Comparing some 35 Leica lenses...

[Ecar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I presume is meant to be b ) in #16 and 17...

 

Yes - I guess this has to do with some kind of hidden keyboard shortcut

[schattenundlicht]

It is like ; ) being turned into

 

However, b ) or B ) turning into is a bit more of a nuisance, since it regularly happens inadvertently with ordered lists. Fell into this trap myself on several occasions

[Advertisement]

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

[wizard]

Ahh, interesting. I would say the order is a, d, b, c, going from best to worst, and presumably from most modern to oldest lens. The order I indicated is also the order of decreasing contrast, which makes me think that this order is likely to correspond to the date of construction of the respective type of lens, as Leica lenses tend to have improved contrast with every new model.

 

To specify exactly which lens is which is quite difficult. I'd say lens a is the Summarit 2.5/35, and lens d is the Summicron 2/35 asph, although this could well be vice versa. Lens b might be the second version Summicron 35, with lens c being the first version Summicron 35 (the 8-element type). 

 

I look forward to seeing the mystery resolved!

 

Cheers, Andy

[adan]

You folks did quite well in identification.

 

a- Summicron ASPH, v. 1 (clip-on hood)

b- Summicron v.1, eight-element (goggled)

c- Summicron v.2, semaphore-tab aperture lever

d- Summarit f/2.5

 

My thoughts:

 

This is the best-performing 35 ASPH I've run across, in terms of full-aperture resolution, both center and corner. Just goes to show that so long as Leica lenses are hand-assembled, there's always the chance of sample variation. Unfortunately - as I was doing the test, someone bought this sample after I'd returned it to the case. (!!)

 

Interesting to note its rapid corner pincushion distortion, that stretches the Canon 55-250 box into a parallelogram (top left corner samples) more than the others. Exactly as Leica's own data sheet shows.

 

I still don't like its pinker color, though (all examples used the same white balance, exactly to check for lens color bias). And a lot of contrast, which contributes to the purple fringing (two-edged sword).

 

Summarit f/2.5 - No, that isn't motion blur in the edges - the center is sharp (and slightly better then the 'cron ASPH - 67% contrast vs. 60%). Conforms to other Summarit 35s I've tried, and to the MTF charts: Some (but not extreme) "vibrating" blur or smearing or doubled-images (at the far edges/corners) perpendicular to the image center.

 

Summicrons v.1 and v.2 - On the whole, the extra two elements of the v.1 do provide a bit better resolution and clarity. The v.2 (mine, BTW) suffers a bit. Although one can note that the v.2 in the corners produces a "smooth" fuzziness, while the v.1 has some directional streakiness (milder, lower-contrast version of what the Summarit does). And in the center, the v.2 has slightly higher contrast (fewer glass surfaces producing flare?)

 

The v.2 was rather rapidly (in "Leica years") replaced with both the v.3 and v.4 between 1971 and 1979.

 

My personal preference is still for lower-contrast, higher-resolution over high-contrast, lower-resolution. Especially on digital, where one can enhance edge and global contrast with sharpening and contrast sliders (and high lens contrast can contribute to purple fringes or blown highlights). Thus I might prefer the older Summicrons over the Summarit, or even the ASPH 'cron - away from the center of the image. No one else has to.

 

But after all, this is one experiment, at one aperture, with one example of each lens.

Edited September 1, 2018 by adan

[schattenundlicht]

You folks did quite well in identification.

 

a- Summicron ASPH, v. 1 (clip-on hood)

b- Summicron v.1, eight-element (goggled)

c- Summicron v.2, semaphore-tab aperture lever

d- Summarit f/2.5

 

My thoughts:

 

This is the best-performing 35 ASPH I've run across, in terms of full-aperture resolution, both center and corner. Just goes to show that so long as Leica lenses are hand-assembled, there's always the chance of sample variation. Unfortunately - as I was doing the test, someone bought this sample after I'd returned it to the case. (!!)

 

Interesting to note its rapid corner pincushion distortion, that stretches the Canon 55-250 box into a parallelogram (top left corner samples) more than the others. Exactly as Leica's own data sheet shows.

 

I still don't like its pinker color, though (all examples used the same white balance, exactly to check for lens color bias). And a lot of contrast, which contributes to the purple fringing (two-edged sword).

 

Summarit f/2.5 - No, that isn't motion blur in the edges - the center is sharp (and slightly better then the 'cron ASPH - 67% contrast vs. 60%). Conforms to other Summarit 35s I've tried, and to the MTF charts: Some (but not extreme) "vibrating" blur or smearing or doubled-images (at the far edges/corners) perpendicular to the image center.

 

Summicrons v.1 and v.2 - On the whole, the extra two elements of the v.1 do provide a bit better resolution and clarity. The v.2 (mine, BTW) suffers a bit. Although one can note that the v.2 in the corners produces a "smooth" fuzziness, while the v.1 has some directional streakiness (milder, lower-contrast version of what the Summarit does). And in the center, the v.2 has slightly higher contrast (fewer glass surfaces producing flare?)

 

The v.2 was rather rapidly (in "Leica years") replaced with both the v.3 and v.4 between 1971 and 1979.

 

My personal preference is still for lower-contrast, higher-resolution over high-contrast, lower-resolution. Especially on digital, where one can enhance edge and global contrast with sharpening and contrast sliders (and high lens contrast can contribute to purple fringes or blown highlights). Thus I might prefer the older Summicrons over the Summarit, or even the ASPH 'cron - away from the center of the image. No one else has to.

 

But after all, this is one experiment, at one aperture, with one example of each lens.

Thank you very much for this stimulating riddle! It was good fun, although it would be impossible to decide upon one‘s own individual preference for real life shooting from a single „brick wall“ image.

 

It gives me some food for thought, however, that my own rating is of such conventional taste

[adan]

BTW - lenses ID'd in camera with 6-bit coding (ASPH and 'rit) or closest available (early 'crons ID'd as Summicron v.4).

 

But no post-processing profiles applied - I was testing the raw lens behavior, not software. Adobe Camera Raw (if it matters).

[iphoenix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is your v2 version Canadian or Wetzlar production?

[adan]

Marked Leitz Weztlar and "Made in West Germany." 1970-ish by the SN.

[Ccoppola82]

Very cool comparison. Ironically I preferred the "c" cron v2 even though I knew it was an older lens. I have a v3 and I don't see myself ever parting with it, mainly due to its size,ergonomics/ build, and IQ balance. Fantastic little do-everything lens for my purposes

[TG14]

... ... Just goes to show that so long as Leica lenses are hand-assembled, there's always the chance of sample variation.

Not sure i understand the "sample variation" point. Arent they all supposed to be within a certain tolerance?

[schattenundlicht]

Not sure i understand the "sample variation" point. Arent they all supposed to be within a certain tolerance?

Yes, of course, but within tolerances, some are at the outer edges, whereas some are spot on.

[TomB_tx]

Marked Leitz Weztlar and "Made in West Germany." 1970-ish by the SN.

My v2 is about the same vintage, but made in Canada. I thought I bought it in 1969, but the serial suggests the first 1970 batch. I used it happily for decades, but I find the Summarit 2.5 "clearly" better on my M10.

[Ko.Fe.]

My Summarit 35 2.5 is the sharpest lens I ever used. I became addictive with this lens to open image at 1:1 and see all of he details.

And it is not overly contrast lens at all.

But, as with any lens if I need it without buzzing corners I'm setting the lens to f5.6-f8, making sure it is enough light for handheld and low ISO.