Summarit-M Lenses: Right Choice?

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why should you care? If I tell you f2.5 is near useless for me, how does that affect you? It shouldn't - you'll either run repeatedly into issues of low light, or be consumed with an obsession with shallow DOF, or you won't. Or that you always want to focus closer. But if not, you'll find your lenses are just dandy.

 

That's right! Judge for yourself and care not for other people's opinions. Care for facts only. And you yourself is Fact #1 and only you know it.

 

"The dogs howl but the caravan proceeds." (Arab proverb.)

 

The old man on camel #3

[Shade]

I think uts hard to find faults on any Leica lenses. But rather than buying these summarits i would go for the summaron and elmarits.

[asiafish]

I own the 35, 75 and 90mm Summarits, a 50mm Summicron and to round it out, the 28mm Elmarit Asph and an old Russian Jupiter 3 Sonnar knock-off.

 

The 35 Summarit is outstanding in every way, as are both the 75 and 90. Wide-open the Jupiter 3 has amazing bokeh and as mine is calibrated for wide-open and shimmed for Leica, there are no focus shift issues until about 4 meters, at which point I can slightly adjust focus or stop down to f/2.

 

The 50mm Summicron is perfect, but a Summarit would likely have done just as well.

 

So back to the question, yes, your lenses are all excellent, enjoy them in good health. The only real question for me is whether to keep BOTH the 75 and 90. I bought the 75 first and love it, then found the 90 at too good a price to pass up ($1000 WITH the hood). They are close enough in perspective that I probably don't need both, but can't decide which to sell.

 

I like the rendering of the 75 a bit more, but the 90 gives me a better focal length spread with the other lenses I own. Maybe I will just keep both.

[wda]

Summarit lenses do not appear to lose value when bought second-hand. Few come onto the market. Not so long ago Summarit lenses were the only readily available lenses for new entrants into Leica ownership. I have the 75mm version, bought for my M8 and retained long after the M8 became obsolete. I have no hesitation in using at f/2.5 when needed. Only indoors or in dire weather conditions does a faster lens show an advantage.

[tobey bilek]

The faster the lens, the more shallow the area of focus at widest aperture. You may or may not like that.

 

If you take pics in dark areas, concerts, night football, without flash, 2.0 or 1.4 would be of value. There is a dollar penalty and weight penalty.

 

Summarits do not focus as close and that is how they were able to do the lighter build plus sharing of components. A RF is really not best use for close work anyway.

 

I got my first camera 55 years ago and really do not use 1.4. All my night city scapes were done from a tripod probably at 4 or 5.6.

 

Some day if you branch put into low light, keep the Summarits for their qualities and buy a 1.4.

 

My favorite lenses today are a 50 2.8 and 75 2.0, usually the 50.

[nggalai]

The faster the lens, the more shallow the area of focus at widest aperture. You may or may not like that.

 

If you take pics in dark areas, concerts, night football, without flash, 2.0 or 1.4 would be of value. There is a dollar penalty and weight penalty.

 

Summarits do not focus as close and that is how they were able to do the lighter build plus sharing of components. A RF is really not best use for close work anyway.

 

Good points. I’m still using the 90mm Summarit, mostly for performance / concert work. And I really don’t want to go wider than, say, f/4 most of the time. Even so, with usual stage distances, sometimes only guitar belts are completely in focus, the rest of the performers isn’t, depending on output size.

 

I love my 50mm Zeiss Sonnar with its f/1.5 widest aperture to bits, but often f/1.5-2 isn’t practical for what I shoot. I tend to avoid apertures wider than about f/2.8 with 50mm. Which also means that the Summarit-M 50mm often would do the job just fine, in an lighter package. But well, there are “emergency situations” where you simply can’t crank up ISO any higher or you just need 1/250s or faster, or where an extremely shallow depth of field provides a nice touch.

 

Horses of courses. But I am seriously considering selling all my fast glass and go with slower, but lighter, alternatives instead. Instead of said Sonnar, which I enjoy a lot, but that may be just me.

 

Cheers,

-Sascha