Summarit Lenses

[jimleicam3]

I have read the Reid Reviews, and some other notes on this forum about the Summarit line of lenses. But has anyone really used one of these lenses? You know just for every day kind of use? Is it a waste of money, should I just go without until I can afford a Cron lens? I would like some real world feedback on these lenses. Thanks

[offshore]

Originally Posted by jimleicam3

I have read the Reid Reviews, and some other notes on this forum about the Summarit line of lenses. But has anyone really used one of these lenses? You know just for every day kind of use? Is it a waste of money, should I just go without until I can afford a Cron lens? I would like some real world feedback on these lenses. Thanks

I've used the 35 and the 75 along with my 28 Elmarit asph. Both lenses are very well made and appear to be as sharp as Erwin Putz claims, however my usage was in the field and I did not do a "lab" test. The major difference I noted in the 35 (which I used the most) is that it does not handle highlights very well compared to the 28 asph. Detail was lost and blown out entirely in some cases. For the difference in price I'm glad I made the decision to go with the 28 as it appears the asph. makes a difference. I also decided that I have little if any use for a 75, although the lens appeared to be a good performer. Please keep in mind that these are my personal opinions and aren't a scientific test such as Reid's or Putz's, just my two centavos.

[ibogost]

Originally Posted by jimleicam3

Is it a waste of money, should I just go without until I can afford a Cron lens? I would like some real world feedback on these lenses. Thanks

This is a great question, isn't it. I've been mulling a new 35 purchase, and I read Reid Reviews of course, and here are the thoughts that have been going through my mind:

(1) There is a risk of "buying twice" with the summarits. The prices are "cheap" for Leica glass, but as you say, if you're just going to want a cron or a lux later, maybe it's better to wait and invest in the other two. This is true not just for the costs (see 2 below), but also because of the time lost to obsessing over the decision twice. I'm feeling particularly sensitive about the latter lately

(2) The resale prices of the summarits are still unproven. This makes them riskier purchases if one might want to consider a faster and/or asph version. My (unfounded) assumption would be that they will retain less value than the cron and lux (speaking about the 35s anyway)

(3) The summarits are light and small. This is especially true for the 35 and maybe the 50 (although I prefer the collapsible 50 Elmar 2.8). This is a real, material benefit in usability, although not in image quality. the summarit 35 weighs half as much as a 35 cron. That's a big difference.

(4) Speed needs are hard to measure. When considering the 35 summarit vs the cron, for example, from the perspective of speed alone, how often will that extra half-stop be needed? It's a question that requires reflection on experience and shooting style and is hard to answer. Sure it's easy to say "Buy the cron or the lux if you need the extra stops," but that first half-stop costs $1200 and one more costs $2700. Those are big numbers to mull over. Things get cloudier when one mixes in questions about handholding comfort, satisfaction with higher ISO rendering, etc. It's a nontrivial question to answer, and largely a personal one.

(5) Useful comparisons of drawing styles don't really exist. Sean Reid's reviews are great and I don't regret the subscription, ever. I appreciate the in- and out-of-focus rendering tests he does, but they are still incomplete to me. They're always B&W, always the same subjects, and hard to view and compare in the Flash interface. There are still no good resources for comparing the rendering styles of different lenses. This includes the usual suspects like center/edge sharpness, CA, contrast, as well as more amorphous aesthetic comparisons across focal lengths (e.g., 28 cron vs 35 cron) and various versions (e.g. 35 con IV, 35 cron ASPH). Since the rendering style is a big factor, perhaps bigger than speed even for me, I'm at a loss about how I feel about the pros and cons of different optics.

(6) Endorsements of the cheaper CV options miss the inconvenience of manual coding. Yes, there are the Milich adapters and one can send a secondhand uncoded Leica in for coding. But the costs and time associated with these solutions are real, and paying extra for the convenience of a coded lens is a real consideration.

So, no answers, but a number of other questions to throw in the mix.

[ibogost]

Originally Posted by offshore

The major difference I noted in the 35 (which I used the most) is that it does not handle highlights very well compared to the 28 asph. Detail was lost and blown out entirely in some cases.

This really surprises me. I find the 28 Elmarit contrasty and very likely to blow highlights unless underexposed for the shadows. I can't remember reading about differences in the dynamic range of the Summarit. Sean Reid seems to have suggested contrast might be lower. Interesting that your experience was so different.

