Summaron-M 35mm f/2.8 too 'characterful'?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not normally a lens tester, but in another thread I commented on the 'characterful' Summaron 35 2.8 compared to modern lenses, and I was questioned on it.
My comment was based on subjective feelings that the Summaron had lower contrast and was softer, particularly at the edges. After reading other forum members (and Ken Rockwell's) comments on how good this lens was, when not fogged, I thought I'd better have another look, and explain my subjective view with a bit of evidence.

I only have the Summilux 35 FLE to compare it with, and I can only check them full frame on my SL. The Summaron is uncoded, and the SL has no profile for it, so I picked a Summicron 35 profile. The two images were shot at f2.8, 1/640s, ISO 100.

First the full images, Summaron above, Summilux below. The vignetting of the Summaron is obvious, but a good lens profile might correct this.

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!

[LocalHero1953]

Now 100% crops of the centre. Summaron above, Summilux below. No sharpening or other processing. Confirms that the basic exposures are similar, and sharpness is similar within the limits of my manual focusing.

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!

[LocalHero1953]

Now 100% crops of extreme right hand edge. Again, Summaron above, Summilux below. The effects of vignetting are obvious, and lower contrast and softness.

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!

[LocalHero1953]

And finally 100% crops of the bottom edge by the child's toy. The high contrast edges flare slightly in the Summaron, and definition is lost in the detail of the red.

All this detail has been posted to show why I do not use the Summaron regularly as a 35mm M lens. For its size, it is wonderful, though.

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!

Edited October 30, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

I do see a difference, which is probably due to the lower microcontrast/resolution of the Summaron. Not surprising. In large part correctable in postprocessing (which I would not do). The vignetting is, of course, a matter of using the slider.

[caissa]

Thanks, that was very interesting - and not what I had expected.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a matter of fact, I really like the vintage character of the lens. I think that some subjects in B&W will come out wonderfully.

[bags27]

Really interesting: thanks!

What Rockwell (who of course loves to poke at the most expensive Leica equipment) claims is that the lens is "possibly sharper" than the FLE "at moderate apertures." I suppose f/2.8 is approaching a moderate aperture for the FLE, but it's wide open for the Summaron. 

I hope I don't sound snarky, because I do appreciate what you've shown.

[LocalHero1953]

I also like the character of the lens, and I still think I have a good copy! I have other 'character' lenses twinned with bleedingly sharp modern equivalents:

- Thambar 90mm (the modern one) + Summicron-SL 90

- Hektor 7.3cm + Apo-Summicron-M 75

But I prefer to use the character lenses from time to time, not all the time.

[Pyrogallol]

Thank you for the detailed comparisons. Clearly, on digital, the modern lens is crisper than the 60 year old Summaron.

I really like my 2.8 Summarons (I have two and am looking after another for a friend) and only use film so the slight vignetting is not a problem as darkroom printers will often burn in the corners a bit anyway to enhance the look of the print.

I think I will stick with the Summarons as I could have around ten of them for the price of the new lens !

[ianman]

Thanks for the comparison Paul. It's obvious which is the technically better lens, but looking at the full photos, I prefer by far the Summaron. Just my opinion of course and I like natural vignetting anyway 🙂

 

[vanGeist]

My two cents:

- Stop worrying about 100% crops.

- Ken Rockwell is not the president of photography.

[LocalHero1953]

I don't think anyone here is worried......🙄

[adan]

My only comment on the comparisons is that vignetting always decreases with stopping down. By using a partial aperture (less than the maximum) one is removing/reducing the effect of optical vignetting (the intrusion of the lens barrel itself into the light path near the image corners). Which crops the circular aperture into smaller "cat's-eye" shapes in the corners, thus effectively reducing the aperture area (and the light transmitted).

See Figure 1.1: https://photographylife.com/what-is-vignetting

A Summilux stopped down two stops should have less vignetting (and better performance otherwise) than a Summaron wide-open - even though both are at f/2.8. Otherwise, why carry the extra weight (and pay the extra money)?

(It's technically possible to widen the front/rear elements and barrel diameters of a 35 f/2.8 to have little or no optical vignetting - but you'd end up with a Summaron/Summarit the size of the Summilux. ).

