Greywolf Posted October 11, 2011 Share #1 Â Posted October 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The differences between these lenses is the Maximum aperture f2.5, f2 & f1.4 Â However is it only these differences which are reflected in the prices or is the IQ of each range an improvement on the slower example. On average would more experienced Leica users than me consider that the overall quality (especially IQ) gets better as you progress from a Summarit to a Summicron to a Summilux or does the extra money for each range only give you the extra speed. Â Sorry if this seems a really naive question but when I bought my M9 I could really only afford the 50mm Summarit, which is an excellent lens, but I could now afford a Summicron but I'm not sure whether it's worth doing if it would only be for the extra speed. Actually I have thought about a Summilux too but I'm not getting any younger, and I'm not sure it's worth the wait. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Hi Greywolf, Take a look here 'rit, 'cron, 'lux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted October 11, 2011 Share #2 Â Posted October 11, 2011 Do you mean Summarit, Summicron and Summilux? I almost dropped my 'late of 'ner when I read the 'ead 'tle... Â Regards, Â Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywolf Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share #3 Â Posted October 11, 2011 Idleness and irony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted October 11, 2011 Share #4 Â Posted October 11, 2011 I think you have to judge each lens individually. If you don't need the speed( or specifically want it) I don't think you will gain much in more expensive lenses (especially from 2.5 to 2.0).. but... Some lenses are known for having unique character. 28 cron, Noctilux, 35/50 lux ect.. Older and newer types. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted October 11, 2011 Share #5 Â Posted October 11, 2011 There is no replacement for cubic inches. Or maybe not. Some questions are not so binary. Â Sharpness is only one of the factors and the f 2.5 lens may be sharper than all the others, basically because building such a lens is "easier". Â The "rendering" of the image is a whole different story, in some cases a 50+ years old 35/2.8 summaron will outperform anything else on the market, including the current state of the art. It depends on the message you want to convey. Â Especially the lesser depth of field at larger apertures, the out of focus softness (bokeh), vignetting, etc. will all be a factor to consider. In general a summicron f/2 lens will be slightly sharper than a f/1.4 summilux. Nevertheless the rendering of a 50/1.4 ASPH is really (REALLY) special. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 11, 2011 Share #6 Â Posted October 11, 2011 Irony? Â Lost on me. Â I do know that my 28 Elmarit is a fabulous lens. Abbreviations of these lenses isn't always helpful... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted October 11, 2011 Share #7 Â Posted October 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The differences between these lenses is the Maximum aperture f2.5, f2 & f1.4Â However is it only these differences which are reflected in the prices or is the IQ of each range an improvement on the slower example. On average would more experienced Leica users than me consider that the overall quality (especially IQ) gets better as you progress from a Summarit to a Summicron to a Summilux or does the extra money for each range only give you the extra speed. Â Sorry if this seems a really naive question but when I bought my M9 I could really only afford the 50mm Summarit, which is an excellent lens, but I could now afford a Summicron but I'm not sure whether it's worth doing if it would only be for the extra speed. Actually I have thought about a Summilux too but I'm not getting any younger, and I'm not sure it's worth the wait. Â The best idea would be to have a chance to meet up with other Leica users and get a chance to try the lenses they use. You need to build a knowledge base to reference what you are trying to accomplish & the individual rendering of each lens. I'd even suggest going to a dealer & "renting" a lens for the day. In NYC, it's very easy, as there's a stiff deposit which insures being careful & deliberate in you use. Â By any means possible, synch up with other folks & get a chance to learn from them what they know & how they work. There's no substitute for hard work. I always look forward to meeting & shooting with new members or members that come to NYC. I always come away with lots of great new approaches, methods and potential friends. In your case, you need to be more proactive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted October 11, 2011 Share #8 Â Posted October 11, 2011 Skip the Summicron while you wait to be old and rich enough to afford a Summilux Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 11, 2011 Share #9 Â Posted October 11, 2011 ... On average would more experienced Leica users than me consider that the overall quality (especially IQ) gets