[tom0511]

I use and like the 75 Summarit. 2.5 is fast enough for me with this lens, it seems to focus very fast and accurate, lighter than my 75/1.4, not much smaller though when you use the original hood for the summarit.
what I ahve seen from the 35/2.5 (I dont have it) look very good as well.

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by jimleicam3

I have read the Reid Reviews, and some other notes on this forum about the Summarit line of lenses. But has anyone really used one of these lenses?

Yes, I've used all four of the Summarits quite a bit.

Cheers,

Sean

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by ibogost

(5) Useful comparisons of drawing styles don't really exist. Sean Reid's reviews are great and I don't regret the subscription, ever. I appreciate the in- and out-of-focus rendering tests he does, but they are still incomplete to me. They're always B&W, always the same subjects, and hard to view and compare in the Flash interface. There are still no good resources for comparing the rendering styles of different lenses. This includes the usual suspects like center/edge sharpness, CA, contrast

I want to make sure that I understand your comments. Are you having trouble seeing resolution differences from the comparison tables in the reviews (which normally appear side by side in the same window)? Are the CA tests in the reviews not telling you what you want to know? Or is it that the CA tests are missing in the 75 and 90 reviews? Please tell me more as it might be useful for me to know.

My own approach right now:

1) Resolution - subtle res. differences among lenses are more apparent in B&W than in color. My current methodology for this testing seems to be revealing even small differences in ways that I think many can relate to.
2) CA and Veiling Flare - I've found that my usual tests have been fairly revealing. They're missing from the 75 and 90 Summarit tests because the needed files were inadvertently lost (original and backup) when I transitioned back to Macintosh early this year. They're part of most of the lens reviews.
3) OOF - these croppings are posted in side by side tables so they should be easy to see within the Flash window. Are you hoping for OOF comparisons in color? I tend to think of color as a confounding variable when considering OOF but I'm curious to know more about what you're thinking.

Cheers,

Sean

[ibogost]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

I want to make sure that I understand your comments. Are you having trouble seeing resolution differences from the comparison tables in the reviews (which normally appear side by side in the same window)? Are the CA tests in the reviews not telling you what you want to know? Or is it that the CA tests are missing in the 75 and 90 reviews? Please tell me more as it might be useful for me to know.

My own approach right now:

1) Resolution - subtle res. differences among lenses are more apparent in B&W than in color. My current methodology for this testing seems to be revealing even small differences in ways that I think many can relate to.
2) CA and Veiling Flare - I've found that my usual tests have been fairly revealing. They're missing from the 75 and 90 Summarit tests because the needed files were inadvertently lost (original and backup) when I transitioned back to Macintosh early this year. They're part of most of the lens reviews.
3) OOF - these croppings are posted in side by side tables so they should be easy to see within the Flash window. Are you hoping for OOF comparisons in color? I tend to think of color as a confounding variable when considering OOF but I'm curious to know more about what you're thinking.

Cheers,

Sean

Sean -- I should first say that I really enjoy your reviews and my gripes, if they are even that, weren't directed at your work in particular. To answer your question, your resolution and CA tests are really very clear to me, and I didn't mean to refer to the 75/90 tests in particular. The OOF tests I find a bit hard to follow sometimes, because I have to scroll up and down to refer to different lenses in a test, and sometimes I can't fit them all within the window, and so forth. I am guessing that the Flash interface is something you use for security purposes, but I do so often wish I could pull up two lenses of my choice and compare them side by side or fill my screen with them. I suppose I could do this manually with two Reid Review windows. Seeing both the full-cropped view of an image with artistic merit (not just a test subject) and a detail view (for getting a sense of print viewing) is a bit hard to do, for me anyway. I'm not necessarily hoping for OOF tests in color, and perhaps that comment was misleading in my original post. I do think that the rendering of OOF color contrast looks different than B&W contrast, and sometimes that's useful to see.

Really, what I find myself wishing for is an easier way to compare the rendering style of different lenses, using both samples and opinions. Right now, the best way seems to be slogging through samples in Flickr pools. Reading opinions on this board and others usually amounts either to a litany of decontextualized "X is the best" type comments or a kind of throwing up of the hands of the "depends on your preference" variety.

