28 summicron vs elmarit, is 1 stop worth more than $1000?

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jamie, see my above post....

 

(btw, I have the Summicron myself.)

 

Hey there's never too many terms of endearment Ok, on that score, guilty as charged then

 

*But* I still think for me getting the shot (having the extra stop in dark conditions) and delivering the quality I want in less time (less post) *are* things that matter to my clients; even if they don't see the other optical differences I also prefer

[gjames9142]

I am perfectly happy with the version 4 Elmarit 28 2.8, which a very fine lens. The asph 28 Elmarit is too contrasty for my taste. That said, most of these threads are to me a complete waste of time. I think I am going to stop wasting my time, too.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

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

[fWord]

It appears the OP has decided on the Elmarit in this instance, and to be frank, I don't think one could make a bad decision in this case. Both of them are excellent lenses. It is merely down to budget (first and foremost for most, since photography is usually only a hobby) and intended purpose.

 

This is an interesting discussion but I agree with a lot of what Jamie has said. By the way Jamie, I visited your webpage and the photography is excellent and I enjoyed the slideshows. Shows the difference between the work of a professional and that of an amateur (myself, doing it for fun for friends and family).

 

Anyway, back to the program...I used to have a 35 Summicron ASPH with the M8 but never liked the focal length, so I wanted a 28mm lens. Nearly went for the Elmarit because of the glowing reviews, the price and the size. Instead I got the chance to jump on the Summicron and went for that. Couldn't be happier.

 

It has astounding performance and I love using it wide open. I used it for a casual pre-wedding shoot for a cousin and it had sufficient depth of field (wide open) for my purposes, while offering a degree of background separation to put more emphasis on the subject while still demonstrating a recognisable background. IMHO this is the beauty of a lens that has a wide aperture and performs well straight from wide open. If background separation is needed, open wide. If more DOF needed, simply stop down, what's there not to like, other than the price?

 

Now this is NOT a great shot, but I am using it as an example which probably demonstrates what I'm trying to discuss in the paragraph above. A wide angle lens with a wide aperture can be useful. Also, it allowed me to get a correctly exposed photo at ISO 160 (not that I care much about the noise of the M8, by the way, but is shows the light gathering capability of a bigger aperture) and 1/60s with the subjects in shade and faces in shadow.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Also, I already find the 28 Cron so small (coming from a DSLR), so I couldn't imagine working with something even smaller. Most would find the large rectangular hood quite ridiculous, but I find it to my liking. Because of the way I hold the lens in my left hand, the hood offers a nice resting place for a finger or two, and allow a more stable grip.

 

For those of us hobby photographers, an additional thing to remember is to buy whatever that makes you happy. We don't shoot for clients. We shoot for ourselves. I'm a pixel peeper, gear head and gear fondler, and proud of it. Why the need to be embarassed? I do photography only for myself. Yes I take photos of friends and family and give them away, but I do that for personal satisfaction.

 

Personally, if I had gone for the Elmarit to start, I would certainly be wondering what it would be like to use the Summicron. Besides, if we buy second hand and at a reasonable price, we have nothing to lose if we ever want to change for something else.

[sdk]

I have both 28mm lenses and like them both. The Summicron has a very different out of focus character, even at f/2.8 it provides more separation from the background than the Elmarit ASPH at medium distances. At close distances the situation reverses, the Elmarit 28mm does begin to get bright ring out of focus highlights, so backgrounds become busier than the Summicron at similar distances.

 

I recently have done some night photography with the M9P and Elmarit 28mm which I found to be quite wonderful. It is extremely flare resistant, while the Summicron sometimes (very rarely, really) gets large central "textbook flare” if there is a bright light source outside the image area. Here are a couple long exposure night shots with the Elmarit, M9P and a tripod. The JPEGs pump up the contrast a bit compared to the way they look in Photoshop, but they give you some idea of the flare resistance. I did dodge some of the cherry tree flowering branches in the alleyway shot in Photoshop. The one with the skyscraper had color, contrast and perspective adjustment only.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 28, 2012 by sdk

[sdk]

One of my favorite shots was one I made with the with the 28mm Elmarit ASPH and film on my M7:

Stopping an Altercation, Massachusetts Statehouse, Boston, November 9, 2006

[Rick]

Hi All,

 

I am considering between the summicron and elmarit. Do you think it's worth it to get the faster version. No I am not bill gates or zukerberg, so money is an issue.

