Summar, Summaron, Summarit, Summitar

[01maciel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm wondering what the main differences are between a Summar, Summaron, Summarit, Summitar and maybe the Elmar (all 5cm LTM, no goggles) re IQ and characteristics. The names alone are kind of puzzling. I know they are all geriatric lenses but in combination with the M10 very promising.

[LEGEND]

What about Saruman and Sauron?  

[Advertisement]

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

[01maciel]

Sauron made some nice rings and Saruman betrayed the free world but this is off topic. Get back to the question please.

[wizard]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb 01maciel:

I'm wondering what the main differences are between a Summar, Summaron, Summarit, Summitar and maybe the Elmar (all 5cm LTM, no goggles)

There never was a Summaron 5cm, whether LTM or otherwise.

[01maciel]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb wizard:

here never was a Summaron 5cm

correct. As you can see I was quite puzzled about the names. But what about the other ones Summar,  Summarit, Summitar and Elmar?

[romanus53]

Summaron might be the best among these; Summar is pre-war design and uncoated but otherwise a fine lens; Summitar was build up to the Summicron and therefore coated, swirrly bokeh wide open and pretty sharp stopped down, some say better than Summicron first version; Summarit depends on condition like the Summar, a clean one can perform really good but maybe a little bit soft wide open. Old lens-designs are good in the center and improve towards the edges when stopped down, new ones are excellent wide open.

[Michael Hiles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No. There were 2 Summarons, both 35mm. The early one was fr3.5 and the later was f2.8.

[Capuccino-Muffin]

Summarit = f1.5. Eeexcellent fast lens. Same as summilux V1. Don’t listen to people not liking this lens, they probably base their experiences on scratched samples. A good sample is stellar.

Summitar: As the summarit is the summilux precursor, this one is the Summicron precursor. Excellent lens. Enough said. 
 

summaron: slow lenses.

 

summar: Old look, very nice.

 

Own them all! Die happy! 

[a.noctilux]

One answer, try them by oneself, the unit in sight can behave differently than other users opinions.

Summar 5cm more in Wiki if you can find one in good shape is very nice on M10, even very good with LTM Leica or M & fiilm inside.

Otherwise I have one which can do 'poor Thambar' ( not quite but not that bad).

Summarit is big brother of Summilux (Wiki)

Elmar was the first with many focals

 

[a.noctilux]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hiles said:

No. There were 2 Summarons, both 35mm. The early one was fr3.5 and the later was f2.8.

+ Summaron 2.8cm

[spydrxx]

See if you can find online a copy of Erwin Puts' Leica Compendium where he describes the characteristics and history of all the Leica lenses (at least, if I recall correctly) into the early 2000s. He had an earlier version online (free) when he published his latest version several years ago.

[KFo]

21 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

See if you can find online a copy of Erwin Puts' Leica Compendium where he describes the characteristics and history of all the Leica lenses (at least, if I recall correctly) into the early 2000s. He had an earlier version online (free) when he published his latest version several years ago.

Found this here.  Thanks for mentioning, I had forgot completely about this.

https://collectiblend.com/Library/Leica_Lens_Compendium_Content.php

 

[01maciel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Capuccino-Muffin:

Summarit = f1.5. Eeexcellent fast lens.

I own a Jupiter 3 1:1.5/50mm (1961) which is a post-WW II and cheaper copy of the Summarit and yes indeed, it is little fantastic lens. My Summar is in a good shape but has a lot of haze. It's like a 'poor Thambar. 'Contrast and local-contrast are my friends in pp. As I cannot open it by myself for cleaning purposes I need to find someone for a CLA.

And the Summaron: definitely on my shopping list.

[TomB_tx]

Leica's first 50 was f3.5 and was eventually names the Elmar (prior versions Anastigmat, Elmax). When Zeiss came out with the Contax as competition to Leica, they made a big point of faster lenses: f2 and 1.5. Leica responded first with the Hector (f2.5), followed by the Summar in 1933 (f2.0), and then the Xenon in 1036 (f1.5) which was made by Schneider but branded and sold by Leitz. The Summitar in 1939 improved on and replaced the Summar. The Summarit is basically a coated Xenon, but made by Leitz. 

[Ecar]

1 hour ago, 01maciel said:

I own a Jupiter 3 1:1.5/50mm (1961) which is a post-WW II and cheaper copy of the Summarit

Well, not quite: the J-3 is a Zeiss Sonnar copy. The Summarit is derived from the Xenon, a modified double gauss.

