50mm summarit or sumicron?

[Bunza]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I love my 35 Cron and until now it has been the only lens that I have used on my M10. However, I would like to add a 50 to my bag. The size of the summarit is a strong attraction but I really like my 35 Cron and the images that I manage to get from it so could be tempted to find the extra cash.

 

Would anyone like to share their views/experiences regarding each of these lenses.

 

kindest regards,

 

Bunza

[Advertisement]

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

[LeicaR10]

Bunza,  I own the 50 f/2.4 Summarit and owned the 50 Summicron years before.  Both are excellent lenses.  The Summarit is a real gem of lens and produces excellent images.  The real difference might be if you use filters.  The 50 Summicron uses 39mm filters and has a built in hood.  The Summarit uses 46mm filters and a screw on hood.  In either case, you can't go wrong and really gets down to filters if you use them.  Leica users seem to under rate the Summarits due to their lower price...big mistake.  The newer 35, 50, 75 and 90 Summarits are excellent.  Last, people seem to forget it's the photograph that is most important, not the make or expense of the camera or lens.  r/ Mark

[TomB_tx]

I've used the v5 (current) Summicron for some time, and a couple years ago added the Summarit f2.5 versions of 35 & 50 lenses, instead of the new 2.4 versions, because they are more compact and take 39mm filters. (The optics of the 2.5 versions are identical to the 2.4 versions.)

The 2.5 35 & 50 Summarits have identical bodies and handling, with very fast and light focus action, with a nice finger tab for one-finger focusing. On my M9 I found I could hit focus more exactly with the longer focus throw of the 50 Summicron, but on the M10 with its slightly better RF I have no problem with the Summarit.

With the M10 I use mainly the 35 Summarit, with the 50 Summarit most often when I want a 50. That's in spite of having Summicrons as well as Zeiss lenses in both focal lengths.

[Jon Warwick]

I own the 50mm Summicron v5 (and 50mm Summicron APO too). And I’ve tried the Summarit.

My v5 has excellent centre sharpness, but for things like landscapes I find it needs to be stopped down A LOT ..... say to f8++ at least ..... in order to get the edges fully sharp.

Is that normal or do I need to get it checked by Leica? At f2-5.6, I’d say only the middle 40% of the image is in sharp focus! If it’s normal for the Summicron v5, I’d suggest your looking at the Summarit, which is obviously beautifully small albeit without the benefit of a built in lens hood, and edges looked good on the version I tried.

[a.noctilux]

I own the 50mm Summicron v5 (and 50mm Summicron APO too). And I’ve tried the Summarit.

My v5 has excellent centre sharpness, but for things like landscapes I find it needs to be stopped down A LOT ..... say to f8++ at least ..... in order to get the edges fully sharp.

Is that normal or do I need to get it checked by Leica? At f2-5.6, I’d say only the middle 40% of the image is in sharp focus! If it’s normal for the Summicron v5, I’d suggest your looking at the Summarit, which is obviously beautifully small albeit without the benefit of a built in lens hood, and edges looked good on the version I tried.

 

Jon,

 

If you had the two, you know that plain Summicron can't do what Apo-Summicron was created for.

 

Just look at MTF graphs and compare the two at same aperture :

- Apo-Summicron 50 http://us.leica-camera.com/Service-Support/Support/Downloads?category=&subcategory=93720&type=68377&language=all

- plain Summicron-M http://us.leica-camera.com/Service-Support/Support/Downloads?category=&subcategory=93739&type=68377&language=all

- for the OP Summarit-M 50 here http://us.leica-camera.com/Service-Support/Support/Downloads?category=&subcategory=120505&type=68377&language=all

 

Just to say that Summarit-M, I use the 2.5, is pleasure to use and so small/light with best IQ for a lens without asph. or expensive elements.

[M11 for me]

Jon,

 

If you had the two, you know that plain Summicron can't do what Apo-Summicron was created for.

 

Just look at MTF graphs and compare the two at same aperture :

- Apo-Summicron 50 http://us.leica-camera.com/Service-Support/Support/Downloads?category=&subcategory=93720&type=68377&language=all

- plain Summicron-M http://us.leica-camera.com/Service-Support/Support/Downloads?category=&subcategory=93739&type=68377&language=all

- for the OP Summarit-M 50 here http://us.leica-camera.com/Service-Support/Support/Downloads?category=&subcategory=120505&type=68377&language=all

 

Just to say that Summarit-M, I use the 2.5, is pleasure to use and so small/light with best IQ for a lens without asph. or expensive elements.

I think that it is a very good point to look at the MTF charts. I wonder who could tell you which lens is better. You will not get any right answer to such a question. What can give you better information than the MTF from Leica themselves. The most incredible thing is when people tell you that they REMEMBER that their lens was this or that . . .

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have no experience with the current Summarit 50/2.4 but i use both Summarit 50/2.5 and Summicron 50/2 v5 currently. Simply put my 50/2.5 performs better re CA, focus shift and corner sharpness below f/5.6 but it can produce some nasty flare in special circumstances typically at 10:00 AM when the sun is outside the frame so it is a lens i prefer using with mirrorless cameras. The 50/2's flare is more predictable but the lens is not immune from it when strong light sources are outside the frame mainly. Also f/2 can make a real difference in low light so i prefer using a Summicron indoor when i have no faster lens handy. FWIW.