Unscientific test of 75mm Summarit vs. Summicron on M8

[dalippe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a 75 lux that I love, but sometimes it is just too heavy and unwieldy. So I ordered a Summarit and a Summicron from B&H with the intention of picking one as a lightweight alternative when I don't want to lug the lux. The Summarit is substantially less unwieldy (I considered calling it "easier to wield" but that just sounds goofy ). That was reason enough for me to chose it over the cron.

 

Even though I knew I would keep the rit, I checked both for front/back focus out of curiosity. Both lenses seemed well calibrated, but to my surprise, the numbers on the test chart seemed sharper with the rit at comparable apertures.

 

The two shots below are hand-held at 1/180 sec. The cron is at f/2.4 and the rit is at f/2.5. Both files processed in LR with a .66 boost to exposure, identical hand chosen white balance and all other settings at default except sharpening and smoothing which are turned off. The crops are approximately 100%.

 

So not the most scientific test, but the result posted here is representative of what I saw on many repetitions of this and other tests-- the Summarit looks sharper. I think what I'm seeing has more to do with contrast than resolution. But one way or the other, the numbers on the test chart seem better resolved with the rit. Below are the shots (rit first, then cron). Does this agree with what others have seen? Perhaps I just got a bum version of the cron (or a hot rodded version of the rit ).

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!

[marknorton]

TBH, I don't think either of them is particularly special. To do a test like this, you need to tripod mount the camera, use the 2 second self-timer to release with a a cable release and also a focus magnifier.

 

I'm confused. You bought both lenses and are going to return one to B&H. Does that mean B&H will no longer be able to sell it as new, unused?

[dalippe]

TBH, I don't think either of them is particularly special. To do a test like this, you need to tripod mount the camera, use the 2 second self-timer to release with a a cable release and also a focus magnifier.

 

I'm confused. You bought both lenses and are going to return one to B&H. Does that mean B&H will no longer be able to sell it as new, unused?

 

Well, of course a tripod and cable release would have been better (I did use a magnifier) would be better but I didn't set out to compare the lenses so I didn't take the time to do it right. But I took at least ten shots with each lens and the results are *very* consistent so I think I'm seeing something real here. FWIW, the differences are more dramatic on my screen than in these compressed web images.

 

Regarding how B&H handles returned items, I don't know. But they have a liberal return policy that I have often used as a way to see/feel/try similar products so that I can choose one. When returning the unchosen product (and when ordering in the first place if I do it over the phone), I have always been upfront with them about what I am doing and they have never had a problem with it. So I would guess that either by reselling the item as new or by returning it to the manufacturer, they are not losing much.

 

David

[gdi]

TBH, I don't think either of them is particularly special. To do a test like this, you need to tripod mount the camera, use the 2 second self-timer to release with a a cable release and also a focus magnifier.

 

I'm confused. You bought both lenses and are going to return one to B&H. Does that mean B&H will no longer be able to sell it as new, unused?

 

If you eyes are good enough you wouldn't need a magnifier.

 

As for B&H, I am sure they would simply resell a returned lens that is not defective. They require all original packing and unfilled warranty on returns, for that reason. I'm sure.

[marknorton]

Sorry, I just don't think your results are much good. You should retry them using a tripod and delayed release. Failing that, it might be your M8 is out of alignment. The 75mm Summicron is one of the sharpest lenses and has close focus correction which the Summarit does not.

[cometsoft]

As for B&H, I am sure they would simply resell a returned lens that is not defective. They require all original packing and unfilled warranty on returns, for that reason. I'm sure.

 

So someone else can buy it.

 

I must be old fashioned, but the whole process of buying two lenses and sending back the one you don't like seems wasteful. Assuming the lens is not defective and is sold at a used price it's just squandered value (which someone else has to pay for at some point). If it's sold new it's wrong on B&H's part.

[Freeds1977]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, I just don't think your results are much good. You should retry them using a tripod and delayed release. Failing that, it might be your M8 is out of alignment. The 75mm Summicron is one of the sharpest lenses and has close focus correction which the Summarit does not.

 

Didn't Erwin Puts come to the same conclusion as David? I.e., that the 75 rit is sharper at f2.5 than the 75 cron?

 

I'm interested, as I am thinking of splashing out on a 75mm lens. Options are a second hand lux, a second hand cron or a new rit...not sure which way to go.

