Difference in image quality between a Summicron and Summarit.

[skovbo13]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

 

I've been shooting with a Summarit 50mm on my Leica MP (my first leica) for a couple of months and am overall very pleased with the overall performance of the lens.

 

I love its compactness, light weight, and overall image quality; despite occasional fuzziness in low light conditions and lacking a little in built quality in my opinion.

 

Now I'm considering to buy a used Summicron 35mm, since I could really use the wider angle for some of my work, as well as the extra stop it will give me.

 

My question is, is there going to be a noticeable difference in image quality from the Summicron compared to my Summarit? I realize the Summarits were marketed by Leica as a more affordable lens series, so I'm expecting the Summicron to perform noticeably better.

 

What do you think?

 

Best regards,

Skov

[Jeff S]

There's this....http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/85496-summarit-35-vs-summicron-asph-35-a.html

 

And this site is highly recommended by forum members(small annual fee)...Welcome to ReidReviews

 

Jeff

[tobey bilek]

The Summarits are in the same quality range as the 1980 Summicrons optically to keep things simple, perhaps a little more color saturation..

 

The Summarits are not the same as the current Summicrons which are very sharp, some think too sharp to be pleasing. Most of the difference will be outside the central image area.

 

If you are intent on keeping the same look, get a 35 mm Summarit.

[Xmas]

The Summarits are in the same quality range as the 1980 Summicrons optically to keep things simple, perhaps a little more color saturation..

 

The Summarits are not the same as the current Summicrons which are very sharp, some think too sharp to be pleasing. Most of the difference will be outside the central image area.

 

If you are intent on keeping the same look, get a 35 mm Summarit.

 

Leica publish on their web site the MTF graphs for the 35mm arit and asph cron, at 5.6 there is not a lot of difference in the graphs, the preasph cron probably wont be as good, as either of the new lenses at 5.6, I don't have the MTF graphs to hand for this series.

 

Leica Camera AG - Photography - LEICA SUMMICRON-M 35 mm f/2 ASPH.

 

Flare, boketh, weight, size, ergonomics, etc. may be substantially different, Leica have really gone to town on the asph's performance, whereas the arit is a double Gauss in high refractive, designed to be cheap to manufacture. I'd assume the arit may not work well with an M8 or M9...

 

Noel

[Jeff S]

I'd assume the arit may not work well with an M8 or M9...

 

I don't mean offense, but that's rubbish.

 

Maybe you should subscribe, too...http://reidreviews.com/reidreviews/

 

Jeff

[tobey bilek]

pre asph and asph 35 Summicrons should be quite close at 5.6, at least that is what many people told me when I was considering an upgrade which I never did.

 

My "go to' kit is 35 pre asph, new 50 2.8 new 90 4.0. I really don`t see a lot of difference in them. The later two are right up there with the modern lenses. Where the pre asph falls down is at 2.0 and 2.8 outside the central image circle. But many like it and that is why the used price is high and it known as the bokeh king.

 

I think it is overpriced at $1000 or the going price.

 

If you are pleased with the 50 2.5, I see no reason why you would not be pleased with the 35 2.5.

 

The preoblem with all the summarits is they have issues with lens shades and handling and they are generally slow sellers which means at resale time you may lose more money than with the Summicron. If you buy to keep for 40 years, it makes no difference.

 

summarits first look

 

a review you can trust from practical photographers

 

About half way down they repeat what I said about being equal at 5.6.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok, if you want plain English, this is pretty easy to understand...

 

From Erwin Puts...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 quite close.

(Excerpted from here...Summarit range)

 

Jeff

[pgk]

Flare, boketh, weight, size, ergonomics, etc. may be substantially different, Leica have really gone to town on the asph's performance, whereas the arit is a double Gauss in high refractive, designed to be cheap to manufacture.l

Well having owned the 35 pre-asph Summicron, 35 asph Summicron and 35 Summarit I can confidently say that the Summarit flares less than either of the Summicrons! Size and weight are not dramatically different in all honesty, and I can't say that ergonomics of any was noticeably better than the others. Which leaves bokeh....