And they render rather differently indeed.

[01maciel]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb Ecar:

Well, not quite: the J-3 is a Zeiss Sonnar copy. The Summarit is derived from the Xenon, a modified double gauss.

And they render rather differently indeed.

Thanks, a steep learning curve for me today

 

[Ecar]

4 minutes ago, 01maciel said:

Thanks, a steep learning curve for me today

 

And the good thing (AFAIC) is that the curve never ends 😉

[UliWer]

3 hours ago, 01maciel said:

I'm wondering what the main differences are between a Summar, Summaron, Summarit, Summitar and maybe the Elmar (all 5cm LTM, no goggles) re IQ and characteristics. The names alone are kind of puzzling.

The name "Summar" was used by Leitz very early before the Leica was introduced. The name could be considered as rather boastful, as it implicated the superlativ "summus", the "best". On the other hand it represented a  double gaussian lens design with six lens elements deployed in a symmetrical form - while they used different designs for the Elmar with four and the Hektor with five elements.

So it was kind of obvious to resuscitate the old name "Summar" for a lens of f/2 in 1933 - larger opening than the previous lenses and double gaussian design . Since then the "Summ-" remained the most important root for name giving of Leica lenses, the family of "Elmar-" lost it's former importance and the "Hektor"-family  slowly vanished. 

The 1:2/5cm Summar is an interesting lens today - if you find a good copy, which is not guaranteed as they were faulty by design: the cement used to glue lens elements was prone to degeneration, therefore there are lots of old Summars around which show "bubbles" or just a greyish inlay if you look closely at their interior. An example free from these issues or cured by coating,  may give you results with astonishing sharpness in the very center (almost on par with a modern Summicron) but with a steep falloff towards the edges. If you are lucky the results may look almost three dimensional, if not they may look just dull. The 50mm Elmar also shows some falloff towards the edges, but it is not so extreme, whilst the center is good but not as obvious as with the Summar. 

Based on the root "Summ-" Leitz used their own assortion of added letters to indicate differences: "-it" in Leitz language always meant "better than" (conflicting with the assertion that "Summar" already meant "the best").  "-it" stands for higher opening or/and better design. The 1/2 5cm Summitar  still had f/2, but a much larger front lens which showed less vignetting. And it was free from the cement issues of the Summar. The results of the Summitar are more reliable than the Summar's - more Elmar-like, but perhaps also more boring.

Placing the "-it" at the end indicated higher opening: the first Summarit was a 1:1.5/5 cm lens. Not really a better design since it was only a coated version of the old Taylor&Hobson/Schneider "Xenon" which was the stranger among the Leitz lenses and lens names. Soft, low contrast, the coating improved it a little bit but not substantially. They didn't dare to name it "Summarex" - the king of all "the best", which was only used for the 1:1.5/8.5cm monster, and then never again.  

When they introduced the first Summicron they had a naming problem: Summarit was spent on f/1.5.  So at first it was the Summitar* with an asterix. It differed from it's precedessor mainly by the new "Kron"-glass in stead of flint-glass.  Summakron was too close to Summaron. The "k" also looked rather German. Summicron looked better and could not be mixed up with Summaron.

They had another problem to find the right name when they replaced the 1:1.5/50 with a new 1:1.4 version. The name Summarit was rather worn out in the late 50s, Summicronit sounded horrible. At last they felt enlightened by "-lux".  

Today they "misuse" the old "-it": The modern Summarit series for the M with f/2.5 or 2.4 is less opened than the Summicron, and the lens design is middle of the road between the traditional double gaussian Summicrons and the modern aspherical or Apo-Summicrons. For the Leica S the Summarit series with f/2.5 replaces the Elmarit series with f/2.8 from the times of R-lenses: the designs show many differences from the traditional double gaussian design, some almost bear no resemblance to them. The name was obviously used to leave the "cheap" sounding "Elmarit" behind and to look back at the original meaning of "summus": just "the best".

The "-on" at the end of "Summar" indicated wider field of view, 35mm or 28mm instead of the standard 50mm. They were not more opened having f/3.5 or f/2.8 for 35mm and even f/5.6 for the 28mm but they all had the symmetrical double gaussian design with 6 symmetrical lens elements So they could not be named "Elmar", "Elmarit" or "Elmaron".  The "-on" ending was dropped in the late sixties and completely replaced by "Elmar/Elmarit" (or "Summarit") for wide angles which are less opened than f/2. Since then you cannot guess from the name which lens design is used. An Elmar or Elmarit today may be based on the double gaussian design with no resemblance to the old Elmar triplet as long as it has no larger opening than f/2.8.  

