MarkP Posted March 8, 2015 Share #41 Posted March 8, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) But still. I was considering this lens as a replacement for my Summilux 35 which is a bit bulky, but when i have used them side by side, the Summilux wins by a fraction. Not on all points, but still I have a hard time to let the Summilux go. Exactly why I sold my 2.5/35 and kept the Summilux ASPH. The difference was more than a fraction, especially the corners (and I don't mean right at the edges). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Hi MarkP, Take a look here New 35mm Summarit 2.4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted March 8, 2015 Share #42 Posted March 8, 2015 is the 0.7 vs. 0.8 minimum focusing distance a deal breaker? or significant? I find it annoying. I wouldn't say it is a deal breaker but it is one of those factors that make me wish I still had the Summicron instead of the Summarit to complement my 35 Summilux. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beckzito Posted March 9, 2015 Share #43 Posted March 9, 2015 Hi people, New to the forum, so hello to everyone I ve bought a 35mm Summarit f/2.4 to use on a Sony A7. Plans are to upgrade to a M240 body but for the time being, im using it on A7. I am still on day 2 so i will test this combo a litlle more and post feedback, if you like. cheers! 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 10, 2015 Share #44 Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) I have followed this thread with interest I am currently looking for a lightweight 35mm f2 lens to compliment my rather heavier faster lenses I have been bouncing between the summarit f2.4 and the biogon f2 I used to have the Summicron but in terms of my list of options I have ruled it out now due to things important to me, like the focus shift and its non-flat field nature I think the Summarit is more contrasty from the get go but as it starts at f2.4, by f2.8 the Biogon has already caught up. I think the Biogon is sharper in the corners from what I have read. Would be interested to know if the Summarit is sharper or the same in the centre any opinions from you guys would be interesting Edited March 10, 2015 by colonel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 10, 2015 Share #45 Posted March 10, 2015 It might still be relatively light but the Summarit F2.4 in it's new E46 incarnation is surely too big now as the little 35 to complement a bigger 35? Looking at that photo of it with the FLE lens hood on makes me think you might as well use the FLE and gain 0.7m close focussing and all the Summilux ASPH goodness. I still think the Summicron is the all-round winner in the compact 35 category and might soon put my money where my mouth is and buy one (for the 4th time). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted March 10, 2015 Share #46 Posted March 10, 2015 I have both the Biogon f2 and Summarit f2.5. In practical terms I find the IQ very equivalent. I had the Biogon first, but wanted a smaller lens, as I used the tiny v2 Summicron for 40 years. Now I use the Summarit 2.5 over both. I prefer the 2.5 designs for the size (used without hoods), and just bought the 50 for that reason as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 10, 2015 Share #47 Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) In order of weight (data for Leica and Voigtlander from B&H website, Zeiss from Zeiss website): Leica Summarit f2.4 is 197g - 52mm wide and 34mm length Zeiss Biogon f2.8 is 200g - 52mm wide and 50mm length Leica Summarit f2.5 is 220g - 51mm wide and and 34mm length Zeiss Biogon is 240g - 52mm wide and 56mm length Leica Summicron is 255g - 51mm wide and 35.6 length Leica Summilux is 320g - 56mm wide and 46mm length Zeiss Distagon f1.4 is 381g - 63mm wide and 65mm length Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 ii is 471g - 61mm wide and 62mm length Length is the most key for me, with weight second. Leica clearly wins on the length but the Biogons have good weights The most desirable for a weight/size quality mix is still the Summilux IMHO but for the smallest lens The Summarit or Summicron. When you take account of flat field, edges and even sharpness this throws in the Biogons as well. I have the Voigtlander so have no desire to add the Distagon f1.4. Edited March 10, 2015 by colonel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HV25 Posted March 10, 2015 Share #48 Posted March 10, 2015 Silly question maybe - but why is the new 2.4 Summarit almost 10 % lighter than the 'old' 2.5 Summarit if they are optically similar or identical ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted March 10, 2015 Share #49 Posted March 10, 2015 The CV Nokton is comically heavy and requires more PP than what I would consider to be normal... but it can really render a nice result. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted March 10, 2015 Share #50 Posted March 10, 2015 Silly question maybe - but why is the new 2.4 Summarit almost 10 % lighter than the 'old' 2.5 Summarit if they are optically similar or identical ? I think it uses more aluminium than brass in the lens barrel. But I'm not sure. Feels light. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beckzito Posted March 11, 2015 Share #51 Posted March 11, 2015 Mini review on the next few days. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 11, 2015 Share #52 Posted March 11, 2015 Congrats. Looks lovely. I wish you all the enjoyment in using it 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r7photo Posted March 11, 2015 Share #53 Posted March 11, 2015 Can show close up of front of lense, wondering about how much glass area Another question is bokeh, seems read somewhere that 2.5 version had better bokeh than the crom, wondering about this lens, love also to see pics aporeciate info and your mini review Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beckzito Posted March 11, 2015 Share #54 Posted March 11, 2015 Can show close up of front of lense, wondering about how much glass area found this one: http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_ee2/news_gallery_images/leica_summarit_m_35mm_hands_on_02.jpg Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted March 11, 2015 Share #55 Posted March 11, 2015 For comparison on glass - here's a '69 Summicron 35 and a Summarit 35 f2.5: 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/241180-new-35mm-summarit-24/?do=findComment&comment=2778895'>More sharing options...