Now, on the subject of character - stopping down can change the "character" of a lens significantly, above and beyond vignetting. Most lenses (especially if overall size, and to some extent cost, are design goals) are designed to the ragged edge at full aperture - what is reasonably "acceptable," especially according to the technology available at the time of design.

If most people use their Summarons at f/5.6-8, they may never see the "character" (i.e. flaws) present at f/2.8. And people using a Summilux at f/1.4 may see more "character," even from an ASPH, compared to its look at f/2.8.

(Although I will say that corner performance of the 35 f/1.4 ASPH even at f/1.4, in both the original and FLE versions, is one of its signature features. It has virtually zero coma/astigmatism (images of point light sources remain points, with no butterfly-wing or "arrowhead" shapes, which produce mushy resolution/contrast). In that regard, it beats even the rare, hand-ground "Aspherical" version. An exceptional piece of light-bending!

With the Xmas season approaching, try out a 35 'lux ASPH on fields of outdoor Xmas or "fairy" lights, composing with some at the edges or corners - amazing!)

It would be interesting to see comparisons of both lenses at f/8 - I expect them to be far closer in character (or lack thereof). And also the Summilux FLE "wide-open" compared to the Summaron "wide-open."
 

Edited October 30, 2019 by adan

[LocalHero1953]

I appreciate the extra info, and have no quarrels with it. I don't think I have the stamina to do any more testing though!

[analog-digital]

Paul

Thank you for your efforts, which I do not want to belittle.

But such comparisons are basically not meaningful. So much can happen when changing the lens or be adjusted. Even the measurement seeker in and of itself has to re-focus every time because mistakes happen. The light changes, already it looks different.

You'd have to have an A-B switch (of course it does not exist) to swivel from one lens to the other in seconds.

So, do not take such comparisons too seriously. Nor the Ken!

 

A quote: who measures measures crap

Edited October 30, 2019 by analog-digital

[LocalHero1953]

It should be obvious that what I was doing (just two photos) was not a scientific controlled test. I was not trying to convince anyone that I am right, but rather explain (because I was asked) why I hold a particular opinion on the Summaron: an opinion based on use rather than testing, and certainly not on the opinions of others. In my experience, such opinions are of more practical value than detailed testing, because they reflect real world outcomes (in my photography). Others can make what they wish of what I have shown - including ignoring it!

Edited October 30, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[lct]

Never been interested in my Summaron 35/2.8 with goggles. Kind of ugly duckling in my Leica stable. Never found it sharp at f/2.8 and my copy is soft at edges and corners at almost all apertures below f/8. The Biogon 35/2.8 is so much superior (to me) that i don't use the Summaron anymore, sorry for lovers of it.  

[Ko.Fe.]

IMO, tests like this are irrelevant to lens character. Because they show none of it. Sorry.

Also it doesn’t shows the real lens character on digital if lens is from fifties.

If I want to get the true character of lens from film and only time I use it with film for real photography which these lenses are made for. Like every day, travel and do it for months. Only then I knew the lens character and only then I print from it’s taken negatives. 
This unveils the character, not film era lens limits on digital.

Also, I have seen incredibly characterful prints from 35 3.5.Then I went and had it twice as goggled and M2. No cigar. It means not only time, but production varied.

Also Leica RF lenses will show their truest maximum only on digital Leica. Sonyshmony gives odd results or at least not as natural as on M digital.

I have seen many pages pictures thread for 35 2.8, it is good lens on bw film.

But I wouldn’t bother to use it on digital M. Skopar 35 2.5 is better on digital M.

Yet, same Skopar is flat, no name lens on bw prints.

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Ko.Fe.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[otto.f]

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

It should be obvious that what I was doing (just two photos) was not a scientific controlled test. I was not trying to convince anyone that I am right, but rather explain (because I was asked) why I hold a particular opinion on the Summaron: an opinion based on use rather than testing, and certainly not on the opinions of others. In my experience, such opinions are of more practical value than detailed testing, because they reflect real world outcomes (in my photography). Others can make what they wish of what I have shown - including ignoring it!

I don’t understand very well what your point is. The edges are softer, yes. That was almost Leitz’s philosophy in the 60’s, it was their character at least. Is that a surprise? Did you expect it otherwise then? I thought you knew better actually. Around the time of the Summicron 35 asph Leica began to pay attention to sharp edges in my view.

Edited October 30, 2019 by otto.f