100mm Summicron or 45mm Elmarit?

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm in a very fortunate position that mean I have both the means and the approval to buy a second lens for my S(007). I currently have the 70mm Summarit and have found used examples of both the 100mm Summicron and 45mm Elmarit for £3200 which is about $4000 US.

In a 35mm world, I always defaulted to either a 35mm or 50mm lens, with the split being about 30/70 respectively. I have previously used an 85mm lens for portraiture with great results but was always conscious that it was less versatile than a 50mm even if the 85mm was much better for portraiture.

I can only buy one of these two lenses and am a little hamstrung. On the one hand a wider option would be useful for indoor portraiture where the space is more limited and I would like the wider option as well for more general use outdoors. On the otherhand, the 100mm Summicron is suppopsed to be the ultimate portrait lens and they don't come around second hand too often (but then neither does the 45mm). But since portraiture is ostensibly what I am all about, the Summicron seems like the obvious choice.

Help me decide; I would appreciate your views and opinions if for no other reason than it's rewarding to engage with other people (i.e. I know only I can answer this question).

 

[wattsy]

24 minutes ago, geetee1972 said:

But since portraiture is ostensibly what I am all about

As you well know, "portraiture" can be done with any lens. The key question is what kind of portraiture do you foresee yourself wanting to do that cannot be accomplished well with your 70mm. My guess is that you'll actually find the 45mm more useful for the kind of environmental portraiture that you cannot do with the 70mm (indoor or where you are otherwise backed up against your surroundings). It strikes me as more the sort of situation you'll find yourself in than having an overwhelming desire to use the "ultimate portrait" lens for some kind of contrived head shot. The other option is to not buy a second lens (either for now or ever). I have long realised that buying a second or third (or tenth) lens is often more an exercise in shopping than it is in satisfying a burning need to be able to accomplish something that you currently cannot. You can rent these lenses for about £35 a day from The Pro Centre. Will you use the second lens a hundred times (when you would start to save money against renting) ? Just some thoughts.

Edited November 28, 2018 by wattsy

[Advertisement]

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

[mgrayson3]

The 100 is a more balanced lens on the S. The 45 is longer and heavier. That said, I don't think either is different enough from the 70 to warrant being a second lens. I understand that these are your choices. The 100 does have the more different look - and i'm not talking about the f/2 aperture. It has a different transition to OOF than the other S lenses. The 45 has a stellar reputation, but that FoV has never clicked with me, so I don't use mine much. If I want wide, I use the 35 or (my favorite) the 24.

Sorry, this doesn't really help your decision.

Edited November 28, 2018 by mgrayson3

[John McMaster]

I rarely use my 35mm, 24mm or 45mm instead.  Another option for the longer end is the 120mm macro, easily my most used lens and further from the 70mm....

john

[Guest]

I have to say the my two favorite lenses on the S were the 100 and the 45.

I think the 45 is so well corrected and such a natural look for the S it really is hard to beat in my opinion. Stitching makes it as wide as you want to go.

The 100 shines as the OOF is very compelling ... 

An alternative for the present is to get the 45 ... and find a Pentax67 105 F 2.4 as a consolation portrait solution until you are able to get the 100. By far

one of the best looks on the S and can be found in near mint condition for a song ... any adapter will work ... no need for the Leica version.

Nice to have the choice ... cannot go wrong with either.

[alan.y]

I had both the 45 and 100, in part in an attempt to replicate my beloved M35/75 and R35/80. The 45mm was much more useful as a general lens, and was optically superb with a crisp but beautiful rendition and almost no geometric distortion, but was a bit too bulky and front-heavy to carry around all day as if it were a 35mm lens on 35mm. The 100 was just slightly heavier than the 70mm and felt good, but I found its look not different enough from the 70 to justify keeping both. The same can be said, to a lesser extent, for having both S45 and S35.

Also, a few users have reported focus issues with the 100. My first copy front-focused consistently on my S007, even after a trip to Germany, but on another body it appeared fine. I would've had to send the body in too for calibration, even though my other lenses didn't have this problem. It seems the 100 is more prone to focus errors. 

I ultimately stuck with the much cheaper (and overall lighter and for me more generally useful) 35/70 combo.

In purely economic terms, I think USD 4000 for the S100 is a slightly better deal than the S45.

 

[Photon42]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another thought:

Your thinking around the 45mm lens is about your subject, the one around the 100mm is about optical perfection. You seem to have application and felt need for a 45. Whereas the want for the 100 comes more from desire to possess something technically outstanding. Both is fine in my eyes. Given your constraints, I would go now with the 45, as you have the 70 already. And some time later, buy the 120/2.5. It is wonderfully versatile and you even may want to think about a CS version.