 

If you don't need a faster lens, then the Summarit is a perfectly good lens and as for being slow to sell, well mine went through an ad on this forum and could have sold more than once! I never tried it but thought of using a hood from a late 50/2.8 Elmar which I suspect would have fitted and worked fine .

[skovbo13]

Thanks a lot for all the advice.

This is obviously a bit of a controversial issue, but your replies have been very helpful nonetheless.

 

I'm planning on getting myself the 35 cron, I'm sure I will appreciate the extra stop and hopefully better built quality than my Summarit. (The separately sold hood is useless since it never stays in place and the aperture ring is somewhat too loose in my opinion).

 

Best regards,

Skov

[Jeff S]

I think that's a fine choice, as I also use the 35 Summicron asph.

 

I just get annoyed when people denigrate the Summarit line, without any facts to back it up. Sean Reid, Erwin Puts and others have done extensive tests to demonstrate the real results, not hearsay.

 

I suspect Leica intentionally does not hype the Summarits for fear of cannibalizing Summicron sales. In the end, all of the modern lenses probably exceed the capabilities of most photographers. The differences are subtle, if any, in A3 or A4 prints, especially with the M8 crop elimination of edge issues.

 

As far as resale value, well, that's another issue...subject to consumer beliefs, whether real or imagined.

 

Jeff

[cheewai_m6]

to the OP. if you want to read reviews on lenses for leica Ms, go to

 

Steve Huff Photos - Real World Digital Camera And Lens Reviews

 

here you'll read about lenses from someone who's actually used them. he also gives a stack of alternative lenses, all of which he's used before. he also doesn't crap on about useless graphs which mean nothing.

 

he's tested summarits, as well as zeiss lenses and they are great reading.

[skovbo13]

to the OP. if you want to read reviews on lenses for leica Ms, go to

 

Steve Huff Photos - Real World Digital Camera And Lens Reviews

 

 

Ok, I'm still hesitant about which 35mm lens I should get, especially after reading the reviews at the page linked to above.

 

It seems to me that in the 35mm range, the Summarit might very well be the better choice. Especially since a new Summarit is cheaper than a used cron.

 

So I'm thinking, should I invest next in a 35mm Summarit and on the long run exchange my 50mm Summarit for a 50mm cron or even a lux?

 

Resale value is of no real concern for me, I just want a lens setup that I'm going to use as long as I take photographs really.

 

Regards,

Skov

[Xmas]

I don't mean offense, but that's rubbish.

 

Maybe you should subscribe, too...Welcome to ReidReviews

 

Jeff

forgotten the meds again?

 

The MTF graphs are objective you don't need to subscribe, the f/2.8 aron from '60s was as good as the other contemporary 35mm lenses at f/5.6, the little arit seems to be similarly as good as its contemporaries today.

 

You would need to be really good technically to detect it bettering a type IV 35mm cron at f/5.6. The type IV does flare even with the rect lenshood.

 

The arit may be more prone to iris images like the type IV 5cm cron is on M8 or M9, seen those myself with a late cron, note my early cron is ok on film. I'd be cautious and try a lens, myself, easy to do in shop before you buy, (with an IR filter). I was really surprised.

 

Even a review you pay for may not include the test coverage you need...

 

Noel.

[Jeff S]

Even a review you pay for may not include the test coverage you need...

 

No need to pay...just read quote in post #7 from Puts...he could take you to school on MTF graphs.

 

For me, it's all about real world photography, and ultimately the final print. I couldn't care less about graphs.

 

But, I pointed to Reid's site as well as Puts' since they come at this from different perspectives...but offer the same conclusions. And, there are many other free sources in agreement...e.g., Steve Huff.

 

Guess you better get to publishing your contrary findings. There are sure to be interested followers.

 

Jeff

[cheewai_m6]

Ok, I'm still hesitant about which 35mm lens I should get, especially after reading the reviews at the page linked to above.

 

basically, all leica lenses are good. especially the modern ones. leica don't make bad lenses. sure they have different characteristics, but seiously, who sits there with a good photo and says 'ohh would be so much better if had the 35mm lux characteristic, instead, i'm stuck with the summarit character' no one.

 

buy the fastest lens you can afford. because you won't be disappointed with any of them in terms of quality.

