or even the IIIa. It seems to be felt that this kind of carping gives the carper an image of being a great expert, or at least a sense of superiority. We others care more about the evidence (or in this case, the lack of it) than we care for the plonking tone.

There are of course also the people to whom a Leica is simply a status object, and the status is very much price-dependent. From that point of view an affordable lens is by definition inferior, irrespective of its performance. Me, I don't give a damn about status, or the name on my gear. I care only about what the gear does for me, and I am not a conspicuous consumer but a photographer by avocation. A Leica or a Leica lens is a working tool, not a piece of exotic blingbling. By these criteria, the 75mm Summarit is a commendable lens. And if the majority of Leica lens buyers purchase their lenses as status objects only, then it's just too bad. Then Leica should have continued with their peddling of gilt and dolled-up horrors for the uselessly rich and taste-challenged.

Brødrefolkens vel!
Den gamle från Bereks tid

[ho_co]

Personal opinion--
First, I question Leica's initial assumption that having a less expensive lens line would help sell M8s. M8 is expensive and Leica's lenses are expensive. Adding an inexpensive line could sow confusion, though I don't know whether that is happening. An engaged (actively selling, informing, and therefore usually local) dealer is used to explaining with other brands that the less expensive lenses are inferior in construction or performance, and some customers won't to take the time to understand why that isn't the case with Leica.

Perhaps Summarits don't sell well because people already have those focal lengths. That has always been the problem with a rangefinder: New lenses must always match framelines already at hand. (With an SLR you can introduce a 17-55 alongside a 17-80 and a 17-35, for example.)

To sell lenses, Leica needs to sell bodies to new customers; availability of a less expensive body should offer a good opportunity for sales of the Summarits, but only if dealers can take the time to explain the differences between these lenses and their more expensive counterparts.

I think it will be a very hard sell for Leica to convince people that the Summarits are a good buy, because we Leica users are accustomed to paying top dollar.

But IMHO it's too early to decide how the marketplace has judged the Summarits.

[giordano]

Originally Posted by lars_bergquist

Now the mechanical quality of the 75mm Summarit (which is the only one I have handled). I must say that I cannot see any evidence that Leica have skimped on the mechanical construction. The lens gives an impression of solidity, superior to e.g. the C/V Color-Heliar. This is not a Japanese plastic-mounted lens either. And would a manufacturer intent on skimping put in an eleven-bladed aperture mechanism?

My only question mark is that about the steep, short-throw focusing helicoid. This is in fact more a matter of ergonomics than build quality – that design decision cannot have saved Leica much labour or cost.

Now there is of course always the famous Leica Is Going To The Dogs school of criticism. According to its adherents, this going to the canines has been going on since at least the M3, or even the IIIa. It seems to be felt that this kind of carping gives the carper an image of being a great expert, or at least a sense of superiority. We others care more about the evidence (or in this case, the lack of it) than we care for the plonking tone.

There are of course also the people to whom a Leica is simply a status object, and the status is very much price-dependent. From that point of view an affordable lens is by definition inferior, irrespective of its performance. Me, I don't give a damn about status, or the name on my gear. I care only about what the gear does for me, and I am not a conspicuous consumer but a photographer by avocation. A Leica or a Leica lens is a working tool, not a piece of exotic blingbling. By these criteria, the 75mm Summarit is a commendable lens. And if the majority of Leica lens buyers purchase their lenses as status objects only, then it's just too bad. Then Leica should have continued with their peddling of gilt and dolled-up horrors for the uselessly rich and taste-challenged.

Brødrefolkens vel!
Den gamle från Bereks tid

Well said, old man ... though the best Leica ever was of course the IIIg

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by lars_bergquist

My only question mark is that about the steep, short-throw focusing helicoid. This is in fact more a matter of ergonomics than build quality – that design decision cannot have saved Leica much labour or cost.

Lars--
My guess is that the cost saving comes from sharing the same mount with the 90 Summarit. I think one of the points Leica made about the introduction of the Summarits was that by sharing mounts as Zeiss does, they could reduce costs.