Alan is right, though. 4k for a 100S is a good price. AF engine replaced?

Cheers

Ivo

 

[ropo54]

So, here's a summary of the opinions:

Consensus opinion that  $4000 is a very good price for the S100.

The 70mm is good enough for portraits.

The 120 is a great alternative.

The Pentax 105 is a great alternative.

The 45 might be a better option to consider for environmental portraits and to pair with your S 70.

The 100 is a great lens, and gives a bit of a different character to image.

David Farkas quoting Stefan Shultz @ Leica regarding the S 120: It is "the noctilux of S lenses" with the capacity for even more shallow depth of field. 

First Impressions of the Leica APO-Macro-Summarit-S 120mm f-2.5 | Red Dot Forum.webloc

Now, what to do???? 🙄

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by ropo54

[Jeff S]

David Farkas praises (rightly) all S lenses.  But his size/ weight comparison in the S120 article seems misleading; it’s more than marginally longer than the S70 and heavier than the S35.

Jeff

[geetee1972]

Wow, great replies; everyone is spot on and well considered and greatly appreciated. Thank you guys and thank you Rob fof the personal note.

The 100mm actually arrived today; I took a punt and decided to order it and give it a quick try knowing that the distance selling reg's here in the UK mean I can easily send it back. It won't leave the house so there's little if any risk and at least it gives me the chance to see what the workable DOF is and whether that is somethign I want. It's appeal is very apparent in that it is both a very good price (this lens is actually in utterly mint condition; it looks like it's new old stock almost though that does also mean that the AF motor has not been replaced). It would have been more expensive but for a Black Friday 10% extra on all second hand items from the reputable dealer I bought it off.

The 45mm is also a good price; that one is ex-demo from a main dealer and a CS version so it's also a bargain, though I don't shoot with added light so the CS is of little value to me.

Rob the idea of using an adapted lens is a great one and was actually how I was planning on going but at the other end. I had thought to buy a second hand Pentax 45mm or maybe even a 'blad 40mm or 50mm (the 40mm Hasselblad V is pricey) with my rationale being that at this focal length I am more likely to be shooting stopped down and the added DOF of the wider angle would make manual focusing less of a challenge.

To illustrate, the DOF on the 100mm at f/2 when the subject is 3m away is about 2cm front to back. I'm not sure how well I can focus when the focus point is that critical, but it's worth considering.

While all of the comments are really helpful two really stand out.

First is the notion that perhaps one lens is better than two; are either that different as to warrant being bought considering how much they cost? I remember saying to a good friend I grew up riding and racing push bikes with that while we hankered after all the glorious kit as kids, as adults we were actually riding less and the buying of nice bikes was just a substitute for riding them. Perhaps a second lens for the S is just that; a substitue because it's now winter and I can't shoot as much.

The second is the comment that the 45mm seems to be more motivated by the subject whereas the 100mm is about the 'look'. This is bang on and frighteningly insightful. I will ponder this tomorrow having taken some test shots with the 100mm and see where I land.

Thanks again everyone.

[hoppyman]

I think it was smart to decide for yourself, based on what you think is most important. I think that the quality is so high you will be thrilled with either.

to add my after the fact two cents:

i have the 70 and 120 for studio.

i tried the 100 very briefly at a workshop. .....If you NEED f/2 ..... 

For ME my macro 120 means I wouldn't get the 100 for head shoulders. I love the macro 120 results.  I also very seldom shoot wide open.

i tried a loan 45 for a few hundred frames.. for fashion and editorial style shots I would love to own one! 

http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman/image/162514412

Edited November 29, 2018 by hoppyman

[tom0511]

If you keep the 70 then I believe the 45 makes your kit more flexible than adding 100mm, which is not too far from 70.

45 and 100 are my favorites , followed by 70.

The only downside of the 45 is its size and weight.

In the end it also depends if you want to shoot more environmental things/portraits (->45) or if you love a little more compressed but still very natural style of the 100 (which I prefer over 120 because I find 120 indoors too long often).

good luck in finding the right choice for your needs! 

Have you missed a longer lens or a shorter lens? Only you know what you need/want.

[geetee1972]

I still haven't made a firm decision but I did opt to buy the 100mm in order to give it a try (the distance selling laws here in the UK mean I can reutrn it without quibble within 14 days of purchase, assuming of course it is returned as sold!)

I spent an afternoon using it but frustratingly my MacBook Pro is havign its screen replaced, so I'm forced to use my work issued Surface (which is garbage in my experience) and I don't have any editing software availble to me other than the cut down version of Lightroom on the iPad (which just isn't as capable as CaptrureOne).

