Summarit/Summicron or Planar 50?

[Mpi96]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello folks,

 

I currently have a M2 with Color Skopar 35 as my only lens. I really like this lens except from the way too loose aperture ring. So I tend to replace it in the near future.

 

The last few months I more and more desired a 50mm lens as well, so I’m now in the hassle of choosing one.

In the past I had a 50mm Elmar, which I liked for its small size, but the aperture ring was always a bit too fiddly for my taste.

I also had a Nokton 50mm 1.1, but I never got used with it. It was too heavy and big to carry it around.

The lens I used and miss the most was the V4 Summicron. I had two of them and was dumb enough to sell them.

 

So now I need a 50 and am thinking about what route I should go:

 

C-Biogon 35 f/2.8 + Planar 50 f/2 + Tele-Tessar 85 f/4

Summaron 35 f/2.8 + Summicron 50 f/2 + Tele-Elmarit 90 f/2.8

Summarit 35 f/2.5 + Summarit 50 f/2.5 + Tele-Elmarit 90 f/2.8

 

 

I’m on a budget, so the Zeiss lenses seem to be just perfect for my needs, but there are three minor concerns:

1. The filter size is quite unusual. I don’t know if I’m even able to get a 85b filter in this size.
2. The Zeiss lenses seem to be bigger than the Leica ones, although they are lighter.
3. I really like the moulded focus tab of the V4 Summicron or the VC 35 2.5 and tend to use just one finger to focus. I can’t imagine this will be possible with the Zeiss „bump“.

 

The Summarit seems to be cheaper than the Summicron V4 with almost the same features, except it is a half stop slower. Maybe I should consider a 35 and 50 Summarit as they should handle nearly the same and would make a perfect small travel kit?

 

I only shoot B&W and color negative film, so I don’t mind any pixel peeping differences. It’s more about handling and overall price to gain ratio.

Mostly I shoot around f/4 to f/5.6, so speed is not necessarily an good argument, although I sometimes wish I had more than f/2.5.

 

I really can’t decide what to buy, even though I’ve read about 20 reviews about this topic. So maybe if someone who owns a mere of these lenses could give me some more input? I really can’t decide what to do…

 

Kind regards from a confused mind.

[TomB_tx]

I used only Summicron 50 (v3), Summicron 35 (v2), and TeleElmarit (v1-FAT) for 40+ years on film Ms and couldn't fault them. The 50 was my most used lens on film.

Once I added digital (M9 & now M10) I've tried a lot of lenses, including most of what you list (but Zeiss 35 f2 instead). I also like compact lenses, and now normally use 35, 50, and 90 Summarit 2.5 instead of my various Summicrons / Summilux / Zeiss. On digital 35 became my most used lens.

I love the size and handling of the 35 & 50 Summarit - which have identical bodies. I use the 2.5 versions for the 39mm filter size. I seldom use a filter on the 90, which takes a larger size. My 90 TeleElmarit has about the same performance as the Summarit 90 (for my use anyway), and still uses 39mm filters, so that might be a good kit for you.

My 35 2.8 Summaron is also nice (after a CLA to clean the slight haze), but I'd give the Summarit an edge (at the edges).

Edited January 4, 2020 by TomB_tx

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I spent a lot of time agonizing over a 50mm for and M3 body I inherited, Leica, Zeiss or Voigtlander. I decided to go with a lens of the same vintage, a 50 Summicron collapsible, it is a nice lens but one of the first M lenses (1953). For a 35 I have a 35 preasph Summilux Canada, which has been with me since the mid 1970's, for a 90 I have an f2.8 Elmarit, just had it CLAd, but had also used an f2 85 black Nikkor. I have hardly ever used the 35 at f1.4, it is excellent though low contrast at f4-8, I also found out my M3 has an M4 viewfinder, so the 50 really didn't matter as I use 35 as my normal lens. I also have a 40mm f1.4 Voigtlander that came with an M8, I bought, it is a nice lens, but an odd focal length for me.

One question, why an 85b filter, do you use tungsten movie film? I used to use one with Ektachrome 160t, 64T, and 50T, the two slower films didn't get the message that the 85b should convert them to daylight. 

[lct]

Only you can know about lens size and focus aids but your Zeiss solution can make sense with 85b filters like Adox.
As for your Leica solutions, i would not mix current with earlier lenses but 35/2.5 + 50/2.5 + "thin" Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 sounds like a good compromise. I have those lenses and they can work fine together but i don't use film anymore and i'd prefer the Summarit 90/2.5 which is less prone to flare than the thin T-E. FWIW.

