Why the Summarits lens are snubbed??

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"Leica M lens" would tell me all I want to know [...] But I fear that such a sensible arrangement would not do. Moneyed idiots, a market segment that is not to be overlooked, will insist on the ancient incantations.

I completely agree that these "ancient incantations" are essentially meaningless and redundant, and have been for a long time. I'd miss them nonetheless.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sblitz]

i own and use the 90mm summarit on my m9 and think it is just fine. i wonder, sometimes, whether the detail at 400% would be sharper with a better, more expensive version, but then it passes. as far as build quality is concerned, a non issue to me.

 

all this talk makes me wonder about all the nostalgia for the leica lenses of the 1950s and 1960s, or earlier, the "look" that moves people to leica and yet those same people reject anything but the latest hi-tech version of the lens? shouldn't they be embracing the older lenses instead? great photos come from creative minds not gear.

[lars_bergquist]

... all this talk makes me wonder about all the nostalgia for the leica lenses of the 1950s and 1960s, or earlier, the "look" that moves people to leica and yet those same people reject anything but the latest hi-tech version of the lens? shouldn't they be embracing the older lenses instead? great photos come from creative minds not gear.

 

You are right. What moved me to Leica was not the lenses per se (though even older Leica M lenses are mostly remarkably good) but my love of rangefinder cameras, going back to the 1950's. My current lenses are nearly all recent aspherical ones. I call them 'high fidelity lenses' and high fidelity is better than low fidelity.

 

LB

[pgk]

great photos come from creative minds not gear.

Great photos come from creative minds along with the appropriate gear. In my experience appropriate rarely equates to 'less good'.The current lineup of Leica lenses are extraordinarily good (Summarits included) and whilst I own an older lens that I would be loath to get rid of (21SA) I do agree with Lars.

[biglouis]

I'm incredibly impressed with the s/h 35 summarit I picked up a couple of months ago.

 

I use it all the time for landscape and the results at all apertures are ridiculously sharp.

 

An absolute bargain if you can get one second hand.

 

Naysayers are probably 'fondlers' who own kit to test our how good their lenses are but rarely actually produce photographs.

 

I'd definitely give houseroom to a 75 summarit if I had the need (which I don't). But if one falls off the tree at a ridiculous price (again) because they are unloved by the second hand market, I'd be tempted.

 

LouisB

[sblitz]

pgk -- not sure what appropriate gear is considering what has been created using iphones and holgas.

 

but i do get your point, mine is only that the summarit is more than good enough to create a wonderful, award winning photo. for some uses, such as huge enlargments, the summilux holds together better -- or at least i think so.

 

best,

steve

[sdk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 35mm/2.5 Summarit is truly excellent. The Zeiss C Biogon 35mm/2.8 may be slightly better at the plane of focus but the Summarit has nicer, smoother out of focus character when the lens is focused close. The Summarit seems to get along better with the M9 sensor too, with better color rendition and better corner performance.

[anabasis]

I haven't used a Summarit, but did play with one at the camera store. It's build quality seemed inferior to the standard Leica offerings. IQ I can't comment on.

 

I have a 35 Cron asph which I bought used and is wonderful, and also have a 90 elmarit-M which is also great. I got both used for less than I would for a new Summarit.

 

For a 50, I have a cheaper, and faster Voightlander Heliar which is also one of the best 50's I own.

 

I won't snobbishly dismiss the Summarits, but they didn't fit my needs for their price points.

 

JCA

[MarkP]

I haven't used a Summarit, but did play with one at the camera store. It's build quality seemed inferior to the standard Leica offerings. IQ I can't comment on.

 

I won't snobbishly dismiss the Summarits, but they didn't fit my needs for their price points.

JCA

 

I have the following 'quality' Leica lenses for comparison: 1.4/21 Summilux ASPH, 3.4/21 SEM, 2.0/28 Summicron, 1.4/35 Summilux FLE, 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH, 1.0/50 Noctilux, 2.0/75 Summicron ASPH, 4.0/90 Macro-Elmar...

 

AND A 2.5/35 SUMMARIT. It's image quality is excellent, it is small and light, the feel of the focus and aperture rings is fine, the hood design (as per the other new designs) is excellent.

 

Unlike most of my other 'high build quality' lenses it has not needed to go back for adjustment/repair under warranty....

 

SHORT OF TAKING IT APART TO CHECK THERE IS NOTHING INFERIOR ABOUT THE SUMMARIT'S BUILD 'QUALITY' OR IQ...

[crsc]

I own a Summarit 35 and a Summarit 75 and use them daily on my M8. Perfect lenses for me. Perfect image quality and a good price.

