35/2.4 Summarit ASPH -vs- 35/2 Summicron ASPH. Comments....

[rpsawin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Comments on these lenses will be greatly appreciated.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Lots of discussions on topic.  What specifically do you want to know?

 

There are also many discussions on the two versions of the 35 Summicron ASPH, as well as the two 35 Summarits. 
 

Jeff

[rpsawin]

Jeff,

Thanks for the reference. My purpose in asking was to determine if I should keep my Summarit or sell it and purchase a Summicron. If  no major advantages are apparent, based on user experiences, I'll stick with the Summarit,

 

Thanks again.

[o2mpx]

Have a 2.4 version and had gone through similar thoughts; but given majority of subject matter are landscapes taken at mid aperture range, MTF’s are not dramatically different.

Decided to stay with the summarit; probably down to preference on how each renders. 

Edited May 31, 2024 by o2mpx

[TomB_tx]

After using my 1969 35 Summicron for decades, after adding digital went on a spurt of trying other models. Got a Summarit and stopped looking - does all I want.

[Jeff S]

One person’s advantage is another’s disadvantage, especially regarding subjective aspects like handling and ergonomics, while IQ is dependent on many user based factors.  Both are very capable lenses.  Besides the obvious, minor, speed difference, some report (the late E. Puts included) better flare control and less focus shift for the 35 Summarit.  I stick with my long time used 35 Summicron ASPH v.1, however, as I know its characteristics well by now, and my sample operates smoothly. Any flaws are most likely mine. Nobody would ever look at a print of mine and wonder about a Summarit or Summicron.
 

As you are in the US, easy enough to rent a Summicron if you’re not close to a dealer for demo.

Jeff

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both. Both are aspherical designs and are pretty similar in draw. The main difference is flaring. While the Summarit is hard to flare, the opposite can be said about the Summicron. If you want a character lens including flare and a bent focal plane but (relatively) sharp corners at full aperture, get the Summicron. If you want clear images without visible lens characteristics, get the Summarit.

I prefer the Summarit for landscapes because I like shooting against the sun and want the images clean.  Everything else does the Summicron. Please note that I shoot exclusively on film with my M lenses. On digital, there might be more/other differences.

[Lesslemming]

I had both. Not at the same time, though. But if memory serves me well, there was nothing the Summicron was able to do, that my Summarit can not.

The difference between f/2 and f/2.4 isn’t sufficient and the Summicron f/2 ASPH isn’t all that of a great performer wide open. Stopped down a bit, both are sublime anyway.

A closer focus of 0.7m against 0.8 isn’t going to make a huge deal for me, too. Both is inadequate for many of my use cases. But if scenes and landscapes are more to your liking than, let’s say, close up photography or head and shoulder portraits, the Summarit will do just as well.

The build quality of the Summicron is a bit better, but again not sufficiently so to switch one for the other.

In summary: There really isn’t much to be improved on with the Summarit. The Summicron will provide marginally more versatility.

[rpsawin]

Thanks one and all. I appreciate your comments. For my purposes I think I'll keep the Summarit.