The tentative results however are quite remarkable; the OOF areas do look very different and the rendering is sublime, quite different to the 70. I won't know how I really feel about it until I can see the results through the MBP (even just looking at existing files on my BenQ monitor through the Surface shows that the way this machine handles colour is quite different to the Mac - the results are horrible oversaturated and shifted to the magenta end of the spectrum), but thus far I am encouraged.

Quote

Have you missed a longer lens or a shorter lens?

To be honest I've not missed either specifically and if the 70 were say faster than f/2 I probably wouldn't be looking for anything. While I do stop down a lot for most of my portraiture I do also want the option of the super fast drop off in focus; I have for example, missed the 50 Summilux I had on the SL. If the 70 were more like that I would be very happy.

Edited December 3, 2018 by geetee1972

[SaW]

Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the 100mm only if you decide to let the 70mm go ?

You speak about not having too many S lenses so it is quite obvious that having the 100mm also means needing to leave the 70mm for the 45mm 😊

Keeping the 70mm means buying the 120mm instead of the 100 (and a 30/35mm for a set of 3).

We're sometimes blurred by the temptation but, let's face it, Leica launched the S system with a 35mm / 70mm / 120mm kit for a reason.

Without a really specific need (like standard portraiture is the only use of my kit) I think the 100mm choice is impossible to justify when already having a 70 and not wanting to start a Leica S lenses museum.

Only my point of vue for sure ( but it's the good one, you'll thank me in a few months 😁)

 

ps: 2 years ago I challenged my 120mm with the 100mm and finally decided to sell the 100mm. The 100mm is less heavy, more compact, f2 instead of f2.5. Quite nice when backpacking. But the AF of the model I had was not accurate enough, I could have the same blur effect @ f2.5 120mm than @ f2 100mm and the bokeh of the 120 was a bit better (this one was surprising as I expected the contrary). The 120 shows more micro contrast and I also kind of prefer that. It is also clearly more integrated in my kit. 

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, geetee1972 said:

To be honest I've not missed either specifically and if the 70 were say faster than f/2 I probably wouldn't be looking for anything. While I do stop down a lot for most of my portraiture I do also want the option of the super fast drop off in focus; I have for example, missed the 50 Summilux I had on the SL. If the 70 were more like that I would be very happy.

 

I guess you have tried? Because the difference in depth of field between a 50mm 1.4 at 1.4 on 35mm and a 70mm f2.5 at 2.5 on the S should be nearly negligible. I ran the numbers on a site that does that calculation, and the difference in DOF at 2m was around 15mm, with the 70mm having less. I have heard the SL lenses have an abrupt DOF transition, so it might appear less, but it should not be so different. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Stuart Richardson

[geetee1972]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

 

I guess you have tried? Because the difference in depth of field between a 50mm 1.4 at 1.4 on 35mm and a 70mm f2.5 at 2.5 on the S should be nearly negligible. I ran the numbers on a site that does that calculation, and the difference in DOF at 2m was around 15mm, with the 70mm having less. I have heard the SL lenses have an abrupt DOF transition, so it might appear less, but it should not be so different. 

I think you're right actually; I also think that the change in DOF does look different on the 100 than the 70 so until I can edit them on my MBP and large monitor I can't really tell. Just off now to collect the MBP so will post back later today with some examples.

[geetee1972]

Two examples shot wide open on the 100mm Summicron:

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!

Valerie - Young Trans Woman by Greg Turner, on Flickr

Adonise by Greg Turner, on Flickr

I do like what this lens is doing but the question is, is it enough to justify what is still a lot of money. My default lens will always still be the 70 as this is my natural perspective so I cannot see me working with just a 45/100 combination. 

 

[John McMaster]

I would go for a 120/2.5 if you need a longer lens, further from 70mm and can focus closer.  Will have about the same DoF wide open to the 100/2 and can be found cheaper than the 45mm or 100mm....

john

[Agent M10]

9 minutes ago, John McMaster said:

I would go for a 120/2.5 if you need a longer lens, further from 70mm and can focus closer.  Will have about the same DoF wide open to the 100/2 and can be found cheaper than the 45mm or 100mm....

john

The 100mm is an 80mm in full frame. The 120mm is a 96mm. The 100mm will give you a more natural look in portraiture than the 120mm. And that's why Leica touts the 100mm specifically for portraits. That's not to say the 120mm can't be used for portraits. But the 120mm will give you a slightly more compressed look.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[John McMaster]

Well aware of that

john