better as you progress from a Summarit to a Summicron to a Summilux or does the extra money for each range only give you the extra speed. ... when I bought my M9 I could really only afford the 50mm Summarit, which is an excellent lens, but I could now afford a Summicron but I'm not sure whether it's worth doing if it would only be for the extra speed... Comparing Leica lenses of the same generation, i.e. Mandler's or Karbe's for instance, you will find that their rendition is very close no matter if you buy a Summarit, an Elmar, an Elmarit, a Summicron or a Summilux. There are some differences of course but all in all the extra speed is the main reason for the extra cost. For instance, the Summarit 35/2.5 is very close to the Summicron 35/2 asph from f/2.8 to f/16. I own both and i need to pixel peep to recognize them. On the contrary, there are significant differences between lenses of different generations. For instance between the Summicron 35/2 v4 and the Summicron 35/2 asph. But this not your question if i understand well. In your example, the Summicron 50 is a Mandler lens where the Summarit 50 is a Karbe's. I have no experience with the latter but from what i've seen on the web the Summarit seems to have more micro contrast and a slightly harsher bokeh. A more 'modern' rendition so to speak but again i have no experience with this lens so take what i say with a pinch of salt. What would i do if i were you? Thanks for asking the question. I would keep the Summarit for now and wait for the next Summicron 50 asph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywolf Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share #10 Â Posted October 12, 2011 Thank you very much for your replies. I'm not unhappy with the Summarit and the replies have given me food for thought. I also realize that there is a lot more to know about Leica in general and Leica lenses in particular so I want to find out more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 12, 2011 Share #11  Posted October 12, 2011 What's in a name? Very little.  In the old days B.C. (Before Computers) a basic lens design was a major investment and deserved a brand name of its owm, like Elmar or Summar. It was reasonable to ask "what is the difference in performance between a Voigtländer Heliar and a Ross Xpres?" because even though sometimes equal in speed, they were different in design. But since then, Leica lens names have became redundant marketing code words for different speed classes – and Zeiss names like Distagon or Biogon have little to do with the original designs of these names – so the question "are there class differences in performance between f:2.8 lenses and f:2.0 lenses, apart from their speeds – would immediately be seen as misplaced. Which they are.  Apples and oranges. I agree that today, the adequate comparisons are between design generations. And in that case, we are really comparing different states of optical technology. Current Leica M lenses, with the exception of holdovers like the 50mm Summicron and highly specialised optics like the Noctilux, are very similar in rendering as long as we compare apples to apples, i.e. at the same f-stop. This of course is because lens designers today are in much fuller command of their craft than before, and set themselves very similar design goals.  The old man from the Age of the 5cm Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 13, 2011 Share #12 Â Posted October 13, 2011 In general use 95% of the time I am sure you will be hard pushed to tell much difference between these three (assuming they are of recent vintage). Â The odd couple of stops difference can be easily compensated for by technique and a variety of other dodges. Â The shallow depth of field at 1.4 is one thing you cannot get though..... but this can be a curse or a blessing depending on what you are trying to photograph...... Â My most used lenses are currently MATE, WATE and Macro 90 ..... all are f4 ..... the minor limitations are more than compensated for by versatility and ease of focussing.... Â If you have money to burn then go for it.... otherwise I wouldn't anguish about what you are missing.... which in reality is not a lot.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 13, 2011 Share #13 Â Posted October 13, 2011 You can imitate shallower DOF in PS with careful use of layers and blur filters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailronin Posted October 13, 2011 Share #14 Â Posted October 13, 2011 That's cheating Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stateowned Posted October 13, 2011 Share #15 Â Posted October 13, 2011 and far from easy to do.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted October 13, 2011 Share #16 Â Posted October 13, 2011 You can imitate shallower DOF in PS with careful use of layers and blur filters. Â That's even less fun than using a lens you are not happy with! Â OP, not much point in swapping a Summarit for a Summicron imo, so I'd go for the Summilux asph. Your photographic techniques may also change accordingly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.