Leica M 50mm Summarit 2.4 vs 2.5

[Shu_downunder]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use F3.8/24mm extensively and am considering to add a 50mm.

As size + weight are my top criterions, I start to look at the Summarit. To my surprise, I've barely found any complaint to them.

Between F2.4 and F2.5, I tend to go for F2.4 for the simple reason that it's E46 same to my F3.8/24. But the few copies I can find online are at least $1000 dearer than the 2.5's.

What's there difference? What's your recommendation?

I've read this, but could not find a clear answer yet. Summarit 2.4 vs 2.5

Note I'm looking for a 50mm Summarit not a 35mm

[Huss]

Optically and functionally they are the same.  So there will be no difference to your images.

The style/design of the 2.4 version is much more pleasing to my eye, and seeing how that difference commands the much higher price, most others agree.  If money is not an issue I’d get the 2.4 just for the style.

[darylgo]

The 2.5 is a diminutive lens, tiny even by Leica standards.  I place a 39-46mm Heliopan step up ring and use my e46 filters, it's a great lens.  There should be no difference optically, iirc the f2.5 lenses measured f2.4 although the significance of .1 is lost on me.  

[lct]

I have mixed feelings about my Summarit 50/2.5 whose aperture ring is loose and which can make some nasty flare when shooting into the light at about 10:00 AM. Sun hitting the front element i suspect but the hood is not efficient enough to avoid the issue. I prefer Ø39mm lenses though and the tiny size of the f/2.5 is appealing so if i had to replace mine i would check the new one before purchasing if possible or if not i would go for the f/2.4. BTW i got quality issues (broken aperture ring) with a Summarit 75/2.5 but my 90/2.4 is flawless. Hence the feeling that quality wise the f/2.4 Summarit's are somewhat superior but i may be wrong.

[jaapv]

8 hours ago, Shu_downunder said:

I use F3.8/24mm extensively and am considering to add a 50mm.

As size + weight are my top criterions, I start to look at the Summarit. To my surprise, I've barely found any complaint to them.

Between F2.4 and F2.5, I tend to go for F2.4 for the simple reason that it's E46 same to my F3.8/24. But the few copies I can find online are at least $1000 dearer than the 2.5's.

What's there difference? What's your recommendation?

I've read this, but could not find a clear answer yet. Summarit 2.4 vs 2.5

Note I'm looking for a 50mm Summarit not a 35mm

No wonder you found few complaints These 2.5 Summarits are the most underrated Leica lenses. The mistake Leica made was that they offered them too cheap, so the pundits wrongly assumed that they were somehow lesser quality. Leica changed the rating to 2.4 without any discernible optical change, styled a bit differently, made it more expensive  and voila! magically it is "a true Leica lens" with a price to match. 🙄 

Save yourself the money and get the 2.5 version. It won't disappoint.

[TomB_tx]

I have the 2.5 versions of 35, 50 & 90 and have no complaints, and the 35 & 50 are my main lenses now, even though I have Summicrons & Summiluxs. I prefer the small size & fast focusing, and 35 & 50 are identical size and handling. The aperture ring on my (used) 35 was also loose when I got it, because the retaining ring on the back of the lens (that holds the optical head in place) has loosened. I tightened it once with a lens spanner and it has been fine since.

[Shu_downunder]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you very much. I think I will go for 2.5.

39mm filters are useful anyway. @jaapv @TomB_tx @lct @Huss@darylgo

[safaraso]

Hello,

I have checked the Datasheet of the 35mm Summarit 2.5 and 2.4. The lens design are very similar, but the 2.4 version one lens is marked as “aspherical element”. Is there a difference in this element only? And can I expect a better optical behaviour, for example sharper edges at the newer 2.4 version? 

Thank you in advance. 

[01af]

vor 38 Minuten schrieb safaraso:

Is there a difference in this element only?

No.

The difference is in the description only. Both version have the same aspherical element but it just doesn't get mentioned in the 2.5 version's ads and product brochures.

[safaraso]

Perfect, thank you. 
 

Than it’s only a question of design and pricing… Doesn’t makes it easier. 

[UliWer]

Am 12.12.2022 um 10:46 schrieb jaapv:

Leica changed the rating to 2.4 without any discernible optical change, styled a bit differently, made it more expensive  and voila! magically it is "a true Leica lens" with a price to match. 

Well, In Jan. 2014 the 1:2.5/50mm was at 1400,-€ - without hood, for the hood you had to pay  125,-€ extra. In Jan. 2015 the 1:2.4/50 was at 1550,- with hood. Price increase of 25,-€. At the same time the 1:2/50mm Summicron had a price increase of from 1900,- to 1990,- €. 

