miro Posted January 28, 2016 Share #1 Â Posted January 28, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi . AFAIK optically they're the same . Just curious about forum member cosmetic preference between these 2 . Â Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Hi miro, Take a look here Summarit Preference , 2.5 or 2.4 ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jan Jurgensen Posted January 28, 2016 Share #2 Â Posted January 28, 2016 Putting the "old" Summarit 50mm/2.5 on my camera makes it as small and handy as a point and shoot - fit for hiking or a walk about town. The small 28mm/2.8 ASFH serves a similar function. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiafish Posted January 28, 2016 Share #3 Â Posted January 28, 2016 They use the same optical formulas, but the mechanics were improved/changed. Â the old 35 and 50 use 39mm filters compared to 46mm on the new ones. Â I have no problem with vignetting on my 35/25 even with a regular (not thin) B+W orange or yellow filter installed. Â if all of your other lenses have 39mm or 46mm filters then filter diameter alone could be the deciding factor. Â The only with more significant changes is the 75mm, which focuses much closer (.7 compared to .9 meters) in the newer f/2.4 series. Â Leica advertises the new 35mm as the first aspherical Summarit, but the old 35mm was also aspherical, just not marketed as such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted January 28, 2016 Share #4 Â Posted January 28, 2016 I agree with the other comments. I have the 35 & 50 f2.5 to match my other 39mm filter lenses. I liked the 35 so much I added the 50 even after the 2.4 was available. I prefer the handling to my Summicrons, and results are "equivalent" for my use. My M9 normally uses the Summarits now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 28, 2016 Share #5 Â Posted January 28, 2016 .........The only with more significant changes is the 75mm, which focuses much closer (.7 compared to .9 meters) in the newer f/2.4 series...... I agree with the difference, but would not use the word 'much'. 'Slightly' possibly? Â As to the original question, I would certainly not find it worthwhile upgrading from older to newer versions. Different if you are fresh in the market for such a lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiafish Posted January 29, 2016 Share #6 Â Posted January 29, 2016 I agree with the difference, but would not use the word 'much'. 'Slightly' possibly? Â As to the original question, I would certainly not find it worthwhile upgrading from older to newer versions. Different if you are fresh in the market for such a lens. Â At 75mm, .2 meters closer gives a much tighter composition (higher magnification). Â The difference is significant, and is why I am so excited about the new Lomo Jupiter 3+ that focuses to .7 compared to my vintage Zeiss Sonnars that only get to 1 meter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted February 1, 2016 Share #7 Â Posted February 1, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) With a lens as optically excellent as the 75 Summarit, on a sensor with the capability of the M (8,9 or 240/262), I doubt anyone would see the difference in detail between the newer lens and cropping the FOV of the older one to make up for that 20cm difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Orme Posted February 1, 2016 Share #8  Posted February 1, 2016 I was able to locate an excellent Summarit 35mm f2.5 with hood & lens cap that I got and am very happy with, for about half the price of the newer version. As others have said, I can see no reason to get the newer one unless these minor changes that have been noted are of importance to you. The hood on the original is a bit fiddly & doesn't lock into place, but that was easily remedied. This lens now has an almost permanent place on my M240, & I love the quality of images it produces. Reviews of the older one by both Sean Reid & Steve Huff compare it very favorably to the 35 Summicron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 2, 2016 Share #9 Â Posted February 2, 2016 Would be interesting to know if 2.5 & 2.4 have the same coatings. New coatings could fix the flare problems of the 50/2.5 eventually. Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiafish Posted February 2, 2016 Share #10 Â Posted February 2, 2016 With a lens as optically excellent as the 75 Summarit, on a sensor with the capability of the M (8,9 or 240/262), I doubt anyone would see the difference in detail between the newer lens and cropping the FOV of the older one to make up for that 20cm difference. I'll take closer focusing instead of cropping, thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maralatho Posted February 4, 2016 Share #11  Posted February 4, 2016 Hi . AFAIK optically they're the same . Just curious about forum member cosmetic preference between these 2 .  I have the new 35mm Summarit on an M9, and the ASPH 35mm Summicron on a 240, both in silver. The Summarit is gorgeous, especially with its screw-on hood, but in use the two lenses feel very different, mostly, I think, because the Summarit is anodized aluminum and the Summicron is chrome plated brass. I prefer the feel of the Summicron. There’s more heft to it, while the Summarit feels very light and lean. That’s not a criticism. They both feel very well made. Image quality from both of them is great.  The older model of the Summarit had a clunkier looking hood. It was a bit more utilitarian, so if looks matter to you, consider the new one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.