Bring back the Elmarits

[rramesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Elmarits have been and still are the best and most compact lenses for use on the M. With the T it will also give users the most compact and cost effective (~2K range) options in M lenses.

 

It's a pity that Leica introduced with great fanfare the Summarit line and it has gone nowhere as it has always been perceived by users as a second tier to the traditional M lens lines.

 

I would really like Leica to consider bringing back the Elmarits in its current form or a redesigned form.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

There have never been 35mm or 50mm Elmarits among M lenses if memory serves and aside from the Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 from the seventies, all Elmarits 90 were taller than the Summarit 90 if i'm not mistaken. No Elmarit 75 either whilst the Summarit 75 is a stellar lens. As for Elmarits 21 and 24, they were rather bulky compared to the corresponding Super Elmars. Remains the little Elmarit 28/2.8 asph that Leica will keep hopefully.

[asiafish]

The 28 Elmarit ASPH is a terrific lens, but I don't see your point about the Summarits, which are fantastic lenses one and all.

 

I was just at the Leica Store Los Angeles yesterday to buy a 35mm lens and tried all three. Money wasn't so much an issue, but size, weight and bokeh are. The 35 Lux FLE was gorgeous, but heavy. That left the 35 Summicron ASPH and the 35 Summarit, and you know what? I really preferred the look of the Summarit.

 

I shot my M Monochrom with both lenses for over an hour, at various distances and apertures, trying to get very different lighting. Both lenses were outstanding, but at the end of the day the Summarit had nicer bokeh wide-open, and was just as sharp stopped down, with to my eyes a more pleasant rendering.

 

I bought the Summarit.

[Jeff S]

There have never been 35mm or 50mm Elmarits among M lenses if memory serves...

 

The 35 Summaron f2.8 (from 1958-1974) should have been called Elmarit based on its aperture.

 

And there was the 50 Elmar f2.8 in two versions (the first a redesign of the Elmar f3.5, 1957-1972; and the second from 1994-2007).

 

Jeff

[rramesh]

The 28 Elmarit ASPH is a terrific lens, but I don't see your point about the Summarits, which are fantastic lenses one and all.

 

I was just at the Leica Store Los Angeles yesterday to buy a 35mm lens and tried all three. Money wasn't so much an issue, but size, weight and bokeh are. The 35 Lux FLE was gorgeous, but heavy. That left the 35 Summicron ASPH and the 35 Summarit, and you know what? I really preferred the look of the Summarit.

 

I shot my M Monochrom with both lenses for over an hour, at various distances and apertures, trying to get very different lighting. Both lenses were outstanding, but at the end of the day the Summarit had nicer bokeh wide-open, and was just as sharp stopped down, with to my eyes a more pleasant rendering.

 

I bought the Summarit.

 

There is nothing wrong with the Summarits. In fact they are fantastic lenses. It's just the way Leica went about putting them in a second category and marketing it as such.

 

Even today you see these categories as high speed, fast and compact and then Summarit.

[james.liam]

There have never been 35mm or 50mm Elmarits among M lenses if memory serves and aside from the Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 from the seventies

 

How about the collapsible 50 Elmar made until 2007 and the 90 Elmarit M, until 2008?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Elmars are Elmars, 90s are 90s but there have never been 35mm or 50mm Elmarits among M lenses if memory serves. There have been Elmarit-R 35/2.8 lenses but no M ones in that focal length. The M 50/2.8's have always been Elmars, the M 35/2.8 was called Summaron and the current M 35/2.5 is a Summarit but no Elmarits there my friends.

[luigi bertolotti]

(Sorry, guys... all this thread seems to me someway surreal, or based on inconsistent premises... what's the exact matter ? Naming of Leica lenses , or their lineup, or the way they are marketed ? Or.... )

[jaapv]

Indeed. Bring back which Elmarits?

[UliWer]

You don't understand the issue!

 

All the "its" are just a deviation off course and betray the real Leica values.

 

Bring back the Summars and Hektors!

[lct]

Bring back Hektorits!

[jaapv]

Only the Anastigmat is a true Leitz lens

[james.liam]

Bring back Hektorits!

 

I'm a Thambar man.

[luigi bertolotti]

Summarex is an old name which also would be pleasant to see again...

[Jeff S]

The M 50/2.8's have always been Elmars, the M 35/2.8 was called Summaron

 

FWIW, Puts wrote in his Chronicle that the Summaron should have been called Elmarit, and noted that the 50 f2.8 Elmar was named such initially as a redesign of the 50 f3.5 Elmar.

 

All this shows is that Leica isn't too great with names….M Typ 240…or whatever it's called.

 

But they make some mighty fine lenses.

 

Jeff

[semi-ambivalent]

All this shows is that Leica isn't too great with names….M Typ 240…or whatever it's called.

 

"A little mystery will keep us employed."

 

-Ernesto Colnago

 

s-a

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

I think the reason that the 35mm F2.8 lenses were called "Summarons" might have been to emphasize that they were Double Gauss lenses like the "Summicrons". Most "Elmarits" have been derivatives of Triplets. Like the "Elmars".

 

Even though the use of Double Gauss lenses is often associated with higher speed lenses: The reason for using a Double Gauss lens for an aperture of F2.8 with a moderate wide angle lens might have been because:

 

Double Gauss lenses also generally have a better performance in the outer part of the field than do Triplets. Especially with wider focal lengths. Triplets tend to perform better more toward the center of the image. Unless they are covering a relatively small angle of view.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[jaapv]

Summaron was supposedly changed to Summicron because the lenses used Kron glas.

The original plan was to call them Summikron. I don't know why that was changed.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[UliWer]

They were already aware that a fine dosis of anglicism sounds better for marketing. A "k" in a lens name looks teutonic.

[luigi bertolotti]

They were already aware that a fine dosis of anglicism sounds better for marketing. A "k" in a lens name looks teutonic.

 

Undoubtly.. see Hektor...