Jump to content

The Leica Forum uses cookies. Read the privacy statement for more info. To remove this message, please click the button to the right:    OK, understood.

- - - - -

Summarit 35 vs. Summicron ASPH 35 question


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_darkstar2004_*

Guest_darkstar2004_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2009 - 15:54

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)
I was reading Erwin Puts' Tao of Leica website yesterday and Messr. Puts made a statement that I found to be surprising, to say the least. In regard to the Summarit lens range, he said

The Summarit 35 and Summarit 75 emerge as the best lenses in the range, operating in close vicinity of the Summicron versions. I would even claim that the Summarit 35mm is better than the Summicron ASPH version. The Summarit 75 is not as highly color corrected as the APO version, but in all other respects it is quite close.


Can anyone offer any personal experience to support Puts' claim that the Summarit 35 is better than the Summicron 35 ASPH? If he has said that the Summarit is equal to the Summicron ASPH, that would have been one thing - but to say it is better than the Summicron ASPH is really quite a fantastic claim, IMO.

My initial thought was "Well, I have the 28/2 ASPH already; if the Summarit 35 is even equal to the Summicron 35, what would be the point of paying twice the price of the Summarit in order to get the Summicron??" The 1/2 stop difference in maximum aperture is a total non-issue to me, BTW.

I would particularly like to hear from those who have own both of these 35mm lenses - or have at least had a chance to use both enough to evaluate and compare their performance.

If the Summarit is that good, paying twice as much for the Summicron ASPH just doesn't make much sense to me.

What do you folks think?

#2 offshore

offshore

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,040 posts
  • City / Ort:Rohnert Park

Posted 08 May 2009 - 16:12

I was reading Erwin Puts' Tao of Leica website yesterday and Messr. Puts made a statement that I found to be surprising, to say the least. In regard to the Summarit lens range, he said

Can anyone offer any personal experience to support Puts' claim that the Summarit 35 is better than the Summicron 35 ASPH? If he has said that the Summarit is equal to the Summicron ASPH, that would have been one thing - but to say it is better than the Summicron ASPH is really quite a fantastic claim, IMO.

My initial thought was "Well, I have the 28/2 ASPH already; if the Summarit 35 is even equal to the Summicron 35, what would be the point of paying twice the price of the Summarit in order to get the Summicron??" The 1/2 stop difference in maximum aperture is a total non-issue to me, BTW.

I would particularly like to hear from those who have own both of these 35mm lenses - or have at least had a chance to use both enough to evaluate and compare their performance.

If the Summarit is that good, paying twice as much for the Summicron ASPH just doesn't make much sense to me.

What do you folks think?

I guess I would ask better at what? Speed? Color saturation? Sharpness? I took the Summarit out on the test drive program and used it for a day and I would say no to the first two and maybe to sharpness but then again I don't bench test lenses I go by what I see in the final image. If you want a Leica lens I would say it is a good investment for the price because it is solidly made. My only real complaint about it was the blown out highlights I saw versus the cron but I think the ASPH design has something to do with the difference. This probably isn't much help in making a decision but I've always believed that choosing lenses is an individual decision based on personal factors.

#3 Gentleman Villain

Gentleman Villain

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 466 posts

Posted 09 May 2009 - 01:02

I don't think it's fair to say that one is better than the other. Leica lenses are mostly all of stellar quality. The real differences between the lenses are the way that they draw. The Cron has a more crisp and modern contrast while the Summarit has a slightly muted contrast. To my eyes, the Summarit has a smoother transition between in-focus and out-of-focus areas than the faster Crons. I've seen a lot of photos taken with the Summarits at 2.5 and it can be difficult to judge (unless looking very closely) the exact position of the focal plane because the transitions between IF and OOF are so smooth.

If a person stands back a short distance to view images shot by Crons and Luxes at wide open....it's often very easy to identify the exact spot where IF and OOF areas meet. That's not really the case with the Summarits...The Summarits have extremely smooth transitions. That's just my observations...others are certainly free to disagree.

Edited by Gentleman Villain, 09 May 2009 - 01:06.


#4 rob_x2004

rob_x2004

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 6,049 posts

Posted 09 May 2009 - 02:09

Its the misguided users reliance on f/stop numbers to determine better and best. Prices will only reflect each lenses development and manufacture costs against sales. Its hilarious to listen to 'I shoot wide open' and 'you need faster glass to shoot in low light' arguments. All my summiluxs are wonderful soft light lenses. If I need something to see into shadowed corners then my elmarits trounce. People should be looking at lenses in the environent they use them in. Personally I think intelligent people put their brains in a box when it comes to photography. If you like the particular look Leica dials into any lens tehn buy it. It isnt a better or worse.

Edited by rob_x2004, 09 May 2009 - 02:13.


#5 NZDavid

NZDavid

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 4,612 posts
  • City / Ort:Christchurch, New Zealand

Posted 09 May 2009 - 05:53

There has to be an analogy with hi-fi. From a low to a medium price point there is a huge difference; thereafter, the differences tend to be subtle variations, coloring or rendition, and personal preferences. The Summarits look to be excellent value. I wonder if they are closer to the pre-ASPH 'crons in the way they draw? Of interest, too, is the bokeh. I have the 'cron ASPH and have found the definition of very fine detail quite amazing, especially in low light.

#6 sbelyaev

sbelyaev

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 158 posts
  • City / Ort:Albuquerque

Posted 09 May 2009 - 17:38

Based on my personal experience Puts is correct.
Summicron 35/2 ashp has more even sharpness across the field that the other lenses, but both summarit 35 and summicron 35 v4 have much higher central (about 2/3-3/4 of the field) sharpness. I have two copies of summicron asph and both perform the same way.
New summarit is very close to summicron v4 in terms of the image quality.

samples:

http://flickr.com/ph...57614305654696/

http://flickr.com/ph...401311/sizes/o/

http://flickr.com/ph...400741/sizes/o/

Edited by sbelyaev, 09 May 2009 - 17:43.
update


#7 JLV

JLV

    Erfahrener Benutzer

  • Members
  • 1,260 posts
  • City / Ort:France

Posted 09 May 2009 - 18:28

There has to be an analogy with hi-fi. From a low to a medium price point there is a huge difference; thereafter, the differences tend to be subtle variations, coloring or rendition, and personal preferences. The Summarits look to be excellent value. I wonder if they are closer to the pre-ASPH 'crons in the way they draw? Of interest, too, is the bokeh. I have the 'cron ASPH and have found the definition of very fine detail quite amazing, especially in low light.


As a Hi fi tubes analog lp's addict I agree 100%.
All is question of personal feeling.
It is such a subjective feeling that it is difficult not to fall into "High end gear syndrom"
(I know what I am talking about in terms of Hi fi)

Best regards,
Jean-Luc

#8 3dit0r

3dit0r

    Neuer Benutzer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 19 May 2009 - 16:47

Thanks for the comparison, I too was interested in this question! Has anyone considered the same question in light of the 35mm ZM lenses from Zeiss?




0 user(s) are reading this topic