But I don't see why the short throw should arise from that. If it seems short on the 75, wouldn't it seem shorter on the 90?

Maybe Leica had complaints that the focusing throw on the 75/1.4 was too long?

Since the 75 Summarit has about 78% more depth of field wide open than the Summilux, maybe Leica felt focusing accuracy could be sacrificed for focusing speed?

(Just guessing, as usual. )

I have just demonstrated why the Summitar name will never be revived: It is too similar to Summarit!

Don't be to quick to make that assumption. Remember, this is the company that gave us both Digiluxes and D-Luxes.

[lct]

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

[lars_bergquist]

Originally Posted by giordano

Well said, old man ... though the best Leica ever was of course the IIIg

I beg to disagree. The screw-mount Leicas were primitive Rube Goldberg machines, and the rangefinder of the III–IIIa was in fact even more of a dog than that of the II. Even the IIIg is barely usable.

The best of the film Leicas was of course the M2 (lever rewind and no self-timer, thanks).

The old man from the Age of the M2

[lars_bergquist]

Originally Posted by ho_co

Lars--
My guess is that the cost saving comes from sharing the same mount with the 90 Summarit. I think one of the points Leica made about the introduction of the Summarits was that by sharing mounts as Zeiss does, they could reduce costs.

But I don't see why the short throw should arise from that. If it seems short on the 75, wouldn't it seem shorter on the 90?

Maybe Leica had complaints that the focusing throw on the 75/1.4 was too long?

Since the 75 Summarit has about 78% more depth of field wide open than the Summilux, maybe Leica felt focusing accuracy could be sacrificed for focusing speed?

Sharing components across several lenses is of course an intelligent piece of cost-cutting, something Leica should have done long ago. It is not detrimental to quality.

There were of course many complaints about the endless focusing of the Summilux. But going to the other extreme was not a good idea, in my opinionated opinion. A focusing throw of 90–110° is completely manageable, and most focusing is actually done with the first 10–15°. That makes for less overshoot, and a smoother helical.

The old man from the Age of Manual Focus

[giordano]

Originally Posted by lars_bergquist

I beg to disagree. The screw-mount Leicas were primitive Rube Goldberg machines, and the rangefinder of the III–IIIa was in fact even more of a dog than that of the II. Even the IIIg is barely usable.

The best of the film Leicas was of course the M2 (lever rewind and no self-timer, thanks).

The old man from the Age of the M2

Without smilies, I've owned a couple of M2s and really liked them. I just wish they'd managed to make the Ms a bit more pocketable.

[Ivar B]

Regarding market sentiment, Stefan Daniel also informed us that when the sale of the M8 peaked, there was a huge demand for Leica M lenses. At one point of time the back order was 7000 lenses!!!

Apparently, Leica had been visited by Porsche who had shown them how to implement JIT manufacturing and no or practically no lenses were produced for intentory any more.

[luigi bertolotti]

Optically, I'm very satisfied of my Summarit 75, I haven't direct comparision with Summicron and CV but my impression is that it's really very fine ( a recent post from me in the people section has been one of the confirmation of this, for me).
Mechanically... well of course is too new to verify how it shall behave in the years, that imho is the only important issue about mech quality (I have a Tele Elmarit 90 of 1964, used really A LOT... mechanically it's still simply perfect); one of the manufacturing's savings (absence of a built-in sliding hood) is a little annoying... but I'd not say it's a "cheap" construction (for instance, "cheap" is the word that comes to my mind keeping in hand my CV15... that by its part is a very good lens); I'd rather say it's a "minimalist" style-construction... my only two contemporary lenses (21 asph and 35 cron asph) look undoubtly more "rich" as manufacturing (but this is also to be credited to the Silver finishing). The short focusing course, initially, did surprise me, and didn't appreciate... but I don't think it's related to cost.. 30-40 more degrees in lathe machining aren't such a difference.. But now I'm getting accustomed to a so short focusing action,,, and frankly I am no more so sure is worst than old 180° or so movements... I think maybe it can become really annoying if, in the years, the focusing movement would lose smoothness: till you can do very little and precise adjustments I feel (now, not initially, repeat) it's not so bad.

