In love with the Summarit's!

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know why,

(my feeling said so ! )

but I'm quite sure that "new kind of Summarit-M" lens line will be available soon ...

sorry for price increase, 🤐.

 

New naming as Elmarit-M ? my cristal ball may be wrong 😉

Edited May 15, 2022 by a.noctilux

[Chris Nebard]

3 hours ago, Ernstk said:

The Leica Store Manchester (UK, not New Hampshire) have one for sale for what seems a very reasonable price.

https://www.leicastoremanchester.com/75-summarit.html

Ernst

That is a decent price. Leica Manchester is the store I use & where I bought my 75 f2.4. The lads there are brilliant and nothing is too much trouble. 

[Ernstk]

3 minutes ago, Chris Nebard said:

That is a decent price. Leica Manchester is the store I use & where I bought my 75 f2.4. The lads there are brilliant and nothing is too much trouble. 

Yes, they're extremely helpful and their pricing is always fair.

Ernst

[adan]

On 5/11/2022 at 5:54 PM, Jeff S said:

As I’ve said elsewhere, if they had been double the price, and hard to get, the forum would have enthusiastically embraced them. 
 

Jeff

I'm not totally sure of that - Leica tried it (half-heartedly) with a price bump for the f/2.4 revisions.

Problem for Leica is that the Summarits fall in between "the real Leicamen," for whom price is a feature, not a bug - but the product has to be exotic and not run-of-the-mill.....

....and the regular users, who simply buy/bought Voigtländers that are still half the price (or less) of the Summarits.

I think there was a brief and shining moment when the Summarits worked as a product. Between 2007, when Leica was still digging out of its hole, the M9 had not yet come to the rescue, and any "new and different" cash flow helped - and maybe 2015, when Cosina leveraged its work building Zeiss ZMs into significantly better designs, and Leica shifted its attention to the "retro reintroductions" (Thambar, 28 Summaron, f/1.2 Noctilux) and the "won't really work on a rangefinder" f/1.25 and f/1.5s.

Bottom line - Leica's costs for building and selling "a lens" just don't vary that much, at least for the basic lenses: machine metal precisely; mold or grind glass; assemble the parts into a finished lens, buy packaging materials, ship it out. X-many € and hours (the 35 APO-Summicron apparently being one glaring exception!)

There may be other exceptions (the 5-figure exotics), but I can't imagine it actually costs 1.5-2 times less to produce a 35 or 50 Summarit than a 35 or 50 Summicron. Leica's margins on the Summarits were likely pretty thin.

And if Leica doubled the Summarit prices - they would be more expensive that the vanilla-Summicrons (unless the vanilla-Summicrons increase to €5500 each, thereby pushing the Summiluxes to €7500 each....and so on up the ladder ).

Edited May 15, 2022 by adan

[Anbaric]

The other problem Leica probably had with selling new Summarits to the budget-conscious was that they had to compete against secondhand Summicrons at around the same price. And with something like the 50 Summarit, which might be the slowest 50 anyone has made outside of simpler designs like the Elmar or Tessar,  it really isn't that much lighter than the f/2 alternative. But they may well be attractive options now that they have entered the used market and have found their price level, and I don't think there's ever been any doubt about their ability to deliver images of very high quality. So if you don't need f/2 and the price is right, why not grab one?

Edited May 15, 2022 by Anbaric

[Jeff S]

57 minutes ago, adan said:

I'm not totally sure of that - Leica tried it (half-heartedly) with a price bump for the f/2.4 revisions.

Problem for Leica is that the Summarits fall in between "the real Leicamen," for whom price is a feature, not a bug - but the product has to be exotic and not run-of-the-mill.....

....and the regular users, who simply buy/bought Voigtländers that are still half the price (or less) of the Summarits.

