Summicron 50mm f2 vs Summarit 50mm f2.5

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with Lct that now if I had to choose, it would be Summicron-M, even if I appreciate Summarit-M a lot.

1/2 stop is not huge but f/2 is charming and general feeling in use is more positive.

[Advertisement]

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

[shirubadanieru]

The summarit is really small, so it’s a great option if you want a tiny kit, but I didn’t enjoy it’s really short focus throw and it wasn’t as pleasurable to use as a summicron in my personal view. I would pick the Summicron 50 (any version from V1 to V5) over the summarit any day of the week.

[iau]

12 hours ago, wda said:

Unfortunately, you have left it a bit late to seek redress from the vendor. But the performance of both lenses should be very similar. Frankly, I am not sure why you replicated this focal length. Half a stop is nothing with modern software to play with. As you have proved, the Summarit is no slouch.

Thanks. I agree, the Summarit is no slouch. No particular reason for wanting this lens but I always read great things about the Summicrons and frankly the built in hood also tempted me since I find the square hood bulky;-) It also has a bluish color cast when shooting in certain angles without it.

I do like 50mm and that's another reason for getting it;-)

[iau]

11 hours ago, lct said:

I own both lenses. Both are similarly sharp at f/2.8 and on but, to me at least, the charm of the Summicron lies at f/2 where it is a bit softer. Perfect for gentle portraits so f/2 is my favorite aperture on this lens. Now if you're after a sharper lens at all apertures better keep the Summarit as suggested by @wda. 

It's nice to know that the softness is a characteristica of this lens. I do like sharp images and also like to shoot wide open. I'll probably keep both lenses since it is a favorite focal length. 

[lct]

2 hours ago, iau said:

It's nice to know that the softness is a characteristica of this lens. I do like sharp images and also like to shoot wide open. I'll probably keep both lenses since it is a favorite focal length. 

Softness is relative. Remains a sharp lens anyway, on the centre of the frame at least. It has just less micro contrast than more modern designs, the same way as other Mandler lenses generally. If you find your lens too soft it may be that it needs some calibration, especially if it comes from the pre-digital era. Sending it for 6-bit coding may suffice to get such a calibration.

[iau]

5 hours ago, lct said:

Softness is relative. Remains a sharp lens anyway, on the centre of the frame at least. It has just less micro contrast than more modern designs, the same way as other Mandler lenses generally. If you find your lens too soft it may be that it needs some calibration, especially if it comes from the pre-digital era. Sending it for 6-bit coding may suffice to get such a calibration.

Thanks. I guess what made me wonder was reading about back focusing and front focusing, and if my lens needed calibration. My M10 just got back from CLA this Summer, and none of my other lenses has felt soft or miss focused. It's just that for calibration I have to send it to Germany;-) It is 6-bit coded and I believe not that many years old (not pre digital).

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, iau said:

Thanks. I guess what made me wonder was reading about back focusing and front focusing, and if my lens needed calibration. My M10 just got back from CLA this Summer, and none of my other lenses has felt soft or miss focused. It's just that for calibration I have to send it to Germany;-) It is 6-bit coded and I believe not that many years old (not pre digital).

Easy way to check back or front focus is to to use an EVF if you have one. Otherwise you may wish to show us a photo (a dng file if possible) that you feel is too soft and we can tell you if it is normal for a 50/2 v5.

[01af]

I'd prefer the Summarit-M 50 mm—either 1:2.5 or 1:2.4—over the Summicron-M 50 mm 1:2 because it is smaller, lighter, and less prone to flare. In terms of image quality there's hardly any appreciable difference.

[iau]

I've almost decided to stay with the Summarit and sell the Summicron. Partly because I prefer 35mm and don't need two 50s. To illustrate my example I have attached a Lightroom screengrab at 100% comparing the Summicron and Summarit. I know it's not a DNG but I think it shows what I mean. 

The focus is on the reflection in the eye. ISO is 1600 and full apperture (2 and 2.5). The Summicron shutterspeed is 1/125 while the Summarit is 1/90, according to the EXIF. There's always a chance that I didn't focus correctly, but is the softness typical for this lens? I live in a dry climate and the lens is in mint condition with no signs of fongus or anything on the lens. I used a UV-filter on both, not the same, but they both looks "clean" (B+W). I believe some of the fur around the eye should have been sharp if it was a slight back focus or miss focus. All my test shots with the Summicron were like this (soft, rounded reflection). If this is a characteristica of this lens, I'd feel more comfortable when selling it:-)

 

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!

[wda]

If I may say so, not exactly a scientific or realistic test. This is not a subject I would shoot at the fastest aperture. But you have convinced yourself, and that is a valid enough reason.  Both lenses are excellent. I am a great believer in rotating my lenses, so each one experiences practical use, and stimulates my interest.

[lct]

2 hours ago, iau said:

I've almost decided to stay with the Summarit and sell the Summicron. Partly because I prefer 35mm and don't need two 50s. To illustrate my example I have attached a Lightroom screengrab at 100% comparing the Summicron and Summarit. I know it's not a DNG but I think it shows what I mean. 

The focus is on the reflection in the eye. ISO is 1600 and full apperture (2 and 2.5). The Summicron shutterspeed is 1/125 while the Summarit is 1/90, according to the EXIF. There's always a chance that I didn't focus correctly, but is the softness typical for this lens? I live in a dry climate and the lens is in mint condition with no signs of fongus or anything on the lens. I used a UV-filter on both, not the same, but they both looks "clean" (B+W). I believe some of the fur around the eye should have been sharp if it was a slight back focus or miss focus. All my test shots with the Summicron were like this (soft, rounded reflection). If this is a characteristica of this lens, I'd feel more comfortable when selling it:-)

 

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!