The commercial success (or un-success) of Summarits, of course, is another question... surely Leica made the announcement for actracting new M8 users that can buy a decent lens set at a decent price... I should be curios to see figures that Leica surely does not disclose (How many M8s sold to non-M-users together with Summarit(s) ? How many with "costly" lenses ? How many without Leica lenses ?). But I speculate also that Leica made the Summarit line also thinking of new announcements to come in the digital RF area (the so called "digital CL"...). Anyway, I think it's not a major issue for the Company: if the RF line shall continue with good sales, Summarits simply shall go on... in this so particular market, lenses enjoy very long lifecycles, with no or only marginal need of in-cycle investiments.

[Saloti]

Originally Posted by Ivar B

Sorry - the Summitar name has not been brought back to life yet. It is of course a totally personal opinion if one likes the Summarits or not, but the judgement of the marketplace is that they are not appreciated and hence they are not selling.

I asked Leica during the factory tour if they knew why the Summarits were not selling and if possibly people bought Zeiss or something instead, but at least a leakage to Zeiss was not considered likely.

I very much would like to know why the market does not appreciate them. At least
with my 2,5/75 I am very happy.

The reason that they do not sell as expected is quiet easy: We should assume that
the major target group for these lenses are buyers of M8, who DO NOT own an analog
M camera with lenses.

All the analog M-owners on the other hand do have quiet a few lenses, why should
they go for new lenses, they were going for 6 bit coding....

Can anybody tell me the logic of increasing dramatically the M8 body price at the end
of last year and parallely ( ) launching the "cheap" Summarit line ? This is business nonsense!

The increase of M8 body price has clearly brought down its sales, not the best pre-
condition for selling heaps of Summarit lenses, don´t you think so ?

Let Leica launch a digital CL made in Asia: sales of Summarit lenses might take
a completely different direction. Leica needs a digital rangefinder camera at an
"entry price point", significantly below M8 (max. 40-50% of its price).

[Ivar B]

We were also informed that the M8 was not seeling well. It was clearly hinted that the price increase last year was a mistake, and also the discussion in international fora that an M9 with a larger sensor might be forthcoming was a brake on sales. Apparently a campaign is now being planned to remedy this unfortunate state of affairs.

Regarding the Summarits, I personally think the used market is to blame. The market is flooding with superb second hans lenses at moderate prices. Who would buy a Summarit 90 when you can get a mint Elmarit 90 for $700-1000? I most certainly would not. Maybe the only real alternativ is the Summarit 2.5/75. The 1.4/75 is a very expensive lens and the 2.0/75 is so recent that it is rare in the second hand market.

[lars_bergquist]

Sean Reid has just come out with his review of the 2.5 Summarit. He finds it mechanically excellent (without any reservations as to the steep focusing) and optically superior to the Summicron. So what are the professional carpers going to carp on now? Mr Reid himself?

The old man from the Age of Front Cell Focusing

[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.

[cbretteville]

I was one of those that handled the 75 Summarit with Ivar at the Hessenpark. It did not feel as smooth as the 75/2 I'd handled earlier in the day, my own 90 Elmarit-M or indeed the 35 Summarit I borrowed from Leica Academie at the time we looked at the 75/2.5. The feeling I got was that of a lens with a lesser build quality than what I've come to expect from a Leica lens.

This is off cause my oppinion based on the lens I handled. If what I and the others experienced is sample variation then all the better. I also respect others being of a different oppinion than my own as I expect that my opinion is respected. I get GAS very, very quicly but the feeling I was left with was that I'm not swapping my CV75/2.5 for a Summarit. My CV feels a lot more solid than the lens I handled in Germany. As mentioned the 35/2.5 is another story, it felt a lot better than the 75.

- Carl