[01maciel]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb UliWer:

The name "Summar" was used by Leitz very early before the Leica was introduced. The name could be considered as rather boastful, as it implicated the superlativ "summus", the "best". On the other hand it represented a  double gaussian lens design with six lens elements deployed in a symmetrical form - while they used different designs for the Elmar with four and the Hektor with five elements.

So it was kind of obvious to resuscitate the old name "Summar" for a lens of f/2 in 1933 - larger opening than the previous lenses and double gaussian design . Since then the "Summ-" remained the most important root for name giving of Leica lenses, the family of "Elmar-" lost it's former importance and the "Hektor"-family  slowly vanished. 

The 1:2/5cm Summar is an interesting lens today - if you find a good copy, which is not guaranteed as they were faulty by design: the cement used to glue lens elements was prone to degeneration, therefore there are lots of old Summars around which show "bubbles" or just a greyish inlay if you look closely at their interior. An example free from these issues or cured by coating,  may give you results with astonishing sharpness in the very center (almost on par with a modern Summicron) but with a steep falloff towards the edges. If you are lucky the results may look almost three dimensional, if not they may look just dull. The 50mm Elmar also shows some falloff towards the edges, but it is not so extreme, whilst the center is good but not as obvious as with the Summar. 

Based on the root "Summ-" Leitz used their own assortion of added letters to indicate differences: "-it" in Leitz language always meant "better than" (conflicting with the assertion that "Summar" already meant "the best").  "-it" stands for higher opening or/and better design. The 1/2 5cm Summitar  still had f/2, but a much larger front lens which showed less vignetting. And it was free from the cement issues of the Summar. The results of the Summitar are more reliable than the Summar's - more Elmar-like, but perhaps also more boring.

Placing the "-it" at the end indicated higher opening: the first Summarit was a 1:1.5/5 cm lens. Not really a better design since it was only a coated version of the old Taylor&Hobson/Schneider "Xenon" which was the stranger among the Leitz lenses and lens names. Soft, low contrast, the coating improved it a little bit but not substantially. They didn't dare to name it "Summarex" - the king of all "the best", which was only used for the 1:1.5/8.5cm monster, and then never again.  

When they introduced the first Summicron they had a naming problem: Summarit was spent on f/1.5.  So at first it was the Summitar* with an asterix. It differed from it's precedessor mainly by the new "Kron"-glass in stead of flint-glass.  Summakron was too close to Summaron. The "k" also looked rather German. Summicron looked better and could not be mixed up with Summaron.

They had another problem to find the right name when they replaced the 1:1.5/50 with a new 1:1.4 version. The name Summarit was rather worn out in the late 50s, Summicronit sounded horrible. At last they felt enlightened by "-lux".  

Today they "misuse" the old "-it": The modern Summarit series for the M with f/2.5 or 2.4 is less opened than the Summicron, and the lens design is middle of the road between the traditional double gaussian Summicrons and the modern aspherical or Apo-Summicrons. For the Leica S the Summarit series with f/2.5 replaces the Elmarit series with f/2.8 from the times of R-lenses: the designs show many differences from the traditional double gaussian design, some almost bear no resemblance to them. The name was obviously used to leave the "cheap" sounding "Elmarit" behind and to look back at the original meaning of "summus": just "the best".

The "-on" at the end of "Summar" indicated wider field of view, 35mm or 28mm instead of the standard 50mm. They were not more opened having f/3.5 or f/2.8 for 35mm and even f/5.6 for the 28mm but they all had the symmetrical double gaussian design with 6 symmetrical lens elements So they could not be named "Elmar", "Elmarit" or "Elmaron".  The "-on" ending was dropped in the late sixties and completely replaced by "Elmar/Elmarit" (or "Summarit") for wide angles which are less opened than f/2. Since then you cannot guess from the name which lens design is used. An Elmar or Elmarit today may be based on the double gaussian design with no resemblance to the old Elmar triplet as long as it has no larger opening than f/2.8.  

Wow. The curve gets steeper.. Thanks for the manual 👍

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jdlaing]

Cancelled

Edited November 26, 2021 by jdlaing