[jaapv]

It is all about customer perception 

[pippy]

8 hours ago, safaraso said:

...Than it’s only a question of design and pricing… Doesn’t makes it easier. 

That depends on whether you use / own any / many filters. The f2.5 uses what were the once fairly standard (to Leica) 39mm filters whereas the f2.4 uses 46mm filters.

Might matter; might not. As someone who has gathered together (and uses) a number of 39mm filters over the years it would matter to me. YMMV.

Philip.

 

[rramesh]

Great lens, lousy marketing!

If only Leica had packaged them the same way as the rest of their lineup and sold them will a proper leather case and a hood.

It had all the Leica quality, but they unwittingly sent the signal that it was a 'cheap' line. 

 

[mediumformula]

I have the 50 2.4  It's a great lens.  My only complains with it is that it has a .8 meter minimum focusing distance instead of the standard .7 meter.  Also the aperture ring turns relatively easily and as a result can accidentally be changed when focusing if you brush against the ring too hard. 

For those of you with the 2.5, does it also have a minimum focusing distance of .8?   Also, has anyone weighed the 2.5?  Is it lighter weight than the 2.4?  Also, people are mentioning that the 2.5 is smaller due to the 39mm thread.  Is it just more narrow or is it also shorter?  Which of the two lenses is the more compact and light weight?  Thanks

[UliWer]

vor einer Stunde schrieb mediumformula:

For those of you with the 2.5, does it also have a minimum focusing distance of .8? 

For the 35mm and the 50mm the minimal focussing distance stayed at 0.8m for the 1:2.5 and 1:2.4 versions. Only for the 75mm Summarit it was reduced to 0.7m for the 1:2.4 version. 

[lct]

1 hour ago, mediumformula said:

• For those of you with the 2.5, does it also have a minimum focusing distance of .8?
-> Yes 0.8m.

• Also, has anyone weighed the 2.5?  
-> Yes 180g.

• Is it lighter weight than the 2.4?  
-> No experience with 2.4 but its specs say 105g which seems too light to be true.

• Also, people are mentioning that the 2.5 is smaller due to the 39mm thread.  Is it just more narrow or is it also shorter? 
-> 2.5 is about 33mm x 52mm ; specs say the same about 2.4.

 

[mediumformula]

3 minutes ago, lct said:

 

Yes, the 105mm is an error on the spec sheet for the 2.4 .  I weighed my 2.4 awhile back and I think it was in the 170-180 range if I recall correctly. 

 

Does anyone know why this lens is limited to .8 meter minimum focusing distance?  Was this a built-in limitation by Leica so that it wouldn't compete directly with the Summicron line?

 

[lct]

21 minutes ago, mediumformula said:

Does anyone know why this lens is limited to .8 meter minimum focusing distance?  Was this a built-in limitation by Leica so that it wouldn't compete directly with the Summicron line?

Not that surprising for such a compact lens. The Skopar 50/2.5 has a 0.75mm MFD but is a bit heavier (200g). 

Edited December 30, 2022 by lct

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mediumformula]

 

Most of the information about the weight of the 2.4 50mm Summarit online is inaccurate because there is an error on the Leica technical sheet listing the lens as 105 grams.  As you can see the lens is 190 grams on my scale.  I also measure it at 1 and 3/8 inches in length. 

Online sources for the 2.5 version have it listed at 230 grams.  That would place it at 40 grams heavier than the 2.4 version.  Ict mentioned above that the 2.5 version was 180 grams, 10 grams lighter than the 2.4 version.  Can someone with a 2.5 50mm Summarit please weight their copy of the lens and help resolve this?  I would appreciate 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!

 

 

While weighing my 2.4 I decided to weight the Summicron 50mm version 4.  It only weights about 9 grams more at around 199 grams.  It's length is 1 and 5/8 inches, so sightly longer than the Summarit.  If you are looking for a compact and light weight 50mm lens this is another good option.  For reference I also weighed my collapsible version 1 Summicron in M mount and it is 230 grams.  The LTM mount collapsible Summicron was about 15 grams less than the M mount version.  

 

 

Finally, the 46mm B&W Nano UV filter added about 14 grams to the weight of the Summarit.  The 39mm B&W nano filter added about 10.5 grams to the Summicron.  This brought the weights of the lenses with UV filters to 204 and 209 grams respectively for the Summarit and Summicron 4.  So only a 5 gram difference between the two when filters are applied.  So for 5 grams and a 1/4 inch in length, the Summicron gives you an additional half stop of light. 

Edited April 23, 2023 by mediumformula