I think there was a brief and shining moment when the Summarits worked as a product. Between 2007, when Leica was still digging out of its hole, the M9 had not yet come to the rescue, and any "new and different" cash flow helped - and maybe 2015, when Cosina leveraged its work building Zeiss ZMs into significantly better designs, and Leica shifted its attention to the "retro reintroductions" (Thambar, 28 Summaron, f/1.2 Noctilux) and the "won't really work on a rangefinder" f/1.25 and f/1.5s.

Bottom line - Leica's costs for building and selling "a lens" just don't vary that much, at least for the basic lenses: machine metal precisely; mold or grind glass; assemble the parts into a finished lens, buy packaging materials, ship it out. X-many € and hours (the 35 APO-Summicron apparently being one glaring exception!)

There may be other exceptions (the 5-figure exotics), but I can't imagine it actually costs 1.5-2 times less to produce a 35 or 50 Summarit than a 35 or 50 Summicron. Leica's margins on the Summarits were likely pretty thin.

And if Leica doubled the Summarit prices - they would be more expensive that the vanilla-Summicrons (unless the vanilla-Summicrons increase to €5500 each, thereby pushing the Summiluxes to €7500 each....and so on up the ladder ).

You took my statement too literally.  The point was a broader one, not necessarily specific to the Summarits.  The Summarits would have needed a very different starting strategy; there was no going back from the downscale positioning.

Leica is at least smart enough to recognize that they need a ‘hook’, a distinction, to realize a significantly higher price, beyond any inherent build costs.    More recently, FLE and/or APO designation, and now improved close focus distance, provide some of that leverage.  Then of course they need to support that higher pricing with appropriate packaging and ‘dressing’, and marketing, like a Lexus dresses up a Toyota, or Infinity a Nissan, through subtle ‘premium’ enhancements over the same essential foundation.  If the Summarits ever returned, at a much higher price point, they’d need a new hook and new marketing.  Unfortunately, a name change is partly restricted by the aperture value protocol.

Regarding your last paragraph, don’t joke.  Prices for the M system seem to be going up in leaps, not like past increments. And there apparently are more top end lenses coming, right on the heels of the discontinued Summarit ‘budget’ line.  Compared to the SL and Q lines, the M system seems to becoming even more of a premium niche.

Jeff

 

[cboy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The summarits for whatever reason we're underated. Even Erwin Puts regarded them quite good :-

     'The Summarit 35 and Summarit 75 emerge as the best lenses in the range, operating in close vicinity of the Summicron versions. I would even claim that the Summarit 35mm is better than the Summicron asph version. The Summarit 75 is not as highly color corrected as the Apo version, but in all other respects quite close.' 

 

http://photo.imx.nl//leica/lenses/lenses/page83.html

Edited May 17, 2022 by cboy

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, cboy said:

The summarits for whatever reason we're underated. Even Erwin Puts regarded them quite good :-

     'The Summarit 35 and Summarit 75 emerge as the best lenses in the range, operating in close vicinity of the Summicron versions. I would even claim that the Summarit 35mm is better than the Summicron asph version. The Summarit 75 is not as highly color corrected as the Apo version, but in all other respects quite close.' 

 

http://photo.imx.nl//leica/lenses/lenses/page83.html

I quoted that 12 years ago.  Didn’t help change views.

 

Jeff

[Life By Stills]

I thought I'd join in and say something about a recent purchase. I recently bought myself a Summarit-M 35mm f/2.5 from Leica in Mayfair. The price reflected some slight marks to the coatings on the front and real elements (Leica told me they seem to be just "cleaning marks"), but it doesn't seem to be affecting the image quality at all.

The first lens I got when I first got into the M ecosystem was the Voigtländer 35mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar Pan II, so am pretty familiar already with the "limitations" of an f/2.5 (I say "limitations" though because when you're running and gunning after protesters with say a 24-70mm, they usually come in at f/2.8).

If you want a very compact footprint, go for the Voigtländer. The Arit is slightly bigger than my Voigtländer 35mm f/2 Ultron, but not by much, and with my usual shooting being around f/5.6 and f/8, I don't really have any problems with falloff in sharpness towards edge and corners.

