Giacomo.B Posted March 27, 2012 Share #1 Posted March 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello, i am new in the leica world, use with satisfaction a Leica M9P and three lens, two of these are Summarit (50-90). I really like them and i don't understand why they have little success, i know that they can not have the same quality of the big brothers Summicron and Summilux, but i think that they are undervalued from many users that prefer old lens or worse Vc... So guys what do you think?? Ciao Giacomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Hi Giacomo.B, Take a look here Why the Summarits lens are snubbed??. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
01af Posted March 27, 2012 Share #2 Posted March 27, 2012 In this forum, there are hundreds of topics and posts covering this question already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 27, 2012 Share #3 Posted March 27, 2012 I've only read good stuff about the Summarit lenses, from people who have actually used them. Unfortunately the misconception is that the faster, more expensive lenses such as the Summilux and Noctilux are also 'better'. People don't always buy them because they need the extra speed. I put it down to the snob/boys toys factor. Mines bigger than yours etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo.B Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share #4 Posted March 27, 2012 In this forum, there are hundreds of topics and posts covering this question already. Really?? I am sorry... Ciao Giacomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 27, 2012 Share #5 Posted March 27, 2012 Indeed, none (apart Leica) know if they are REALLY unsuccessful... I'd be curios to have the real figures of (just for instance), the 75 & 90 (I have the 75); what is sure is that, as you say, they are someway snubbeb expecially in this forum.. you see more often discussions about the Summilux 35 than about the Summarit 35... not to speak of the MANY (here) people who time ago struggled to have their Summilux 50 asph... Imho facts are : - They aren't "sexy"... , and people like to speak of sex - They aren't "prestige" : and people, inconsciously or not, do prefer to speak about their precious gear, not their "trivial" gear: not offense intended... is at all natural, and expecially within a Leica forum. - But the people who speak of them generally admit they are excellent... and the well known reviewers are on the same wavelength. But as I said, I'd bet that Leica sold more Summarits than what can be hinted looking at our forum... simple math reveals that we are a rather SMALL % of people who, from M8 intro, bought a Digital M... many other simply bought their M8/9, some (many ?) of them bought Summarits, and go around taking photos and not surfing here... which can be a good way... even if my number of posts makes me a not so right person to make such an assertion... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted March 27, 2012 Share #6 Posted March 27, 2012 The lens mounts are cheaper because they do not focus as close ,the glass is slower, the lens shades are not integral, the corners are perhaps not quite as sharp wide open. All that said, they are adequate for most all of us. I very rarely use/need F2 or 1.4, but I know some who do all the time. They have size weight advantages which is not to be taken lightly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo.B Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share #7 Posted March 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Unfortunately the misconception is that the faster, more expensive lenses such as the Summilux and Noctilux are also 'better'. People don't always buy them because they need the extra speed. . I agree with you..... I get angry when I read this .... Not Recommended You asked for my recommendations, which means to pick a few winners from the many, many other superb lenses made by LEICA. Here's why some kinds of lenses didn't make it above: SUMMARIT-M The cheap new SUMMARIT-M lenses are optically superb, but mechanically second-rate. If money matters, it is far smarter to get used older lenses for the same money. For instance, the spectacular 90mm f/2.8 ELMARIT-M sells used for about $1,100 (private party), while the inferior 90mm f/2.5 Summarit-M sells new for $1,600. The f/2.8 ELMARIT-M, which sells for about $1,100, sold for $2,000 in 2009 when it was still in the catalog. (from Ken rockwell's site) Ciao Giacomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LotharZhou Posted March 27, 2012 Share #8 Posted March 27, 2012 I have had two summarits, the 50 and 75, both are extremely well made, so to the rendering quality. But again the only(really only reason) I sold them are because of the speed, with M8's ISO ability, I need something at least F2 to shoot at dawn. Otherwise they are perfect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 27, 2012 Share #9 Posted March 27, 2012 errr........Ken Rockwell........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo.B Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share #10 Posted March 27, 2012 The lens mounts are cheaper because they do not focus as close ,the glass is slower, the lens shades are not integral, the corners are perhaps not quite as sharp wide open. All that said, they are adequate for most all of us. I very rarely use/need F2 or 1.4, but I know some who do all the time. They have size weight advantages which is not to be taken lightly. I take the real differences with a Summilux, with (for example a 50mm summicron) the differences are limited (2,0 vs 2,5). I read an interesting article on this (LFI 6/2011). Ciao Giacomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 27, 2012 Share #11 Posted March 27, 2012 I had a 90 Summarit and only sold it because I never used it. There is nothing wrong with it either optically or mechanically. Ken Rockwell knows nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo.B Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share #12 Posted March 27, 2012 I had a 90 Summarit and only sold it because I never used it. There is nothing wrong with it either optically or mechanically. Ken Rockwell knows nothing. I agree with you... Ciao Giacomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 27, 2012 Share #13 Posted March 27, 2012 The lens mounts are cheaper because they do not focus as close ,the glass is slower, the lens shades are not integral, the corners are perhaps not quite as sharp wide open. All that said, they are adequate for most all of us. I very rarely use/need F2 or 1.4, but I know some who do all the time. They have size weight advantages which is not to be taken lightly. -The parts are rationalized across the series. -They are mostly made mechanically on a dedicated production line Which contributes even more to the highly competitive price. I think they were not too successful initially, but are contributing a steady dribble now. Excellent lenses, despite lack of “prestige” ( but the same “snobs" will proudly proclaim that they are using a 500$ Summicron C...