Summarit - A second tier lens family?

[msteber]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I always assumed the Summarit range was there to give you something to buy when the lens you wanted was permanently on back-order and unavailable .....

 

Seriously though, I've never seen a bad word about the image quality or value for money (a first for Leica) ....

 

+1 on this. I consistently find that the 35mm is spectacular. I have the 35, the 75, and the 90 and they are all excellent. I would have bought the 50 too, but I managed to get the lux, and well, it's pretty good too!

 

When I go out with one lens it is my 35mm Summarit.

 

No, not a second tier at all.

 

Mark

[01af]

I consistently find that the [summarit-M] 35 mm is spectacular.

It most definitely is, indeed. In particular, flare resistance is second to none. And in terms of sharpness, bokeh, and build quality, it basically is on par with Summicron and Summilux—no better than these but no worse, either.

 

And the solid no-nonsense hoods and the old-fashioned no-nonsense font for the inscriptions both are way nicer than those of any other current Leica lens.

[algrove]

Tried the 75 at my dealer and found the focus ring not to my liking versus the APO 75. The picture quality was just fine for my type of work.

 

These lenses are always the last ones left on the shelves of any Leica dealer I've visited. So it seems the overall Leica community prefers non-Summarit over Summarit. But then again perhaps Leica produces more Summarit than non-Summarit lenses. Who knows.

 

I do have a question for those of you own a Summarit. Why did you buy the Summarit?

 

Was it because it was available?

Was it because of the lower price versus the other Leica lens FL equivalent?

Was it because the quality was just fine for your type of work?

Do you plan to upgrade one day to a higher price Leica lens FL equivalent?

[TomB_tx]

Even when I started in the early 1960s the popular impression was that faster lenses must be better, because they are more expensive. Yet slower lenses are easier to design and manufacture, which makes them cheaper even with identical mechanical construction. It was the 50 Elmar 2.8 of the 1960s that sold me on Leica, and I still like that lens for everyday use.

I haven't bought any Summarits yet, because I still have Summicrons from the 60s-70s; yet when I want to try more modern designs they are high on my list.

Yes, the Summilux are great lenses - but most of us don't need them.

[DigitalHeMan]

 

I do have a question for those of you own a Summarit. Why did you buy the Summarit?

 

Was it because it was available?

Was it because of the lower price versus the other Leica lens FL equivalent?

Was it because the quality was just fine for your type of work?

Do you plan to upgrade one day to a higher price Leica lens FL equivalent?

 

For me I bought the Summarit 35mm last year when I was just starting my Leica journey. I wanted something that wasn't too expensive in case I didn't take to rangefinder photography, and I got a good deal on a second hand one on eBay. If I do ever chose to sell it again, I won't have lost much, if any, money, so it was a safe bet. Although I'm very happy with the quality of the images I am getting, I will probably upgrade (or add to) it one day with a faster Summicron or Summilux 35mm, but not before I have purchased a fast 50mm.

[algrove]

When I started out I bought Zeiss ZM lenses since at the time one could get 3 Zeiss for the price of one Summicron.

[Guest MarcRF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Was it because it was available?

Was it because of the lower price versus the other Leica lens FL equivalent?

Was it because the quality was just fine for your type of work?

Do you plan to upgrade one day to a higher price Leica lens FL equivalent?

 

-no it was not available

-price certainly was an issue but i didnt need it badly so I could have waited and saved

-any type of quality of the summarits is fine.

-no. I currently own the 28 elmarit asph and do not plan to upgrade, 35 summarit, no plan to upgrade, 90 summarit, no plan to uprade

 

personal reasons I picked the summarits:

 

90mm was just smaller and lighter than the summicron apo asph. it is only a mere 2/3 stop slower of the fastest lens in this focal length. it has HUGE image quality and no pull-out-hood. and for less than half the price. sometimes great packages also come at a great price

 

35mm was because i find the summarit to be better than the summicron and the summilux fle is just not worth the money for me. I have the 50 1.4 asph for low light, although a 2.5 paired with the rangefinder-low-light-ability is just enough. i also didnt like the size of the 35 1.4

 

same thing with the 28 which I kinda count as a summarit too, due to kinda low price and size. although it has aspherical surfaces...

 

so the main thing is really the performance paired with the size and weight of the lenses.

 

and for the record: if I would start all over new i'd rather pick the 50 summarit than the 50 summilux asph. primarily for the size and weight. not saying I dont like the little brass canonball

[Fgcm]

 

I do have a question for those of you own a Summarit. Why did you buy the Summarit?

 

Was it because it was available?

Was it because of the lower price versus the other Leica lens FL equivalent?

Was it because the quality was just fine for your type of work?

Do you plan to upgrade one day to a higher price Leica lens FL equivalent?

 

When I bought mine I already owned 24 Elmarit Asph, 28 Elmarit Asph, 50 Summilux Asph, 35 Summilux Asph etc. etc.

 

I bought Summarit 35 because I was looking for a light and small lens.

 

Summarit 35 was so lovely that, when I decided to buy a longer lens, I asked my dealer to lend me a Summarit 75 to test. After the test, I bought it.

 

Some month later I decided to buy also a Summarit 50.

I was looking for a good and small 50, but more contrasty than my Elmar-M 50. I also compared it to a Summicron 50, finding the two lenses capable of the same quality, but Summarit won, being smaller and lighter.

 

The only Summarit missing in my set is Summarit 90, because my dealer gave me an Elmarit-M 90.

 

I can say I upgraded to Summarit range after testing myself.