 

I often like to shoot at night. With my current skill, I can comfortably hold my m9 at 1/30 or maybe 1/24. Also personally I think 1250 is about highest I am willing to go (1600 only if I am super desperate). So what do you think?

 

Small, light, 2.8, $2000 vs large heavy, 2.0, $3500?

 

Frank

 

Ok, first off, this is such a vapid question on so many levels I don't quite know where to start to answer such a tiresome question but, I'll try.

 

Buy the Elmerit. Because, anyone so unimaginative they can't figure out what lens to buy and worse, asks a bunch of people that they don't know, and more to the point, don't know you, is probably not going to be able to produce anything remotely inspiring enough that doubling the amount light that gets inside your camera would make a bit of difference.

 

Oh, saying you are no Gates or Zuckerberg doesn't help me at all. I've never seen any photographs they've taken.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

PMT?

[skinner]

Anyone live close enough or willing enough to go and give Rick a comforting cuddle this morning?

[jedi996sps]

Both lenses are great and indeed i have both, BUT nearly always use the Cron. Images are very different from both lenses.

Similarly, i have an early noctilux and a 50lux, depending on what i am looking for, will dictate which lense i use.

[SJP]

The 28/2 ASPH is beyond comparison, there is only one, the 28/2.8 elmarit is an incredible lens. If this is 1000 $ worth extra or not is hard to define, I would be very happy with either of them. Given a choice I would go for the faster f/2 (yes I did have the choice) and do not forget how it paints a picture, it is quite remarkable.

[Rick]

PMT?

 

Me? Everyone is so sensitive around here sometimes. Come on, the guy asked a stupid question and members answered with sincere explanations of how the lenses render and he answers 4 hours later that he bought the Elmarit.

 

Now he has suddenly becomes an expert and wants to lecture the forum on being a bunch of rich guys showing off bokahhh and he has somehow transcended his stupid question phase in a mere 4 hours and has become an expert on composition or something I couldn't quite understand.

 

So, I gave him, what I thought, was a really good answer that I thought made a lot of sense and I used the roll-eyes symbol to make sure everyone understood it was all just kidding, mostly.

[Peter H]

Rick: the world would be a better, or certainly a more interesting place if everyone said what they really think like you did. And there's nothing wrong with a bit of a rant every so often.

 

Anyway, you made me laugh. So its OK with me.

 

[jaques]

I have a vintage 2.8 elmarit I acquired recently and I love it. Built very solid- the feel of the mechanics is really superb- and it is very sharp, etc. Just great. I also have a voigtlander f2 28mm lens- and that is also great- a really good lens (IMO).

 

So that's a third option for you: get an f2 and and f2.8 for less than half the cost of the ASPH 28mm.... and less than one new elmairt 28. The great thing about these lenses is if you decide you are not happy you can usually sell them for a profit- if you have looked around and purchased at good prices.

[gniquil]

Ok, first off, this is such a vapid question on so many levels I don't quite know where to start to answer such a tiresome question but, I'll try.

 

Buy the Elmerit. Because, anyone so unimaginative they can't figure out what lens to buy and worse, asks a bunch of people that they don't know, and more to the point, don't know you, is probably not going to be able to produce anything remotely inspiring enough that doubling the amount light that gets inside your camera would make a bit of difference.

 

Oh, saying you are no Gates or Zuckerberg doesn't help me at all. I've never seen any photographs they've taken.

 

First of all.... What? I am lost. What you say here is completely lack of logic. Your words somehow convey a sense of anger. Actually, come to think of it, your words were written by anger rather than a cool friendly head (though why the anger escapes me). Please reread my words and exercise the correct side of your brain a bit; chill out man.