Since I bought the Arit, I haven't really used the Ultron - although to be fair that may be because I mounted the Ultron onto my M4 and the Arit onto my M10-R so I can randomly shoot digi / film depending on what tickles my fancy (do you guys think I should swap them around because of resolution on the M10-R?). But the point is the Arit is giving me very nice photos with which I am happy - and also accepted for work when I submit them! There also doesn't seem to be much noticeable distortion, and I much prefer the classic flaring when having the sun towards the edge of the shot or just off frame (see for example this shot - https://www.instagram.com/p/CdlCgaooaZ7/).

I know there's a 2.4 version, but am very happy with my 2.5 as it stands right now. Although if someone can distil the difference between 2.4 and 2.5, I might be willing to give 2.4 a go LOL.

[pippy]

24 minutes ago, Life By Stills said:

...Although if someone can distil the difference between 2.4 and 2.5, I might be willing to give 2.4 a go...

AFAIK the differences are a slightly reshaped exterior which requires a different hood and whereas the f2.5 uses the 'classic' 39mm filters the f2.4 needs 46mm filters.

I've read that the optical design was unchanged but I've no idea if that is correct. Certainly the longer (90 & 75) lenses were reworked very slightly to marginally refine field-curvature "issues" for those snappers who specialise in photographing newspapers Sellotaped to walls.

As I've also read that the f2.4 has, unusually (uniquely?) for the recent Summarit range, a longer min. foc. distance (0.8m as opposed to 0.7m for the f2.5) I take what I read on the web with a healthy dose of scepticism.

I do, however, believe that the max. aperture of both is identical.

Philip.

Edited May 18, 2022 by pippy

[Life By Stills]

3 minutes ago, pippy said:

As I've also read that the f2.4 has, unusually (uniquely?) for the recent Summarit range, a longer min. foc. distance (0.8m as opposed to 0.7m for the f2.5)

Hi @pippy, thanks for your thoughts on both the max aperture actually being the same. I think I have also read somewhere that optically the 2.5 and 2.4 were the same, although I wasn't too sure either since 2.4 has Asph in the name, whereas the 2.5 doesn't.

In terms of the MDF, I can confirm looking at my 2.5 that if there is a difference in MFD between the 2.5 and the 2.4, it's the 2.5 which has the MFD of 0.8m. Not enough to bother me, but might for some I guess.

[a.noctilux]

6 minutes ago, Life By Stills said:

In terms of the MDF, I can confirm looking at my 2.5 that if there is a difference in MFD between the 2.5 and the 2.4, it's the 2.5 which has the MFD of 0.8m. Not enough to bother me, but might for some I guess.

the asph. 2.4/35mm has MFD 0.8m

have a look here in Wiki

[Life By Stills]

43 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

the asph. 2.4/35mm has MFD 0.8m

have a look here in Wiki

Ahh thanks @a.noctilux.

That means there's no difference in MFD between both the 2.5 and the 2.4 as @pippy read somewhere. We can now confirm they both have MDF of 0.8m.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Life By Stills said:

...I think I have also read somewhere that optically the 2.5 and 2.4 were the same, although I wasn't too sure either since 2.4 has Asph in the name, whereas the 2.5 doesn't.

In terms of the MDF, I can confirm looking at my 2.5 that if there is a difference in MFD between the 2.5 and the 2.4, it's the 2.5 which has the MFD of 0.8m...

Thanks for the additional comments, Stills and Arnaud.

Not having either 35mm Summarit myself I read - on the www - two different MFD's (0.7m for the f2.5 and 0.8m for the f2.4) and didn't quite believe it. I guessed - wrongly - that if the f2.5 had a 0.7 then the f2.4 would probably be the same. As it turns out both do share the same MFD but it's 0.8m rather than 0.7m. Thanks again.