[Xmas]

Hi Jeff

 

The filter flare is a known problem, see

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/109554-edmond-terakopians-m9-review-bjp-2.html

 

My mate seems to get worse problem with his 5cm cron than his other lens, the hypotheses I was making was that the arit 3.5cm being a similar construction internally to the 5cm cron may have similar effects, I try before I bought for a M8 or M9... They have internal plane or near plane surfaces. I dont see this 5cm cron problem on my film cameras.

 

But I was not disagreeing with Puts comment you reference he is equivocal in saying the arit is better overall, I was saying it is as good at f/5.6, note the OP grumbles that he was not happy with his at larger apertures, I did not comment on that, and wont. When you try the lens on a camera instead of a MTF machine, even with a slow film and acutance developer the film alters the effective MTF.

 

I cannot do you any tests don't have an arit, must of my kit is antique or cheap CV 'junk'. Cause I take shots one handed I never see lens performance, the camera shake dominates.

 

Lastly MTF graphs are simplicity itself to interpret, they are no different to lens testing charts transformed into an easy to read form, i.e. they are objective you don't have to squint at them. Puts does provide a nice description for the uninitiated I wont repeat, it is his copyright.

 

Noel

[Jeff S]

Noel, the filter flare issue you cite is not specific to Summarits, and even then it's only in certain situations, which can be avoided.

 

I responded to your comment that you "assume they (the Summarits) won't work well on the M8 or M9." And I said that was rubbish. Maybe strong language, but my point stands. If your assumption is true, then that would argue for just not using the M8 or M9, since many other lenses could induce flare under the right conditions.

 

I haven't read a serious review yet that shows the new Summarits to be optically inferior in any significant way.

 

Jeff

[Xmas]

Hi Jeff

 

I agree it is not specific to summarits, but you can only avoid the effect referenced if you can control the sun angle on the filter. My friend instead gets iris images contra jour with his late cron 5cm type IV, I'd assume the 5cm arit and 3.5cm arit would behave similarly, and check out before purchase, you can do that with an M8 outside the dealers shop.

 

His iris images are real frequent, my rather sad (optically) early type IV cron, with a UV filter, never iris images and very rarely flares in the same situations when we are out shooting together.

 

He keeps threatening to sell his M8, I only ever use film.

 

It seems to be a limitation of the sensor type, as discussed in the thread referenced, which does reference a review, it is a known feature or problem.

 

Noel

[steinzeug]

Hello,

 

I've been shooting with a Summarit 50mm on my Leica MP (my first leica) for a couple of months and am overall very pleased with the overall performance of the lens.

 

I love its compactness, light weight, and overall image quality; despite occasional fuzziness in low light conditions and lacking a little in built quality in my opinion.

 

Now I'm considering to buy a used Summicron 35mm, since I could really use the wider angle for some of my work, as well as the extra stop it will give me.

 

My question is, is there going to be a noticeable difference in image quality from the Summicron compared to my Summarit? I realize the Summarits were marketed by Leica as a more affordable lens series, so I'm expecting the Summicron to perform noticeably better.

 

What do you think?

 

Best regards,

Skov

 

 

Hi, could you please expand on this: despite occasional fuzziness in low light conditions

 

I´m considering a Summarit 2.5 50mm and trying to asertain what it is capable of.

Some say its up there with the crons (bar the stop difference) some say its "fuzzy"

 

thanks.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Xmas]

Hi, could you please expand on this: despite occasional fuzziness in low light conditions

 

I´m considering a Summarit 2.5 50mm and trying to asertain what it is capable of.

Some say its up there with the crons (bar the stop difference) some say its "fuzzy"

 

thanks.

 

There is not a stop difference, and the MTF diagrams Leica publish, mean that you would have to be really good, heavy tripod, slow B&W film, etc.,... to detect a difference between lenses.

 

You do need to check that you are happy with the ergonomics of both lenses, focus ring, hood, weight, etc.,... and look at the ZM and CV options. People aslo say the ZM is better and the CV not so good, but I'd suggest you would have more difficulty carrying the heavy tripod... Again the ergonomics of the last two may be more difficult, for you.

 

Noel