[akiralx]

SHORT OF TAKING IT APART TO CHECK THERE IS NOTHING INFERIOR ABOUT THE SUMMARIT'S BUILD 'QUALITY' OR IQ...

 

Agreed, I have compared my four Summarits to the 35 Summilux FLE, 50 Summicron, 24 Elmar, WATE and others lenses in my bag and their build quality is identical.

[Jeff S]

Besides KR, EP mentions in comparison between Summarit and Summicron "Apart form the different assembly and manufacturing technology, Summicron lenses have a long list of high-end properties like apochromatic correction, aspherical surfaces, exotic glass types, floating elements, and can focus more closely. Build quality is also a notch better and the selection of materials is different to ensure durability and longevity and accuracy under all conditions. Here the Summarit line has to prove itself over time." Again not much detail (what exotic glass not used?, what different manufacture?, what material not used? in Summarit) as I have seen build quality to be good for both.

 

Your EP quote above was excerpted from part 1 of this article, which was cited earlier. Be sure to also read part 3, where he says that the cost cutting in the Summarits was not anything like that which applied to the apparently problematic 90 Tele Elmarit. He also notes the all-black parts in the Summarit rear elements to reduce flare compared to the Summicron counterparts. And, as I noted earlier, he concludes his review by saying that he rates the 35 Summarit a bit over the 35 Summicron asph, at least optically.

 

Jeff

[bpalme]

I don't think I would need or want(to pay for) more speed for the longer end 75/90.

But what about subject isolation for the normal / wide end? I'm a wide open shooter and would love to see some direct comparisons of wide open type of shots.. the type that give that great 35/50 Summilux & Noctilux subject separation.

[nggalai]

I don't think I would need or want(to pay for) more speed for the longer end 75/90.

But what about subject isolation for the normal / wide end? I'm a wide open shooter and would love to see some direct comparisons of wide open type of shots.. the type that give that great 35/50 Summilux & Noctilux subject separation.

 

Two images in my LUF albums are good examples of subject isolation with the 50mm Summarit-M.

 

Close-focus:

 

 

Medium distance:

 

 

(Both taken with an M9, the first one post-processed to BnW in SilverEfex.)

 

I also own a Summicron 50mm (rigid) and a Zeiss Sonnar 50mm/F1.5. Obviously separation is even stronger with these two lenses, but in close to medium distances I find myself closing down most of the time to make sure more than an ear or a nose is in focus. Frankly, with 50mm I use apertures < 2.8 for effect mostly, or out of desperation (not enough light).

[bpalme]

Yes but I need to see a side by side comparison.

[lars_bergquist]

Yes but I need to see a side by side comparison.

 

Why? Apart from considerations of bokeh, 'subject isolation' means only shallow d.o.f., which is a function of reproduction ratio and aperture.

 

So if you want to see the difference, just take your 50mm Summicron and make two pictures of the same subject, and from the same distance, one at 1:2 and one at 1:2.5. The IQ and fingerprints of the two lenses at identical apertures are practically identical. The real difference is that while the 'cron has the traditional focal length of c. 52mm, that of the Summarit is closer to 50.

 

I must say that the efforts of the Front Ring Fundamentalists to downgrade the Summarit lenses are getting increasingly desperate. Don't join them.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[sblitz]

while i agree that the summarit line is more than okay with me, own a 90mm summarit and have been perfectly pleased with iq and build, my question is -- why are they so much cheaper than summicron and summilux lenses?

[rramesh]

Some-are-right, it's good. Others are snobs.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wizard]

The notion that less fast lenses are less good is nothing new, it's been around for decades. And it was never true. Quite to the contrary, as a general rule less fast lenses used to be optically better than their faster counterparts, simply because the latter had much more optical aberrations due to their larger diameter glass elements. Only recently, say during the last 20 years or so, has it been possible to produce fast lenses that are optically as good and sometimes superior than their slower counterparts. But this comes at a price, a hefty price in the case of Leica glass, and someone who does not need the fast speed isn't any better off buying these faster and much more expensive lenses. As a tool, the Summarit range of lenses is as fine as it gets provided you are not looking for the ultimate speed.

 

Andy

[pgk]

why are they so much cheaper than summicron and summilux lenses?

They are 'conventional' none aspheric and relatively slow designs - cheaper to design and manufacture. Simple.

 

FWIW I now own the 35 pre FLE Summilux but if I didn't need and use the faster aperture I would probably have kept the Summarit because it is a lovely small, compact lens which performs extremely well. Another point is that the hood is an extra cost, and my impression of the 35 Summarit when I owned one was that the build quality was extremely high - I would have no worries over this myself.