[tom0511]

I have used 35 and 50 mm and 75mm 2.5 Summarits and think these are exceptional well working lenses.

The only downside could be the shortest focus distance.

If this is ok for you I would recommend the Summarit combo (35+50 + tele elmarit.

or just go summarit only 35 50 90.

I also have had very good experience in focus accurancy with Summarits.

They are very flare resistant and have a nice bokeh.

 

[adan]

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!

I can't speak to the Summarit. I'ved tried just about every 50 Summicron version. Recently I got the Zeiss ZM Planar, and love it.

Biggest flaw in the Planar - barrel distortion of 1.5% For my kind of people/journalism pictures, that is not significant, but for landscape/architecture/brickwalls, it could be a deal-killer.

Size - yes, the Planar f/2 is almost the dimensions of the Leica pre-ASPH Summilux! 43mm filters. Although the 43mm version of the Summilux is not exactly SLR-sized - the Planar feels good.

I simply picked up a couple of 43-46mm step-up rings, since my 35mm Nokton C/V f/1.4 is also sized 43mm. Not for filter use, but I can now use the much-better Leica 46mm clip-on caps (The Zeiss and Voiglander pinch-caps fit too loosely).

Biggest benefit to the Planar over the Summicron - it avoids the "Summicron Valley" in the MTF charts of the current lens. More of the picture is sharp, up until the Planar resolution crashes in the corners. The Planar bokeh (FWIW) is pretty sweet except for specular highlights (which give all lenses fits).

Black charts - Zeiss ZM; Red charts, Leica Summicron v.5

I would give a nod to the original 50mm Summicron "rigid" - I think it is the best of all the 50 'crons optically - but the close-focus limit of 1m is a deal-killer for me (see Planar portrait sample picture above), and the close-up "Dual Range" version has mounting problems with digital bodies (but should work OK on your M2, for which it was designed. )

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by adan

[Mpi96]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you for the good answers!

 

At first: I need the 85b filter to shoot Kodak Vision 3 in daylight. It’s not a standard for me, but after family gatherings etc. I use to finish the roll within the next few days. Normally I tend to shoot more at daytime, so my usage for tungsten film is limited. I ordered the ADOX filter in 39mm to test it with my CV 35.

 

With my M6 I owned a „thin“ Tele-Elmarit made in Canada. It was a beautiful and small lens. I can’t remember of any flare issues, but to be honest I used the lens far less than my 50 and 28. If I go the Summarit route, I guess I would buy this cheap lens again, as the 39mm filters will fit all three lenses then.

 

Flare resistance is quite important for me, as I tend to leave the lens hood at home. It’s not a big deal with my Color Skopar, as I never had any flares in my pictures. Maybe the reason to not use the lens hood is my lens hoot itself. I bought a cheap screw in hood which does not allow filters, unless I screw in the filters first. Also the hood does not allow the lens cap to fit. So I always have to remove the hod to protect the lens. This is fay beyond comfortable…

Maybe with the better hoods from either Summarit or Zeiss this habit may differ in the future.

 

I like the rigid Summicron from what I have seen so far. But the 1m close focus seems to be not right for me. I mostly need the 50mm to get a little bit closer to my son when he is laying in his mothers arms etc. Also a good rigid seems to be as expensive as a good V4?

The DR is no option, as its way too heavy!

 

If we talk about prices (if it is allowed here), the Zeiss set would be around 600€ each lens = 1800€.

The Summarit set + Tele-Elmar about 800€ + 800€ + 500€ = 2100€

The Summaron + Summicron (either rigid or V4) + Tele-Elmar about 900€ + 900€ + 500€ = 2300€

Might this be about right?

 

This does not make it any more easy. I guess I have to get a Zeiss lens in my fingers an try to focus with it. After this I can decide wether I should go the Zeiss or Leica route.

 

Anyways, if there are some further information: I’ll be glad!

 

[pedaes]

On 1/5/2020 at 5:48 AM, adan said:

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!

I can't speak to the Summarit. I'ved tried just about every 50 Summicron version. Recently I got the Zeiss ZM Planar, and love it.

Biggest flaw in the Planar - barrel distortion of 1.5% For my kind of people/journalism pictures, that is not significant, but for landscape/architecture/brickwalls, it could be a deal-killer.

Size - yes, the Planar f/2 is almost the dimensions of the Leica pre-ASPH Summilux! 43mm filters. Although the 43mm version of the Summilux is not exactly SLR-sized - the Planar feels good.

I simply picked up a couple of 43-46mm step-up rings, since my 35mm Nokton C/V f/1.4 is also sized 43mm. Not for filter use, but I can now use the much-better Leica 46mm clip-on caps (The Zeiss and Voiglander pinch-caps fit too loosely).