I don't know that I really have a suggestion here. I'm well aware that rendering style is such a matter of personal preference, it's hard to describe in prose form. I just find that I have a hard time getting a feel for the differences in rendering between different optics and I wish I felt like I had a better handle on that factor as I consider which ones are more and less useful for my purposes. Maybe what would help is more discussion of the particular rendering characteristics of different lenses, with samples to support such claims. But even that might be such a subjective thing as to be impossible.

Does any of this make any sense?

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by ibogost

Sean -- I should first say that I really enjoy your reviews and my gripes, if they are even that, weren't directed at your work in particular. To answer your question, your resolution and CA tests are really very clear to me, and I didn't mean to refer to the 75/90 tests in particular. The OOF tests I find a bit hard to follow sometimes, because I have to scroll up and down to refer to different lenses in a test, and sometimes I can't fit them all within the window, and so forth. I am guessing that the Flash interface is something you use for security purposes, but I do so often wish I could pull up two lenses of my choice and compare them side by side or fill my screen with them. I suppose I could do this manually with two Reid Review windows. Seeing both the full-cropped view of an image with artistic merit (not just a test subject) and a detail view (for getting a sense of print viewing) is a bit hard to do, for me anyway. I'm not necessarily hoping for OOF tests in color, and perhaps that comment was misleading in my original post. I do think that the rendering of OOF color contrast looks different than B&W contrast, and sometimes that's useful to see.

Really, what I find myself wishing for is an easier way to compare the rendering style of different lenses, using both samples and opinions. Right now, the best way seems to be slogging through samples in Flickr pools. Reading opinions on this board and others usually amounts either to a litany of decontextualized "X is the best" type comments or a kind of throwing up of the hands of the "depends on your preference" variety.

I don't know that I really have a suggestion here. I'm well aware that rendering style is such a matter of personal preference, it's hard to describe in prose form. I just find that I have a hard time getting a feel for the differences in rendering between different optics and I wish I felt like I had a better handle on that factor as I consider which ones are more and less useful for my purposes. Maybe what would help is more discussion of the particular rendering characteristics of different lenses, with samples to support such claims. But even that might be such a subjective thing as to be impossible.

Does any of this make any sense?

Sure it does. Thanks for the feedback. I'll mull it over.

Cheers,

Sean

[cme4brain]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

Sure it does. Thanks for the feedback. I'll mull it over.

Cheers,

Sean

What I think you want is impossible for any one set of tests to reveal. Sean Reid's lens tests are fantastic for the real world. If you want MTF graphs, read Puts. Since photography has a subjective aspect, no one can test that for you. Two different photographers looking at the same photo will yield two different opinions as to what appeals to them! Sean, and no one, can test for that! That is like asking someone to show you the most beautiful car/woman/house in the world- depends on who you ask.

[offshore]

Originally Posted by ibogost

This really surprises me. I find the 28 Elmarit contrasty and very likely to blow highlights unless underexposed for the shadows. I can't remember reading about differences in the dynamic range of the Summarit. Sean Reid seems to have suggested contrast might be lower. Interesting that your experience was so different.

As I noted my tests were done in the field, on a tripod with the same subject, camera and settings. I'm relating what my eye sees when I open the raw images in PS3 and view them. The asph 28 is contrasty in comparison to the 35 Sum (the asph surface probably accounts for that) but the 28 held highlight detail much better than the 35. Not to change the subject but I just did a similar field test between my Leitz 21 Elmarit non asph and the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 and found the same situation. The Zeiss was sharper across the field but highlight detail was lost in it that was retained by the Elmarit. Differences in glass or coatings? I leave that to the experts, I use what works for me in the field.

[jimleicam3]

this was the feedback I was looking forward to. I use my M8 for fun, I will not quit my day job because of the M8. I am one of those guys that should not own an M8 but can do it, I love my M 8 an am looking forward to the Cron 35 mm. Thanks

[ibogost]

Originally Posted by offshore

As I noted my tests were done in the field, on a tripod with the same subject, camera and settings. I'm relating what my eye sees when I open the raw images in PS3 and view them. The asph 28 is contrasty in comparison to the 35 Sum (the asph surface probably accounts for that) but the 28 held highlight detail much better than the 35. Not to change the subject but I just did a similar field test between my Leitz 21 Elmarit non asph and the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 and found the same situation. The Zeiss was sharper across the field but highlight detail was lost in it that was retained by the Elmarit. Differences in glass or coatings? I leave that to the experts, I use what works for me in the field.

