BlackDE Posted February 19, 2012 Share #1 Â Posted February 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Which lens would you recommend, or asked differently, does the Summicron worth almost double the price? Ken Rockwell says yes, Steve Huff says no. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Â Bernhard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 19, 2012 Posted February 19, 2012 Hi BlackDE, Take a look here Summicron M 35mm vs. Summarit M 35mm. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
01af Posted February 19, 2012 Share #2  Posted February 19, 2012 Both can get carried away a bit when writing about photography and gear (each in his own way)—but Steve Huff still has a judicious and sane mind while Ken Rockwell hasn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoshawnuff Posted February 19, 2012 Share #3 Â Posted February 19, 2012 I wouldn't trust either source for such a thing, but having had both lenses I prefer the 'fingerprint/look' of the cron. Both exceptionally well made and both have very high resolving abilities. Ultimately lens preferences will always come down to your personal experience; only way you'd really know is to try both. Â FYI more objective takes on these lenses (and many others) can be found through Erwin Puts and Sean Reid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted February 19, 2012 Share #4 Â Posted February 19, 2012 The last two Summicrons I have been disappointed by. It's a close thing between the Summarit and Zeiss 35 f2.8 (top of S Reid's collective review of 35 lenses on M9); the Leica is rather nicer to use, and of course comes coded, but the ZM does have a very marginal increase in resolution. I set it as pre-asph 35 in my M9 menu. You get better colour representation if you set white balance manually, with an ExpoDisc, rather than use AWB. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 19, 2012 Share #5 Â Posted February 19, 2012 I've owned both and it's the Summarit for me (and it would still be if both lenses cost the same). The F2.5 lens is less flare prone, just as sharp (for all practical purposes though somebody who has compared them using test charts will probably chip in that the Summarit is less sharp in the corners, blah blah) and it is small like Summicrons of old. The only downside is the 0.8m close focussing distance which might be significant to some (it is surprising what difference that 10cm can make if you routinely shoot at the close limit). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgcm Posted February 19, 2012 Share #6 Â Posted February 19, 2012 I've owned both and it's the Summarit for me (and it would still be if both lenses cost the same). The F2.5 lens is less flare prone, just as sharp (for all practical purposes though somebody who has compared them using test charts will probably chip in that the Summarit is less sharp in the corners, blah blah) and it is small like Summicrons of old. The only downside is the 0.8m close focussing distance which might be significant to some (it is surprising what difference that 10cm can make if you routinely shoot at the close limit). Â +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosophos Posted February 19, 2012 Share #7 Â Posted February 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've owned both and it's the Summarit for me (and it would still be if both lenses cost the same). The F2.5 lens is less flare prone, just as sharp (for all practical purposes though somebody who has compared them using test charts will probably chip in that the Summarit is less sharp in the corners, blah blah) and it is small like Summicrons of old. The only downside is the 0.8m close focussing distance which might be significant to some (it is surprising what difference that 10cm can make if you routinely shoot at the close limit). Â +2. Â I've owned both too and the 35 Summarit is my preferred choice. Â These images were taken with the 35 Summarit: Leica 35mm Summarit f/2.5 Leica 35mm Summarit f/2.5 Â Peter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted February 19, 2012 Share #8  Posted February 19, 2012 Didn´t we just had this discussion?  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/220801-35mm-summarit-vs-used-35mm-summicron.html  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 19, 2012 Share #9 Â Posted February 19, 2012 E. Puts' verdict in this review slightly favors the Summarit. But, you can't go terribly wrong with either lens; both render nicely in print. Â And yes, we've had this discussion, and most other lens discussions, many times. The search box is your friend. Â Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmitch6 Posted February 19, 2012 Share #10 Â Posted February 19, 2012 For what it's worth, I'm a new M9 user, and chose the 35 Summarit over the Summicron. I did a pretty good bit of comparing images between the two and went with the Summarit in the end. Seems to me that it has somewhat of an 'underdog' reputation, not being as 'sexy' as a 'Cron or 'Lux, but I don't think I'm missing anything at all with it. Most user feedback I've seen online seems to support that. Â Hope this helps! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
msteber Posted February 20, 2012 Share #11 Â Posted February 20, 2012 I've owned both and it's the Summarit for me (and it would still be if both lenses cost the same). The F2.5 lens is less flare prone, just as sharp (for all practical purposes though somebody who has compared them using test charts will probably chip in that the Summarit is less sharp in the corners, blah blah) and it is small like Summicrons of old. The only downside is the 0.8m close focussing distance which might be significant to some (it is surprising what difference that 10cm can make if you routinely shoot at the close limit). Â +3 Â Can't say enough good things about the Summarit 35mm. You will love it. Â Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertJRB Posted February 20, 2012 Share #12 Â Posted February 20, 2012 Don't have experience with the 35's but do with the 50 summicron and 50 summarit. Â Like the 35, the 50 summarit is a real great performer. The only big downside for me was the 0,8m minimum focus distance. For that I traded it in for a 50 cron. Â Still I miss some thing from the 50 summarit like the focusknob (not an issue with the 35's), small size, metal hood (trough the 50 cron's hood is okey) and the more modern rendering. Â So its just the question, is the 0,7m and f/2 worth the extra money, if not there is no real advantage for the 35 cron. Both good performers, both build well, both quite small. Â Oh, an advantage of the 35 cron is the leather case. Its only a soft one you get with the summarit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 20, 2012 Share #13 Â Posted February 20, 2012 Oh, an advantage of the 35 cron is the leather case. Its only a soft one you get with the summarit. Â I prefer the Summarit cloth bag - much more useful to me as it's something I've actually used (as opposed to the large leather cases which I always put back in the box and stick in the attic). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDE Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share #14  Posted February 20, 2012 +2. I've owned both too and the 35 Summarit is my preferred choice.  These images were taken with the 35 Summarit: Leica 35mm Summarit f/2.5 Leica 35mm Summarit f/2.5  Peter.  Thank you, Peter. Very nice shots btw.  Bernhard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDE Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share #15  Posted February 20, 2012 Didn´t we just had this discussion? http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/220801-35mm-summarit-vs-used-35mm-summicron.html   Sorry, if this is a repeating thread. I did a search but nothing came up.  Bernhard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDE Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share #16  Posted February 20, 2012 E. Puts' verdict in this review slightly favors the Summarit. But, you can't go terribly wrong with either lens; both render nicely in print. And yes, we've had this discussion, and most other lens discussions, many times. The search box is your friend.  Jeff  Thank you, too, and sorry for this duplicate thread.  Bernhard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnfell Posted February 20, 2012 Share #17 Â Posted February 20, 2012 I have the Summicron and can find little or nothing to fault it with. Â I got a good deal on it used, and need f/2 quite often. However most of my work is done at F/4 to f/11. Â That said, if buying new I would probably get the summarit. Smallness and lightness is a big deal to me - part of the whole attraction is smallness of the camera. A camera that weighs little and takes up little room is more likely to come along. Â I have handled both and although the cron feels better built I doubt that the summarit will ever fall apart even with heavy use (which Rockwell seems to suggest that it will). Â Summarits have an undeservedly bad reputation. IMO. Â PS. If you frequently shoot at closer than 1 meter then maybe an M isnt for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freusen Posted February 20, 2012 Share #18 Â Posted February 20, 2012 ...........I have the Summicron and can find little or nothing to fault it with............ +1 for the f2.0/35mm Summicron Asph ___________ FrankR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.