 

Secondly, I made a choice is because it seems pretty clear the general consensus is the two have different signatures. Therefore I figure to just buy the one my wallet is comfortable with.

 

Thirdly, what I say about bokeh is true. Or let me pose the following question/challenge, (to all of you members here) show me (link or other methods) the best picture you've seen (either by you or others) that have significant bokeh, that is also not in the portrait genre.

[fWord]

Thirdly, what I say about bokeh is true. Or let me pose the following question/challenge, (to all of you members here) show me (link or other methods) the best picture you've seen (either by you or others) that have significant bokeh, that is also not in the portrait genre.

 

Well, I'm not entitled to discredit your thoughts because everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I did say you wouldn't be wrong choosing either the Elmarit or the Summicron, but I disagree with what you initially said here. Photographers don't necessarily use bokeh 'only' to prove they have expensive gear, and/ or because they are lazy.

 

They use it because they believe it works for that photo. They use bokeh as an artistic effect to achieve an intended message for any particular image. This of course excludes images that were made purely as 'test' photos, to showcase how a lens renders, or because the said photographer was doing it for fun, as part of an obsession.

 

What is the real purpose of the challenge? And why 'not in the portrait genre'? What exactly is a 'portrait'? Wikipedia's definition is as follows:

 

"A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant."

 

If that's the case then have a look at the very first photo in this slideshow:

 

Inside the 1960 Democratic National Convention - NYTimes.com

 

A profound image. Now just for the purposes of this exercise, cut out the bottom of that image, the part with the TV that shows the face of Kennedy. NOW we have an image that, at least according to the definition of Wikipedia, is NOT a portrait. Now imagine a larger depth of field in that image, more than what Winogrand had originally intended. I'd say the image loses considerable amount of impact. The reason why the subject appears to glow in rim lighting, the pose of his hand, and the objects on the desk stand out as much as they do, is in part, because of a relatively narrow depth of field that throws the very busy and ugly background out of focus.

 

Which brings me to my next point. I think it is incorrect to talk about the 'use of bokeh' in this instance. We are not using bokeh. Bokeh describes the quality of blur, or the out of focus parts of an image. What we're really talking about, is the use of background blur, or out of focus parts of the image itself.

 

Growing in maturity as a photographer is not about discrediting other photographers or the gear they choose to use. It's a matter of understanding, and having, the tools you need at your disposal, including light, camera, lens and yes, even the subject, in order to produce a given image.

 

Again I think that all things equal (including lens signature, which a lot of people talk about and must exist, yet I fail to notice, amongst the newest Leica lenses anyway), the choice of large aperture versus smaller aperture variant of a lens boils down to budget and willingness to cope with bigger size or increased heft of the larger aperture lens. If I can afford it and don't mind the size, I would always get the larger aperture variant.

 

Why so? Because I have more tools at my disposal for my craft. For any given image, I can choose to widen the aperture, for any effect I wish to achieve, however subtle, and to take in more light (near double the amount of light for a 1-stop difference in aperture size).

 

There is no shame in having more than you need. I'd rather have more money than I need, than too little. I could give away any excess money I had (if I did). Problem solved. Likewise, if you have an f/2 lens and hate or don't need background blur, then stop down to f/16 or f/22 and be done with it.

Edited April 29, 2012 by fWord

[gniquil]

@fword

 

Great pictures. I absolutely agree with you in everything you said. I guess the point of my gripe earlier in this thread about bokeh is that, I've been seeing too much of it lately. It feels like every review of any leica equipment almost alway has a section on bokeh: M9 is great because it's got a big sensor, hence able to produce creamy brokeh; summilux is awesome because its aperture is so large that even a 35 can produce great bokeh while shooting 20 feet away...

 

Someone could perhaps do a study of the count of "bokeh" in recent leica related articles, and compare that to, say, interviews with the greats like winogrand. In fact, bokeh wasn't "invented" back then. And I don't think they keep reminding people how awesome their leicas were abel to "isolate" their subject.