Really interesting. Certainly I wasn't saying I didn't believe it; this is something worth taking into account!

[ibogost]

Originally Posted by cme4brain

What I think you want is impossible for any one set of tests to reveal. Sean Reid's lens tests are fantastic for the real world. If you want MTF graphs, read Puts. Since photography has a subjective aspect, no one can test that for you. Two different photographers looking at the same photo will yield two different opinions as to what appeals to them! Sean, and no one, can test for that! That is like asking someone to show you the most beautiful car/woman/house in the world- depends on who you ask.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I'm not expecting some definitive resource. Rather, because photography is subjective, I'd welcome the opinion of reviewers with strong aesthetics, opinions, and experience when it comes to rendering styles in particular.

Anyway, sorry if I hijacked this thread on the summarits with this issue

[luigi bertolotti]

It's more than 6 months I have one Summarit (the 75), and I am confident I haven't wasted money, for these two reasons :
- I wasn't interested to have f2 an moreover f 1,4 on a 75, so I don't think that in due time I would have decided to spend much more on one of the 2 other Leica alternatives.
- I suspect the CV 75 would have given me similar results... but the mech quality of the Summarit is (till now) very satisfactory (my only complain is the hood, imho, the only evidence of a "cheap" design): I cannot tell the same about my only CV (the 15) so I think that in the long run (I use regularly Leitz lenses 40-50 years old) I haven't wasted money on the difference Leica-CV.

BUT, there is ONE thing that still makes me (sometimes) a little unconfident about using the Summarit 75 wide open, and is its short focus helicoid (40° or so): let me explain well: when I use a tele (TE 90 or 135) wide open at rather short distances I prefer, if I have the practical capabilty, to make a "focus bracketing" (this is a big advantage of digital... no worry of "thrown negs"... ): with the long helicoid of classical Leica lenses, I am well accustomed to do it by attitude... a pair of little (de)focus movements that make me sure one of the 3 shots is well spot focused: with the short helicoid of the Summarit 75 it's all different and at the moment I still find this a little annoying... maybe I'll get accustomed with time... but this could also make me lose the "automatic feel" that now I have on the classic lenses... 75 and 90 are very similar... maybe I gradually shall phase out the usage of 90 (but LOVE my old chrome TE 90... ) and... who knows ?... maybe one day Leica will make a "Summarit 135"...

[sliversurger]

when i bought my M8, i also purchased a 35 summarit for pretty much one reason which was cost. i knew i wanted a 35 lens and could only afford the summarit. i've been using it for about a year now and i'm really happy with it. i didn't want to purchase a non-leica lens because even the summarit has that leica look in it's photos that non-leica lenses just doesn't have. i've enjoyed using the summarit and do not regret my purchase.

[Kittyphoto]

I have Summarit 90mm with UV-IR. Very sharp lens. Rich color, good contrast, a bit cold tone. I bought it with M8. I attach files for your reference @f8 iso 320 full frame and crop.

kitty

[Kittyphoto]

This one from 70mm lux @f8 iso 320
Light setup difference Octa softbox. Summarit is strip softbox.

[mhoersch]

Kitty,
thank you for posting your examples! It's a pity that you changed the lighting between shots. But anyway, I find the Summilux portrait vastly superior to the Summarit one. With your images I would decide to go for the Lux in a second - if I didn't have one already...

[akiralx]

Originally Posted by offshore

I've used the 35 and the 75 along with my 28 Elmarit asph. Both lenses are very well made and appear to be as sharp as Erwin Putz claims, however my usage was in the field and I did not do a "lab" test. The major difference I noted in the 35 (which I used the most) is that it does not handle highlights very well compared to the 28 asph. Detail was lost and blown out entirely in some cases.

I too use the 35 Summarit and like it a lot. Apart from the CV 40/1.4 it is my only lens between the 28 and 50 Summicrons. Small and light and easy to handle - the only issue I have is that the metal hood often starts to unscrew off.