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 27, 2012 Share #14 Posted March 27, 2012 Quoting Ken Rockwell -except in jest- can get you banned from this forum... I agree with you..... I get angry when I read this .... Not Recommended You asked for my recommendations, which means to pick a few winners from the many, many other superb lenses made by LEICA. Here's why some kinds of lenses didn't make it above: SUMMARIT-M The cheap new SUMMARIT-M lenses are optically superb, but mechanically second-rate. If money matters, it is far smarter to get used older lenses for the same money. For instance, the spectacular 90mm f/2.8 ELMARIT-M sells used for about $1,100 (private party), while the inferior 90mm f/2.5 Summarit-M sells new for $1,600. The f/2.8 ELMARIT-M, which sells for about $1,100, sold for $2,000 in 2009 when it was still in the catalog. (from Ken rockwell's site) Ciao Giacomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo.B Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share #15 Posted March 27, 2012 -The parts are rationalized across the series.-They are mostly made mechanically on a dedicated production line Which contributes even more to the highly competitive price. I think they were not too successful initially, but are contributing a steady dribble now. Excellent lenses, despite lack of “prestige” ( but the same “snobs" will proudly proclaim that they are using a 500$ Summicron C...) Jaap do you know where the summarit are produced?? Someone in Italy says that the Summarit are made in Japan and then assembled in Germany (Solms of course) Ciao Giacomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo.B Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share #16 Posted March 27, 2012 Quoting Ken Rockwell -except in jest- can get you banned from this forum... Sorry! you're right! Ciao Giacomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted March 27, 2012 Share #17 Posted March 27, 2012 I never quite knew why some web sites seem to show Summarit lenses as a seperate list to the others, as if they are in some way different. Seems to me Leica may have considered the erosion of their more expensive lenses at release, they may be changing their mind as they seem more 'integrated' in their range today ? I see no build difference, side by side with my 75 Summarit (now sold) and my 90 Elmarit they were very similar in build quality. The only visual differences being rubber grip on the focus ring and 'thicker' writing onthe 90. I think any snubb has been fuelled by our friend Ken who has strong opinions on so much equipment he has no time to take pictures..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michali Posted March 27, 2012 Share #18 Posted March 27, 2012 I agree with everyone's feelings expressed here about the Summarits, while I ignore Ken Rockwell's views. I had a 35mm Summarit, I loved the images it produced with the M8 and then the M9. I stupidly sold it when I bought a 35mm Summicron ASPH. For various reasons I was never pleased with the 35mm Summicron, so I sold that and recently bought another 35mm Summarit. I can find no fault with this lens, it's compact and delivers superb images! In fact I use it more than I use my 35mm Summilux, which is too clinical for my liking. I agree with James, I'm sure there's an element of the "snob factor" which enters the debate about Summarits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 27, 2012 Share #19 Posted March 27, 2012 Jaap do you know where the summarit are produced??Someone in Italy says that the Summarit are made in Japan and then assembled in Germany (Solms of course) Ciao Giacomo (not me, in Italy... ) : I don't think so... probably the raw glass comes from a Japanese source (Hoya), but this happens for other Leica lenses too... at the end, I don't think that today, to have a lens group machined and sub-assembled in Japan is so much less costly than making the same production cycle in Germany... times of "japanese workers = a handful of rice" are far away... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted March 27, 2012 Share #20 Posted March 27, 2012 ....I really like them and i don't understand why they have little success, i know that they can not have the same quality of the big brothers Summicron and Summilux,....Ciao Giacomo Do you have factual evidence that the Summarits "..have little success"? My general recollection is that they enjoy great success with many members of this forum and beyond. Regarding your assertion that "...they can not have the same quality of the big brothers Summicron and Summilux,..", I fear that claim cannot go unchallenged. There are only two significant areas where the Summicron is better: in close focus and at the widest respective apertures. In the normal working range I defy anyone to distinguish between results from competing lenses. I have just returned from shooting in a specialist museum, using my 28mm Elmarit ASPH; 35mm Summicron and 75mm Summarit lenses. For my task those three lenses were ideal and each contributed to my coverage. In definition terms, there is little to distinguish one image from another. Certainly I do not feel let down by the Summarit. I have sensed snobbishness in a small number of critics and you will always find Leica owners who must have the most expensive lenses. Good for them. Many deserve and justify them. My view is that all modern Leica lenses are simply amongst the very best available when they are performing to their specification. I cherish mine! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.