Little sense to compare one lens at f/2.5 to another one at f/2 with respect. You may wish ro redo your test at the same aperture to be fair. 

[iau]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Little sense to compare one lens at f/2.5 to another one at f/2 with respect. You may wish ro redo your test at the same aperture to be fair. 

Thanks, I understand what you mean and agree:-). I did take some with the Summicron at the same aperture, but still very much the same result - that I don't manage to get the focus area sharp even when I appeared to get the focus right. If I hadn't seen other very sharp shots with this lens, I would just have thought of it as a lens characteristica, but guess my lens somehow needs calibration for focus accuracy. 

[iau]

2 hours ago, wda said:

If I may say so, not exactly a scientific or realistic test. This is not a subject I would shoot at the fastest aperture. But you have convinced yourself, and that is a valid enough reason.  Both lenses are excellent. I am a great believer in rotating my lenses, so each one experiences practical use, and stimulates my interest.

I know it's just a quick comparison, but this is the only lens that I feel let down by. I believe after extensive "real world" use and tests my lens is in need of calibration or a CLA. Other shots I have seen with this lens have been sharp wide open. I can't believe I constantly miss-focus with just this lens;-) 

[hmzimelka]

16 hours ago, iau said:

I know it's just a quick comparison, but this is the only lens that I feel let down by. I believe after extensive "real world" use and tests my lens is in need of calibration or a CLA. Other shots I have seen with this lens have been sharp wide open. I can't believe I constantly miss-focus with just this lens;-) 

Have you established whether your lens is just lack lustre at f/2 or whether it has a consistent back or front focus? Perhaps you could shoot an easy to focus target with enough detail in front and behind it to determine if there is any font/back focus. Perhaps even post a link to these DNG file/s.

The Summicron-M 50mm does have stronger focus shift (rearwards) when stopping down. More than the CV 50/1.5 II. It's enough to loose focus on the subject. I don't think the Summarit has this issue, but I can't confirm since I have no experience with this lens. 

 

[Big Jim]

Coming back to this thread in 2025. I only shoot film (on my Leica M3). I’m looking for a Leica 50mm lens and am also torn between the Summicron F2 and the  Summarit 2.4 / 2.5. Prices seem to be quite similar.

I’m wondering if anyone can describe the “character” on these two lenses ? I’m more interested in this than the size or weight. I’ve seen the Summarit described as a bit clinical. Is this the case ?

In particular I’m interested how you’d choose between a Summicron F2 V3 and Summarit F2.4 / 2.5 ? 

Edited January 12 by Big Jim
None

[lct]

Not sure i can add anything useful in this old thread but as far as character is concerned i would say that the Summarit 50/2.5 (no experience with 50/2.4) is a fine lens with little character and no significant flaws, besides flare when the sun is outside the frame, while Summicron v4 & v5 (i forgot about v3) have a gentle rendition at f/2 and are plenty sharp above with less acutance than modern asph lenses and are not flare free either.

[BradS]

The v.4 & v.5 Summicrons are lovely if the sun is at one's back but their propensity to flare is totally unacceptable to me. Even if the lens cost 1/10 what it does, I could not recommend it. Optically, the Zeiss 50mm Planar ZM is everything the v.4 & v.5 50mm Summicrons should have been. I even like the ergonomics of the Planar.

[lct]

23 minutes ago, BradS said:

The v.4 & v.5 Summicrons are lovely if the sun is at one's back but their propensity to flare is totally unacceptable to me. Even if the lens cost 1/10 what it does, I could not recommend it. Optically, the Zeiss 50mm Planar ZM is everything the v.4 & v.5 50mm Summicrons should have been. I even like the ergonomics of the Planar.

I like much the Planar too. It has indeed less flare but also less color fringing. Focus shift is similar but the Planar is not as gentle on portraits. Subjective matter i know...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BradS]

2 hours ago, _tc said:

...

[The Planar is a] good lens but not as good as the v5. and also the zeiss will grenade itself before the v5, so really I think it's fair that the summicron costs twice as much. at their current prices, they're a reasonable tradeoff between each other. at the same price not really.

I had a v.5 50mm Summicron and really wanted to love it but, for me, the flare is just totally unacceptable. The Planar, at less than 1/3 (almost 1/4) of the price of the Summicron is about the best I could find for my taste.

I not in the market for and really don't need or want any more 50mm M-mount lenses but if I were, I think the new Color-Skopar and the new LLL 50mm Summicron Rigid replica would be on my list of interesting prospects to look into more closely. The latter is actually very tempting.

[BradS]

1 hour ago, _tc said:

For what it's worth, my point is less about one lens being better than the other, though I do have an opinion on that, but more that saying things like "the planar is what the summicron should be" is not a statement I can agree with.

Fair enough.

1 hour ago, _tc said:

I personally think the best 50 under one thousand is the APO Lanthar. It's a bit big but worth the size penalty, it does pretty much everything well including flare suppression and color correction with a more or less perfectly flat field.

It is a very nice lens on paper and the price is very fair for what it is but it is way too big and heavy for my purposes.  Even the Planar sticks out too much for my taste but it is a reasonable compromise. What I'd really, really(!)  like is a modern replica or official reissue of the (ca. 1957?) 5cm collapsible Summicron. That would be my dream-come-true m-mount lens. I'd happily sell all the others in my possession....well, all except, maybe the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 C-Biogon ZM.  

 

Edited January 13 by BradS