First M lens on CL: M-Rokkor 40/f2 vs Summarit 35/2.5

[J Peterman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looking for advice for a first M lens for use with a newly purchased, lightly used CL body.  I also have the Leica M to L adapter.

I have read about both of these lenses (Summicron-C/M-Rokkor 40/f2 & Summarit 35/f2.5) and seen the results in the image thread, just wondering if the group here had any insight to help differentiate between the two.

The camera is a retirement gift for my father, who will primarily be using the camera for family photography and travel.  I can see him picking up an 18TL for easier portability down the line.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  I have greatly enjoyed learning from the discussion on this forum!

 

 

[lct]

I can compare the two 40/2 but the 35/2.5 is another lens to me. It has a modern rendering vs a rather classic one for the two 40/2. Otherwise the 35/2.5 looks a bit more contrasty with similar sharpness at the centre of the frame and a bit more softness on edges and corners below f/5.6. The 35/2.5 has a bit less flare too but none is free from color fringing. Quality wise my 35/2.5 is not perfect with a lose focus ring. Sample variation perhaps i don't know but as far as compact 35mm lenses are concerned i prefer the CV 35/2 and ZM 35/2.8 personally. Matter of tastes anyway. Try them in person if you can and welcome to the forum .

[J Peterman]

Thanks so much for your reply.  I think he would appreciate the more classic draw of the 40/f2.  I was leaning towards the version 2 (CLE) M-Rokkor (over the Leitz or CL V1) due to the better lens coatings.  
 

If you don’t mind sharing, what are the differences between the Leitz and Minolta versions in terms of image quality?  I would imagine any differences would be slight given the mechanical and optical similarities, but I’ve read a bit about potentially more contrast with the V2 and better anti-flare characteristics?

[lct]

The Rokkor 40/2 v2 (for Minolta CLE) is not built the same way as the Summicron. It is lighter, has a regular focus cam and a bit less flare due to more efficient coatings but differences are hardly visible TBH. Bit more contrast due to better flare protection perhaps but as far as IQ is concerned both lenses are so close that i can hardly tell which is which by simply watching pics out of them. Besides that, filter size, hoods and focus tabs are not the same but you know this already certainly. 

[cpclee]

Personally I'd have a slight preference towards the 35/2.5 because it is presumably 6-bit coded and also because most M bodies (if you ever go down that path) have framelines for 35mm but not 40mm.  

[lct]

Good comment. Makes me remind that both 40mm lenses work fine with the 35/2 pre-asph lens profile on the digital CL but their FoV is 60mm on this APS-C camera due to the crop factor. I used to use my Summicron 40/2 a lot on the APS-C Epson R-D1 as it matched almost perfectly the later's 35mm frame lines at medium to long distance but i do prefer 35mm lenses on the digital CL. I would make sure that the OP's father feels comfortable with the 60mm FoV before ordering the lens. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, J Peterman said:

Thanks so much for your reply.  I think he would appreciate the more classic draw of the 40/f2.  I was leaning towards the version 2 (CLE) M-Rokkor (over the Leitz or CL V1) due to the better lens coatings.  
 

If you don’t mind sharing, what are the differences between the Leitz and Minolta versions in terms of image quality?  I would imagine any differences would be slight given the mechanical and optical similarities, but I’ve read a bit about potentially more contrast with the V2 and better anti-flare characteristics?

That is correct the coating is different. But you need eyes like a Vulture to see a significant difference. 

[jaapv]

come to think of it, if it is a gift, isn’t it nicer to have a Leitz lens on a Leica camera? 

[jaapv]

33 minutes ago, lct said:

Good comment. Makes me remind that both 40mm lenses work fine with the 35/2 pre-asph lens profile on the digital CL but their FoV is 60mm on this APS-C camera due to the crop factor. I used to use my Summicron 40/2 a lot on the APS-C Epson R-D1 as it matched almost perfectly the later's 35mm frame lines at medium to long distance but i do prefer 35mm lenses on the digital CL. I would make sure that the OP's father feels comfortable with the 60mm FoV before ordering the lens. 

It a should be fine if paired with 18

[J Peterman]

19 hours ago, lct said:

Good comment. Makes me remind that both 40mm lenses work fine with the 35/2 pre-asph lens profile on the digital CL but their FoV is 60mm on this APS-C camera due to the crop factor. I used to use my Summicron 40/2 a lot on the APS-C Epson R-D1 as it matched almost perfectly the later's 35mm frame lines at medium to long distance but i do prefer 35mm lenses on the digital CL. I would make sure that the OP's father feels comfortable with the 60mm FoV before ordering the lens. 

Very good point.  Will try to get more information about his old lens collection before moving ahead with a lens purchase.  Thanks for all your input!

[ramarren]

On 11/30/2021 at 7:57 PM, lct said:

The Rokkor 40/2 v2 (for Minolta CLE) is not built the same way as the Summicron. It is lighter, has a regular focus cam and a bit less flare due to more efficient coatings but differences are hardly visible TBH. Bit more contrast due to better flare protection perhaps but as far as IQ is concerned both lenses are so close that i can hardly tell which is which by simply watching pics out of them. Besides that, filter size, hoods and focus tabs are not the same but you know this already certainly. 

I've had the Summicron and both M-Rokkor 40/2 lenses. The second version of the M-Rokkor is multicoated, the first version and the Summicron-C are single coated. The Summicron-C feels nicer in use. They're all very nice lenses, and the notion of a "long-normal" 60mm equivalent FoV on APS-C format appeals to me. 

I sold them all when I finally found a reasonably priced SMC-Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special a few years ago. It's better made and a better performer than the others, and has even nicer rendering qualities. It's a little bulky but eh? I can live with it. 

But of course, I use a circa 1972 issue Leica Summilux 35/1.4 v2 lens 99% of the time. Walter Mandler's magic lens design is just superb on both my M4-2 and CL digital. Only downside is that it was 3x the price of the Pentax 43mm...  

G

[J Peterman]

Thanks to my a spy mission from my mom we discovered my dad has a grip of those old Pentax lenses, all M42 mount. 
 

Zeiss Jena Flektogon 20/4

Meyer Optik Gorlitz Orestor 100/2.8

SMC/Pentax Takumar 55/1.2

Super Takumar 135/3.5

Super Takumar 28/3.5

With the Leica M to L adapter and an M42 to M adapter (any suggestions?) stacked, he can use all that vintage Pentax glass with the CL!  What a cool little camera.

As he was missing a 50mm equivalent, thanks to the great advice here I found an excellent deal on a lightly used 35/2.5 Summarit M  and bought it today.  It will be nice to have a modern Leica lens to go along with his vintage lens collection.

I can see the 18TL or other wide angle M lens down the line purely for pocketability on trips, but the Summarit is plenty small sans hood…

[ramarren]

If you want a truly pocketable CL with a fast 35mm equivalent, the MS Optics Aporia 24mm f/2 is great. 
 

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!

Makes beautiful photos!

 

G

Edited December 3, 2021 by ramarren

[J Peterman]

Ended up buying another used CL body and keeping the 35 Summarit for myself.

18TL & Summicron-C will go to my father for his birthday.

This GAS thing is real and it’s scary…