The ASPH designation? Again; I don't know that much about the 35 (or the 50!) but whilst the 75mm f2.5 didn't mention it in its designation it was an ASPH design. I believe the same to be true regarding the 90mm f2.5. I'm guressing the same 'ASPH' stuff might be true for the shorter f/l lenses.

Philip.

Edited May 18, 2022 by pippy

[johnwolf]

After years with the ZM Planar 50, I thought I'd try the Summarit 50 2.4. I'm not much for optical analysis; both seem great. All BW film, BTW.

But I like the Leica size and handling. Focus damping is looser than I prefer, but the Zeiss is tighter than I like.

Now I'm thinking of selling the ZM 50 and C-Biogon and getting the Summarit 35 2.5.

John

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by johnwolf

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, pippy said:

Thanks for the additional comments, Stills and Arnaud.

Not having either 35mm Summarit myself I read - on the www - two different MFD's (0.7m for the f2.5 and 0.8m for the f2.4) and didn't quite believe it. I guessed - wrongly - that if the f2.5 had a 0.7 then the f2.4 would probably be the same. As it turns out both do share the same MFD but it's 0.8m rather than 0.7m. Thanks again.

The ASPH designation? Again; I don't know that much about the 35 (or the 50!) but whilst the 75mm f2.5 didn't mention it in its designation it was an ASPH design. I believe the same to be true regarding the 90mm f2.5. I'm guressing the same 'ASPH' stuff might be true for the shorter f/l lenses.

Philip.

The 35 Summarit M is the only one with an aspheric element (both versions).

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2014/09/leica-announces-new-summarit-m-lenses/
 

Jeff

Edited May 18, 2022 by Jeff S

[pippy]

12 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

The 35 Summarit M is the only one with an aspheric element (both versions)...

Thanks Jeff!

I was fairly sure that I had read Puts write that the 75 and 90 lenses had one asph element but it seems that the Leetle Grray Celllls weren't working yet again.

'Must Do My Homework Better' as I was always being reminded as a kid...

Philip.

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

Thanks Jeff!

I was fairly sure that I had read Puts write that the 75 and 90 lenses had one asph element but it seems that the Leetle Grray Celllls weren't working yet again.

'Must Do My Homework Better' as I was always being reminded as a kid...

Philip.

Well, Phillip, I had to rely on David Farkas’ gray matter, so hopefully he agrees with the late Mr. Puts. I didn’t look further as this matched my recollection.  Not rigorous investigation. 🕵️

Jeff

[adan]

The 90mm Summarit is not APO/ASPH. but does have an interesting optical formula, with a history. It is a melding of the formulas of the pre-APO 90mm Summicron v.3 and 90mm Elmarit-M/R v.2. And theus a "tip of the hat" to their creator, Walter Mandler.

Which themselves are adaptations (at long range) of the 180mm f/2.8 Zeiss Jena "Olympic" (or sometimes "Olympia") Sonnar created to film and photograph the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

A dense packing of 3-4 elements (usually with one relatively thick, or cemented) in 2-3 groups in front of the aperture, and a single element behind the aperture.

That signature "long Sonnar" design was also (re)used by Zeiss for the Hasselblad 250mm Sonnar f/5.6. As well as other Leitz medium-long lenses, from 1964 on, often by Walter Mandler, for both R and M systems, which are left for the reader to explore: 90mm Summicron-R (pre-APO), 135mm f/4.0 Tele-Elmar, 135mm f/2.8 Elmarits M/R, 180mm Elmarit-R (v.1/2).

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!

BTW, I did, as a starving grad student in 1979, briefly own and use an actual 180mm f/2.8 Olympic Sonnar, adapted to Nikon F mount. Pretty much identical to the one shown here:

https://blendfx.com/csj-sonnar/

If some lenses are bricks, that Sonnar 180 was a cement block (~1.4kg, including adapter). As well as inconvenient (had manual "pre-set" aperture stopdown). But as the article says, "student-priced."

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by adan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M