Biggest benefit to the Planar over the Summicron - it avoids the "Summicron Valley" in the MTF charts of the current lens. More of the picture is sharp, up until the Planar resolution crashes in the corners. The Planar bokeh (FWIW) is pretty sweet except for specular highlights (which give all lenses fits).

Black charts - Zeiss ZM; Red charts, Leica Summicron v.5

I would give a nod to the original 50mm Summicron "rigid" - I think it is the best of all the 50 'crons optically - but the close-focus limit of 1m is a deal-killer for me (see Planar portrait sample picture above), and the close-up "Dual Range" version has mounting problems with digital bodies (but should work OK on your M2, for which it was designed. )

 

A couple of points. You presumably don’t recognise the APO as a ‘ cron! Also not sure the MTF charts would support th,e notion that .the Rigid is best optically.

Another Plannar consideration is that it is more ‘contrasty’ than Summicron, good or bad depending on your preference. 

[adan]

3 hours ago, pedaes said:

A couple of points. You presumably don’t recognise the APO as a ‘ cron! Also not sure the MTF charts would support th,e notion that .the Rigid is best optically.

Another Plannar consideration is that it is more ‘contrasty’ than Summicron, good or bad depending on your preference. 

Yeah, well, the APO is not in my universe of 50 Summicrons....

"50mm f/2.0 - the cheap lens that comes with the camera."

I take MTF charts with some grains of salt. They conflate contrast and resolution, and so long as some contrast is available, I'm more concerned with "how many pickets in the fence there are" than "how much the pickets stand out from the background." Especially with digital, where there is wide scope to improve the microcontrast (unsharp masking) and global contrast - but not much ability to restore the pickets a lens fails to capture.

But if one believes MTF charts - the Zeiss and Summicron appear to be the same contrast. Running just above 90% at 10 lpmm (top line on the Zeiss chart, 2nd line of the Leica chart). If anything the Zeiss contrast charts as slightly lower.

 

[ktmrider2]

Well, I carry the 35f2.8 C-Biogon, 50 Summicron (latest) and 90f2.8 TeleElmarit M with either the M2 or MP240 when I travel.  The Zeiss 35 may be the sharpest lens Reid Reviews ever tested.  It is my favorite lens.  The 50 Summicron is heavy (chrome version) but small and compact.  Amazingly, the 90f2.8 is smaller then the 50 cron.  When I am lazy, I leave the 35/90 combo at home or take 35/90 and leave the 50 at home.  I have never felt myself limited by traveling with fewer lenses.

Recently, I traveled with only the MP240 and a new 50f1.2.  It is a dynamite combo if you don't want to worry about switching lenses.  I also had a FujiX100F in the bag so 35 FOV was covered.

I don't have any experience with the Zeiss 50 or 85 but it seems to me a 35 Biogon, 50 Planar, and perhaps a 90 TeleElmarit combo could be found for $2000 or less with a little shopping.  All the lenses you listed are great.  So do you prefer diamonds or ruby's or emeralds?

Edited January 7, 2020 by ktmrider2

[pedaes]

9 hours ago, adan said:

Yeah, well, the APO is not in my universe of 50 Summicrons....

"50mm f/2.0 - the cheap lens that comes with the camera."

I take MTF charts with some grains of salt. They conflate contrast and resolution, and so long as some contrast is available, I'm more concerned with "how many pickets in the fence there are" than "how much the pickets stand out from the background." Especially with digital, where there is wide scope to improve the microcontrast (unsharp masking) and global contrast - but not much ability to restore the pickets a lens fails to capture.

But if one believes MTF charts - the Zeiss and Summicron appear to be the same contrast. Running just above 90% at 10 lpmm (top line on the Zeiss chart, 2nd line of the Leica chart). If anything the Zeiss contrast charts as slightly lower.

 

Back in the day I thought the cheap lens that came with the camera was 2.8 Elmar. An excellent little lens. 

[TomB_tx]

4 hours ago, pedaes said:

Back in the day I thought the cheap lens that came with the camera was 2.8 Elmar. An excellent little lens. 

In 1967 I used a borrowed M2 with the 50 Elmar 2.8, which sold me on Leica. But when I bought my M4 in ‘68 I passed on the Elmar and waited until I could afford a Summicron. Then a new 50 Elmar 2.8 listed for $88! I should have been less a snob and bought one then.

Lately I’ve been shooting my IIIg with an Elmar 2.8 and have loved the results. The Elmar 2.8 was released for sale the same time as the IIIg.