 

Price was not an issue when choosing a lens. I bought Summarits because these lenses fit my need.

 

Franco

[nggalai]

Preface: I own the Summarit 50 and 90.

I do have a question for those of you own a Summarit. Why did you buy the Summarit?

 

1. Was it because it was available?

2. Was it because of the lower price versus the other Leica lens FL equivalent?

3. Was it because the quality was just fine for your type of work?

4. Do you plan to upgrade one day to a higher price Leica lens FL equivalent?

 

1. In part, yes. The 50mm was the only 50mm available inside a 50km radius when I needed a 50mm. The 90mm, though, I bought on purpose.

 

2. I would lie if I said money didn’t matter. But I had a second-hand opportunity on a 90mm Elmarit, the Summarit was more expensive. I still chose the latter.

 

3. Yuppens. Also – both lenses are small, relatively light, and unobtrusive.

 

4. As 50mm is “my” focal length, I tried a couple and finally stuck with the Zeiss Sonnar 50mm/F1.5, despite the 60s Summicron 50mm and the Summarit still receiving regular workouts.

 

 

Frankly, the only reason I tried out other 50mm after the Summarit was that f/2.5 is about one stop too slow for much work I need doing with the M9 (club concerts, literature readings in ill-lit rooms and whatnot). Had I started going digital with the “new M” rather than the M9, I’d probably had been done after the Summarit. If the 240 had existed two years ago. Err.

 

So why the Sonnar instead of the Summicron? Sometimes, the special effect of going wide-open is appropriate. I do very few portraits, but it comes in handy in such instances. Also, it’s about the same length as my Summicron and still very portable. The Summicron is now mated to the M3. Hach, the 60s.

 

 

I don’t have the slightest inclination to “upgrade” to another 90mm, though. 90mm faster than f/2.5 doesn’t make sense with the kind of photos I enjoy or need taking, and the Summarit’s image quality is superb. The quest ended similarly with the 28mm Elmarit ASPH; I don’t want to open up further on a 28mm lens – I tried to like f/2 with a Voigtlaender Ultron. Doesn’t work for me. Also, the ASPH is small, relatively affordable, so, eh. Were there a Summarit 28mm, I’d probably have taken that one instead. As I said, money may not be a huge issue, but still an important factor.

 

Cheers,

-Sascha

[rscheffler]

When I started out I bought Zeiss ZM lenses since at the time one could get 3 Zeiss for the price of one Summicron.

 

This is precisely what I did. The 21/2.8, 35/2.8 and 50/2. I wasn't so sure about the 85/4 and passed on it.

 

I do have a question for those of you own a Summarit. Why did you buy the Summarit?

 

Was it because it was available?

Was it because of the lower price versus the other Leica lens FL equivalent?

Was it because the quality was just fine for your type of work?

Do you plan to upgrade one day to a higher price Leica lens FL equivalent?

 

I own the 90 Summarit. I purchased it used because a member on another forum had one for sale at a reasonable price, with the hood. Basically it was only slightly more expensive than a 90 Elmarit.

 

It's my least used focal length on the M9, therefore I didn't wan't to initially invest a lot in the focal length. For the portraits I do with the M9, it's typically at 50, so that is instead where I eventually spent money on a Lux ASPH in place of the ZM50/2. I also wasn't attracted to the 90 Cron's size.

 

Yes, the quality of the Summarit is fine for what I use it for. Most of my 90mm work is walk around urban landscape/details type stuff at f/8 or 11, so there is no real need for f/2, even if the Cron AA might offer slightly higher performance stopped down.

 

No plans to upgrade the 90 Summarit, though I might 'downgrade' by adding a 50s-60s era 85/105. I had the chance to try a Nikkor 105/2.5 and found its rendering a nice alternative to the modern look. I've seen similar from some of the older 85s. Since starting with the ZM lenses, I've upgraded all of those slots with faster Leica lenses, because for some of my work, that was more practical, combined with the M9's high ISO limitations. This makes the 90 Summarit the oldest lens, based on date of purchase, in my regular rotation.

 

I had a chance to try the 50 Summarit at a Leica store and was quite impressed with it. I thought it rivaled the 50 Lux ASPH at equivalent apertures. I've also been tempted to replace the ZM35/2.8 with a 35 Summarit, but since adding a 28, find I rarely use 35mm. The thought of a compact Summarit kit is somewhat appealing, but the reality is I'm collecting too many rangefinder lenses and the ones I use most often, are already small enough while meeting most of my needs.

[animalhairs]

i have tried a couple (35 and 50) and thought they were decent for the price. The rubber bits on the barrel for the focus ring really annoyed me.....didn't look or feel right. To me, that came across as an area where cost-cutting took place. As for internals, i'm sure you are correct; they are likely built to very high standards.

 

It's funny that even as an 'entry level'...the Summarit range is still very expensive, very capable, and well made compared to other lens manufacturers----in many ways, i think our standards are often set far too high.

 

My 35mm Summarit doesn't have any rubber bits. I've shot with it a lot, and it's every bit as good as my 35MM Summicron ASPH, maybe better, definitely better under overcast skies with backlight. Build quality? A definitive same.

[algrove]

All this 35 and 50 talk has me wanting to get out and shot with my 40/2.0. Trouble for me is that it is so small compared the the "large" M lenses available today I find myself touching the 40 lens barrel just to make sure I have a lens on the camera. Even at f2 it renders very nicely and on the MM I find the 40 detail and contrast superb right up there with most any 50 I have used.