nickd Posted June 30, 2015 Share #1 Posted June 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi. I'm looking to buy a Summarit M 35mm lens, but have questions regarding the differences between the old f2.5 and the new f2.4. From what I have read, both versions have an aspherical element, but the old f2.5 version simply was not advertised as such - is this true? If so, then it seems to me that the only real difference between the two versions is that the new version has a very slightly larger aperture (equivalent to 1/8 f-stop increase), but this comes at the expense of greater length & weight, and a 46mm filter size rather than a 39mm filter size. The other difference that I can see is that the new f2.4 version comes with a lens hood included in the price, rather than the old version that had a separate lens hood. However, is there a difference in build quality or image quality between the two versions? I have yet to see a detailed comparison between the two versions, but it seems to me that it is better value to buy a good-quality used version of the old f2.5, rather than fork out a lot more money for the new f2.4 version, without compromising image quality. Am I missing something? Is there a reason why I should buy the new f2.4? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Nick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Hi nickd, Take a look here Summarit M 35mm f2.5 vs f2.4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
spydrxx Posted June 30, 2015 Share #2 Posted June 30, 2015 You pays your money and takes your choice. If you have a bunch of 46mm filters already and want the lens to come with a hood, the equation is pretty simple. If you don't shoot at full aperture often, go fpr the cheaper version. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted June 30, 2015 Share #3 Posted June 30, 2015 You haven't helped, the OP wanted to know about any non-obvious differences, including IQ. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodluvan Posted June 30, 2015 Share #4 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) there's no difference. "tighter tolerances" that allowed for a slightly larger aperture is the official statement Edited June 30, 2015 by rodluvan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted June 30, 2015 Share #5 Posted June 30, 2015 but this comes at the expense of greater length & weight I don't think the newer Summarits are heavier, at least not by any meaningful amount. I recently handled a 35/F2.4 on a camera I was looking at (I wasn't interested in the lens) and it felt like the lens was hollow – dare I suggest it felt a bit cheap, like some tin attrape lens. Am I missing something? Is there a reason why I should buy the new f2.4? The optical quality is the same. IMO unless the E46 filter size is attractive (you might have a large collection of 46mm filters), buying the new version when you get the older version cheaper is a waste of money. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juppmain Posted June 30, 2015 Share #6 Posted June 30, 2015 I tried both, couldn't see a difference. I bought the older version used with hood for half of the price of the new one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted June 30, 2015 Share #7 Posted June 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I chose the 2.5 (both 35 & 50) for the 39mm filter size, because most of my Leica lenses use 39. I now prefer my Summarits to my 35 & 50 Summicons for their handling. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted June 30, 2015 Share #8 Posted June 30, 2015 The only difference between the Summarit-M 35 mm 1:2.5 and the Summarit-M 35 mm 1:2.4 Asph is the filter size. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 30, 2015 Share #9 Posted June 30, 2015 And the weight. And the size. And the hood. And the aperture. And the price. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodluvan Posted June 30, 2015 Share #10 Posted June 30, 2015 there's a $100 price difference on B&H Photo. that's not even navel lint in Leica World. what's the fuss about? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 30, 2015 Share #11 Posted June 30, 2015 Who's fussing? All the differences are for the better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodluvan Posted June 30, 2015 Share #12 Posted June 30, 2015 Who's fussing? All the differences are for the better. And the weight. And the size. And the hood. And the aperture. And the price. 2.4: 20g lighter 2.4: 1mm larger diameter 2.4: hood included 2.4: 1/8 stop faster 2.4: costs $150 more so for $150 you effectively get a hood Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 30, 2015 Share #13 Posted June 30, 2015 And all the other differences. Worth every penny. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted July 1, 2015 Share #14 Posted July 1, 2015 I don't think 1/8th of a stop amounts to more than a mouse farting in church. Personally, I think the 46mm thread is the best part, but the choice is not only about new vs new, but used mint, warrantied f2.5 versions against the f2.4 new price, as the latter are not really on the used market yet. In this case, the price of getting the tiny benefits of the f2.4 is a lot more than $150 if you would otherwise be open to a used f2.5. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcespite Posted August 28, 2016 Share #15 Posted August 28, 2016 And the weight. And the size. And the hood. And the aperture. And the price. I believe even though the 2.5 is labelled 2.5, it's really 2.4 as stated by Erwin Puts. http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page83.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted August 28, 2016 Share #16 Posted August 28, 2016 I believe even though the 2.5 is labelled 2.5, it's really 2.4 as stated by Erwin Puts. http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page83.html Of course! Only a marketing thing where 2.4 sounds better and is psychologically better because it truly specifies half a stop. Who really thought that there was a real difference in aperture? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McGarrett Posted August 29, 2016 Share #17 Posted August 29, 2016 MTFs from Leica seem to be a little bit different between the two (lower on-axis, but higher in the corners for the new 2.4 version) I have no idea if that is visible in real photography. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.