 

Back to the picture you linked. Bravo to you, finding this awesome photo. You win. But how many pictures are in that sequence? And how many of the rest make heavy use of isolation? And i highly doubt winogrand used a 35 or 28 cron/lux to achieve that isolation (more probably using a 90mm at F4). What i'm trying to say here is we (Leica fanbois) should be slightly less obsessed with bokeh; once we do that, a whole new world of more affordable lenses then open up.

 

I am just rambling now...

[lct]

Bokeh is just a word. The question is to know if you want to isolate subject matters from backgrounds and/or foregrounds. F/2 makes an obvious difference there. If you don't need such isolation, f/2 will still be useful in low light needless to say.

[CalArts 99]

Koudelka, Frank, Friedlander, Lyons, and many others who use(d) Leicas and Leica lenses have many images with out-of-focus areas in them. I was going to link some of them but I thought you said no people and most of the images have people in them although they are not portraits. I'll let you Google Image their names.....

 

Nonetheless, I agree that this bokeh business is relatively new and is very much in vogue today. Years ago we never used 'bokeh' to describe anything. It was just the 'out-of-focus' area of the image. It's now become kind of a fad. I suppose it will run its course and return to be simply the 'out-of-focus' part of the image and won't be talked about in such detail, who knows.

 

But that doesn't mean there aren't differences and that one simply ignores those out-of-focus renditions that different lenses produce. It's perfectly okay to be interested/concerned about it. If you do a lot of short focus imagery, then it would be important to you. And that might very well be part of your decision making. If not, then fine.

[Peter H]

Of course chasing bokeh has become a nerdy fad and a sign that you can afford an expensive Item. I'm convinced that some "photographers" care more about such things than ideally they might.

 

But equally, reacting against such nonsense shouldn't, in my opinion, influence anyone's choice of lens.

 

A fast lens gathers more light than a slower lens. How, and whether, you use that ability is up to you, obviously.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[fWord]

Indeed, the word 'bokeh' has been used a lot ever since it was coined. Sometimes it may not even be used in the right context. Instead of being a word used to describe the quality of out of focus blur, it has become an abbreviation for 'blur of out of focus elements in a picture'. Phrases like 'good bokeh' and 'bad bokeh' are taken as gospel wherever they may be written. Fair enough, 'bokeh' just sounds nicer and is easier to say.

 

I agree it is unhealthy to be obsessed with 'bokeh' itself, to be obsessed with the quality of defocussed areas in an image when there is so much more that makes a photo. But at the same time I accept that people are always going to ask questions about comparing one lens with another, how each one 'renders', what 'signatures' each might have, differences in contrast etc. Questions like the one which started this thread, questions that ask if it is worth paying more for one lens over another. And there are surely other readers who could be scouring the forum for any info they might find, before they make a purchase.

 

It's called making an informed decision, and readers have done right by reading as much as they can in forums like these, before committing literally thousands of dollars into something that would bewilder most other people.

 

And in equipment-related discussions like these, we SHOULD talk about the bokeh from each lens. A lens is a package of all these things, it is only fair for those who used, or who have used the lens in the past, to comment about everything in some detail. We can't, for example, in a comparison between two sports cars, talk about the appearance and engine power figures, suspension and price, without talking about handling.

 

So regardless of the number of 'bokeh' threads I see at a forum, it doesn't fuss me. The info is there for me to harness for free in the making of a decision to buy (or sometimes, not to buy), and then it is up to me to decide if I want to then go out and hone my craft, or continue to sit around here and be obsessed with equipment. But let's face it. Someone has to do the dirty work to put up these opinions on 'bokeh', and a million other nuances on each lens that I have thus far failed to see (but doesn't mean they don't exist), and I'm thankful for those opinions.

 

As I've read before in a book somewhere, we make decisions with our emotional self and then justify that with our logical self. If that is true, then seriously, buy whatever makes you happy, because you will logically justify every decision you've made.