35mm Summicron vs Summarit

[S.Rolf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Other than the 'Cron being .4 stop faster, is there any other favorable difference between the two?

 

[pgk]

I've had both. If anything the Summarit flares less.

[S.Rolf]

Less flare, only .4 stop slower and $1,100.00 less?

Seems like a no-brainer unless I’m missing something.

Edited January 1, 2018 by S.Rolf

[TomB_tx]

My 35 Summicron is a few versions older, but I also have 35s from Zeiss & CV, and a Summarit 2.5. On the M10 the Simmarit is my clear favorite. The size and handling are great, and with the M10 high ISO I don't miss the faster lenses at all.

[S.Rolf]

Good to know.

Thanks

[lct]

I have both Summarit 35/2.5 and Summicron 35/2 asph v1. Both excellent lenses but the 35/2.5 is somewhat soft in corners and borders below f/5.6. Aside from vignetting, the Biogon 35/2.8 is (to me) a better lens so i bring it in good light, a 35/1.4 in low light and my 35/2 asph v1 as the best compromise when i have no room enough for several 35mm lenses.

Edit: The 35/2 asph v1 is rather soft at f/2 on borders and corners on the CL and not that sharp at f/2.8 either so it is not a lens i would advise for this camera. Best results i got on the CL so far were with Summilux 35/14 FLE, Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph and Biogon 35/2.8.

Edited January 1, 2018 by lct

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Summarit is less prone to focus shift, which affects some samples of the first version Summicron ASPH. I haven't tested the second version. And, as noted, less flare tendency due to rear blackening.

 

But I wouldn't sell or trade my Summicron.... still a fantastic lens.

 

Jeff

[S.Rolf]

I currently have the Summarit for use on my M10 and MP Film.

It’s one of those things that you second-guess your purchase after the fact.

Based on the responses here there doesn’t appear to be enough of a benefit to the Smmicron for trading in the Simmarit.

Think I’ll just hold onto it.

Thanks

[Ko.Fe.]

The only thing which some are noticing about Summarit-M 35 2.5 is visible distortions. I can't comment on "soft" corners. My Summarit is digging so much details at f8 on M-E and low ISO, I never seen anything like this before...

I'm also using it on M4-2. Best film lens I ever have. For BW and color.  But I can't afford modern ASPH lens from Leica.

 

0.5 0.4 makes difference on M-E. It could be ISO640 with f2 and ISO1250 with f2.5. But it is irrelevant for M10 ISO range.

On film M it feels safe. I'm paranoid after I burned curtain by f1.5 lens. 

If it is not enough light, I push @3200 and using 1/8. Here is the one taken this way with Summarit-M 35 on M4-2 :

 

  

 

[james.liam]

But I can't afford modern ASPH lens from Leica.

The 35 Summarit does have aspherical lens elements so I guess you could afford one after all.

[pgk]

Less flare, only .4 stop slower and $1,100.00 less?

Seems like a no-brainer unless I’m missing something.

 

If you look at the Leica brochures for both lenses, there is not a vast performance difference - which is my hands on experience too. I was fortunate and traded up to a Summilux before prices got too silly, but if I had to have a slower 35mm lens it would probably be the Summarit. Neither will disappoint though.

[M11 for me]

I think that it is normal that we see a price drop when having a slower lens compare to faster lenses that are at the same time bigger and heavier. With Leica is is always that question remaining wether or not the Summarit line is just an entry model into the Leica word with reduced quality. Or is it just the line with slower lenses?

 

For landscape or travelling I do normally not need very fast lenses unless we want to shoot wide open and with fast lenses intentionally. Considering then size or weight it would make sense to choose -it instead of cron or lux. Or go for even slower lenses if you would consider 28mm.

 

On the other hand we could look at the MTF curves. But after I read somwhere that those are sometimes mixed up in the spec sheets I prefer to follow the discussion here with people who have the experience.

[pgk]

I think that it is normal that we see a price drop when having a slower lens compare to faster lenses that are at the same time bigger and heavier. With Leica is is always that question remaining wether or not the Summarit line is just an entry model into the Leica word with reduced quality. Or is it just the line with slower lenses?

 

I assume (always dangerous) that the smaller elements require less grinding and polishing so are quicker and cheaper to produce. This would, to some extent, explain the lower cost. I don't think that Leica could afford to produce entry level lenses which did not perform very well as this would have an impact on their reputation if they did not produce excellent results. Having used 3 of the Summarits I would say that they all perform excellently. If you want faster lenses which perform very well wide open then the more expensive lenses do so but for general and landscape photography the Summarits are great.

[M11 for me]

This seems plausible. And I can not believe either that Summarits would have plastic parts inside instead of metal. And when reading in this thread we find nobody arguing agains the Summarit when wider aperture is not needed.

 

Its somehow interesting why there is no demand for an Elmarit 35mm. Anyway there is none in the actual lineup.

[Gregm61]

To be honest the 75 Summarit sounds almost preferable to the Summicron. Excellent reviews with none of the user complaints about calibration issues.

 

If one doesn’t mind non-six bit coded lenses, for half the price of a new f2.4 Summarit you might as well do the 35mm f1.7 Voigtlander Ultron VM.

 

I now have a collection of 35’s, a second-hand Summicron ASPH, new f2.4 Summarit, Summulix FLE and an Ultron VM and the Ultron performs better under more varied lighting conditions, especially contra-light where ALL the Leica lenses display various forms of flare/rainbows.

 

The Summilux FLE was particularly disappointing against the light for what it costs. I know Leica can make lenses that perform into the sun because the 21mm f3.4 Super Elmar is an against the light champ. Otherwise, the Summilux is an exquisite lens. I’ll adjust my shots against the light, or just utilize the Super Elmar.

 

The saved funds could nab an equally good 21mm f1.8 Ultron. Of course, if it’s Leica lenses you want, I obviously have no arguement against that, LOL.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Gregm61

[TomB_tx]

Its somehow interesting why there is no demand for an Elmarit 35mm. Anyway there is none in the actual lineup.

The Summaron 35 2.8 filled the place of and Elmarit 35 when it came out, and it sold very well. The equivalent 50 2.8 at the time was the Elmar 2.8. The 3.5 versions of both lenses had great reputations, so that may be why they kept the old names instead of calling them Elmarit. With their move to the 2.4 Summarits it's clear they are trying to get them accepted as more than a budget line of lenses.

[Ko.Fe.]

The 35 Summarit does have aspherical lens elements so I guess you could afford one after all.

 

I swear, I didn't knew it was then I was purchasing it. If I sell one of my film M and 50 Cron IV ELC, I could barely afford 28 2.8 ASPH. as well

[grillo]

One often overlooked difference is the 0.7m vs. 0.8m close focusing distance.

[microview]

35 Summarit if you want the look and feel of Leica lenses, but the Zeiss 35 2.8 is a stellar product. No focus tab just a rather ugly and superluous bump. Looks better in silver as the outer chromed ring on the black I just don't like – not that it interferes with performance in any way.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[james.liam]

35 Summarit if you want the look and feel of Leica lenses, but the Zeiss 35 2.8 is a stellar product. No focus tab just a rather ugly and superluous bump. Looks better in silver as the outer chromed ring on the black I just don't like – not that it interferes with performance in any way.

 

 

1++

An unsung hero of 35 M-mount options.

Costs less than a second-hand Summaron ƒ/2.8 that will in all likelihood need a CLA after 60 years on this earth, it will surprise (?startle) anyone looking for a compact, high-resolving and 'contrasty' optic. Especially if they've restricted their gaze to Leica or Voigtländer options.