Peter H Posted April 2, 2012 Share #81 Â Posted April 2, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Summarit lenses are amongst the world's most expensive lenses, costing around 500% more than their faster Canon/Nikon equivalents. Â Only amongst Leica enthusiasts are they considered relatively inexpensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Hi Peter H, Take a look here Why the Summarits lens are snubbed??. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MarkP Posted April 2, 2012 Share #82  Posted April 2, 2012 Summarit lenses are amongst the world's most expensive lenses, costing around 500% more than their faster Canon/Nikon equivalents. Only amongst Leica enthusiasts are they considered relatively inexpensive.  Now that puts things into perspective . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted April 2, 2012 Share #83  Posted April 2, 2012 Summarit lenses are amongst the world's most expensive lenses, costing around 500% more than their faster Canon/Nikon equivalents. Only amongst Leica enthusiasts are they considered relatively inexpensive. I have a canon 35/2 - it cannot be compared against the 35 Summarit which is quite simply in a different league. My Canon 35/1.4 is a lot better but I think that it stills cost more than a Summarit - mind you you get a lot more lens for your money (bulk-wise). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 2, 2012 Share #84 Â Posted April 2, 2012 Yes but I need to see a side by side comparison. Differences are rarely obvious within the same lens generation. To compare 35mm lenses, the 35/2 asph is a bit more contrasty than the Summarit 35/2.5 but the main merit of the former is its speed of course and its higher sharpness than previous 35/2 at f/2. For a comparo at f/2.5, see http://tinyurl.com/6tbonsh & http://tinyurl.com/765kjmr (6 MB files). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted April 2, 2012 Share #85  Posted April 2, 2012 Summarit lenses are amongst the world's most expensive lenses, costing around 500% more than their faster Canon/Nikon equivalents. Only amongst Leica enthusiasts are they considered relatively inexpensive.  Well, yes - quite true. Comparing to an EF 35mm f/2 (one of the original/oldest EF lenses) and such the price difference is quite something. If you move up to the L version, the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - the difference narrows to within only a couple of hundred bucks.  To be perfectly honest, I'll take the IQ of the Summarit(s) any day! Though yes, you do lose the speed advantage of the L (and Leica's equivalent Summilux is a whole new kettle of fish).  Until you can mount an EF lens to an M though, it's pretty much a moot point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted April 2, 2012 Share #86  Posted April 2, 2012 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 Why? You answered part of your own question.... Bokeh is one thing. But If I get more subject isolation then that's what I'm paying for. I'm not paying thousands more because I'm a "snob". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted April 3, 2012 Share #87 Â Posted April 3, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the April issue of LFI they have an article comparing various lenses, not a technical thing just showing pictures taken with the lenses to show what people can produce with them. The Lux photos show off the separation. The others the speed with you can aim and fire. Tooting my own horn for a moment. The photo for the summarit 90mm is mine. They plucked it out of my library of shots. Point is, the lens was not a constraint in making the photo. The only limit is the photographer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnfell Posted April 3, 2012 Share #88 Â Posted April 3, 2012 On the contraray, I get the feeling that Summarits have quite a following on this forum. Â The reason most people own other more expensive lenses, is probably just because Leica has a certain way of making people forget about cost. Â Also, Summarits are relatively new, and there are many exellent older lenses about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 3, 2012 Share #89 Â Posted April 3, 2012 ...The reason most people own other more expensive lenses, is probably just because Leica has a certain way of making people forget about cost... Or simply because Summarits are slower than Summicrons and Summiluxes and speed is expensive as we know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted April 3, 2012 Share #90 Â Posted April 3, 2012 I'm not sure I agree that Summarit lenses are snubbed, but choosing lenses can be highly subjective and not everyone will agree on a particular look, style or feel. Â From my own experience I tried both a 90 Summarit and 90 Elmarit-M before deciding to purchase the Elmarit-M. My decision was not based upon any marketing effort from Solms, but rather a preference for the optical and mechanical qualities of one lens over another. Â Optically I feel that both lenses are outstanding. Mechanically I will say that I am not a fan of the rubber band focus grip. This is not a TV remote control, and rubber grips should not be used on a lens with an expected useful life that is measured in decades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander †Posted April 3, 2012 Share #91  Posted April 3, 2012 The problem with the Summarit M lenses is that if you are considering them, possibly because of price, then their direct competition is the Zeiss lenses. The Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 costs slightly less than the 50 Summarit, the Zeiss 50mm Planar is even less. That said I also dont think Leica made the right marketing decision to identify the Summarit range as separate from their 'standard' lenses.  Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 3, 2012 Share #92 Â Posted April 3, 2012 ...rubber grips should not be used on a lens with an expected useful life that is measured in decades. Leica did use them on many R lenses including the most expensive ones (15/3.5, 28/2.8, 80/1.4, 90/2, 100/2.8, 280/4, 37-70/2.8, etc.). Not the best idea IMO but fact is rubber grips don't go with 'cheap' lenses necessarily. BTW the Summarit 35/2.5 has no rubber grip, only a plastic focus tab apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander †Posted April 3, 2012 Share #93  Posted April 3, 2012 Perhaps Leica should have made the Summarits look exactly like the regular range of lenses and just made it clear that the reduced price was solely due to the smaller aperture and non use of ASPH elements.  Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 3, 2012 Share #94 Â Posted April 3, 2012 I don't know. Leica sold as many Summicron-C 40/2 in 3 years as Summicron-M 35/2 v4 in 20 years IIRC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 3, 2012 Share #95 Â Posted April 3, 2012 I don't know. Leica sold as many Summicron-C 40/2 in 3 years as Summicron-M 35/2 v4 in 20 years IIRC. But as many CL bodies as well (i guess) so it is not an argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.