Robert_M Posted March 11, 2015 Share #56 Posted March 11, 2015 In order of weight (data for Leica and Voigtlander from B&H website, Zeiss from Zeiss website): Leica Summarit f2.4 is 197g - 52mm wide and 34mm length Zeiss Biogon f2.8 is 200g - 52mm wide and 50mm length Leica Summarit f2.5 is 220g - 51mm wide and and 34mm length Zeiss Biogon is 240g - 52mm wide and 56mm length Leica Summicron is 255g - 51mm wide and 35.6 length Leica Summilux is 320g - 56mm wide and 46mm length Zeiss Distagon f1.4 is 381g - 63mm wide and 65mm length Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 ii is 471g - 61mm wide and 62mm length Length is the most key for me, with weight second. Leica clearly wins on the length but the Biogons have good weights The most desirable for a weight/size quality mix is still the Summilux IMHO but for the smallest lens The Summarit or Summicron. When you take account of flat field, edges and even sharpness this throws in the Biogons as well. I have the Voigtlander so have no desire to add the Distagon f1.4. Be careful with your length comparisons. Zeiss seems to give the length as the total overall length of the lens package. The length Leica gives is the length from the mount flange to the front of the lens. So you are comparing apples to oranges in the above listing. Length is also important in my choices of lenses, especially for just a "walk around" lens. The Zeiss ZM 35/2.8 is actually the shortest in your list above. It is about 30mm length from the flange to the front, which is several mm shorter than the 50/2.5 Summarit. For 40+ years, I've been using the Summicron 40/2 lens and it is still a great lens on the M9 for a walk around. And, I like the 40mm focal length. Recently, I've gotten the Zeiss 35/2.8 and I'm finally being pulled away from the 40/2 lens for that type of use. The Zeiss 35/2.8 is really a 36mm focal length, BTW. I also have the summicron 35/2 (current) and the Zeiss 35/2.8 is more compact and lighter (for me at least). R 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 11, 2015 Share #57 Posted March 11, 2015 Be careful with your length comparisons. Zeiss seems to give the length as the total overall length of the lens package. The length Leica gives is the length from the mount flange to the front of the lens. So you are comparing apples to oranges in the above listing. Length is also important in my choices of lenses, especially for just a "walk around" lens. The Zeiss ZM 35/2.8 is actually the shortest in your list above. It is about 30mm length from the flange to the front, which is several mm shorter than the 50/2.5 Summarit. For 40+ years, I've been using the Summicron 40/2 lens and it is still a great lens on the M9 for a walk around. And, I like the 40mm focal length. Recently, I've gotten the Zeiss 35/2.8 and I'm finally being pulled away from the 40/2 lens for that type of use. The Zeiss 35/2.8 is really a 36mm focal length, BTW. I also have the summicron 35/2 (current) and the Zeiss 35/2.8 is more compact and lighter (for me at least). R Thanks for that I did notice that Zeiss bizarrely include the lens cap in the length so I stripped that out but didn't realise they went from the end and not the flange. I would therefore love to have the real lengths of the Zeiss to compare. They are definitely longer then the Leica but maybe not that much. I have just measured my Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 II from the flange to the tip and its 58.5mm. I said above 62mm so 3.5 mm off. Perhaps folk who have the Zeiss's mentioned can measure theirs and post here so I can post an updated table Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beckzito Posted March 11, 2015 Share #58 Posted March 11, 2015 mine a little more in detail: 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/241180-new-35mm-summarit-24/?do=findComment&comment=2779146'>More sharing options...
matlep Posted March 12, 2015 Share #59 Posted March 12, 2015 mine a little more in detail: [ATTACH]488402[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]488403[/ATTACH] Nice, if you aren't gonna use the hood, don't forget to screw on the thin metal ring found in the bottom of the leather pouch. Makes it look even better 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beckzito Posted March 12, 2015 Share #60 Posted March 12, 2015 Nice, if you aren't gonna use the hood, don't forget to screw on the thin metal ring found in the bottom of the leather pouch. Makes it look even better really? havent found the ring yet, will search a little deeper Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.