 

Dan

[luigi bertolotti]

Didn't Erwin Puts come to the same conclusion as David? I.e., that the 75 rit is sharper at f2.5 than the 75 cron?

 

I'm interested, as I am thinking of splashing out on a 75mm lens. Options are a second hand lux, a second hand cron or a new rit...not sure which way to go.

 

Dan

 

Not exactly... in his 2nd chapter on Summarits, Puts says rather clearly (in his typical style) that the Apo cron has something more... I was in your situtation before Christmas... and bought a Summarit (I admit, partly because of price, partly for the irrational consideration that a "self-Christmas-present" ought to be a boxed brand new item ) : nice for compctaness, the only disturbing thing is the short helicoid course: my mood is this, even if others have a different opinion.

[dalippe]

Sorry, I just don't think your results are much good. You should retry them using a tripod and delayed release. Failing that, it might be your M8 is out of alignment. The 75mm Summicron is one of the sharpest lenses and has close focus correction which the Summarit does not.

 

Hi Mark,

 

If I get a chance I'll redo this weekend before returning the lens on Monday, but it is a pretty busy weekend so I might not get to it. But to be honest, while your skepticism makes complete sense, if I do this it will just be to convince you and others. The results were so consistent among multiple shots and so dramatic (as I said, the web images understate what I see on the dngs) that I can't believe I'm not seeing a real phenomenon.

 

The misaligned VF doesn't make sense to me as an explanation because for

i = 1,2,3, the ith sharpest number in image #1 is sharper than the ith sharpest number in image #2. For that comparison, it doesn't much matter where the focal planes actually are.

 

I trust you if you say that Summicron is the sharper lens. Then I think the most likely explanation is that I got a bad example of the Summicron.

 

David

[gdi]

So someone else can buy it.

 

I must be old fashioned, but the whole process of buying two lenses and sending back the one you don't like seems wasteful. Assuming the lens is not defective and is sold at a used price it's just squandered value (which someone else has to pay for at some point). If it's sold new it's wrong on B&H's part.

 

 

I don't think its wrong on the part of B&H, they only give a week or so to return it and if everything is as new and includes the warranty - then its new. Is it much different from someone checking it out in the store, putting it back, and then a different person buying it?

 

I think they would quickly end free returns and charge a "restocking" fee if they had to sell non-defective returns at a discount.

[dalippe]

So someone else can buy it.

 

I must be old fashioned, but the whole process of buying two lenses and sending back the one you don't like seems wasteful. Assuming the lens is not defective and is sold at a used price it's just squandered value (which someone else has to pay for at some point). If it's sold new it's wrong on B&H's part.

 

Lots of mail order and online merchants offer liberal return policies precisely so that customers will feel comfortable buying something they've never been able to hold or try. This is the same way many people I know shop for clothes...order a bunch of different colors and different sizes, and then try them on at home and send back far more than 50% of the ordered itmes.

 

I buy new photo equipment almost exclusively from B&H and others with similar return policies so that I can test the items myself. You can learn only so much from other people's opinions and reviews. It seems a bit scary to me to lay out thousands of dollars on equipment I can't spend an hour or two testing. If that means I sometimes get a lens that somebody else has tested for an hour or two, so be it. If it looks cosmetically perfect, comes with full warranty and packaging, and works to my satisfaction, then I don't mind that somebody else tried it out. After all, 99% of people who would try out a Leica Summicron are going to treat it well; we're not talking about teenage pranksters here. I would guess that maybe 1 in a hundred times I end up buying a "new" item that has been poorly treated by another customer. But far more often than 1 in a hundred times I am disappointed with an item I expected to like and send it back. So that is a trade-off I'm willing to make. It seems to me that if all B&H customers act in this way, we as a group come out ahead.

[cometsoft]

I don't think its wrong on the part of B&H, they only give a week or so to return it and if everything is as new and includes the warranty - then its new. Is it much different from someone checking it out in the store, putting it back, and then a different person buying it?

 

I think they would quickly end free returns and charge a "restocking" fee if they had to sell non-defective returns at a discount.

 

On the other hand it adds another layer for error. I've had to take defective stuff back to B&H and seen the procedure for inspecting returned items. I'd rather have a new item.

 

It's a pain if you order something (happened to me with a 600mm Canon tele lens from a different dealer) and find out it's been used and have to return it. You've got the whole UPS repackaging delivery-redelivery thing going on. And if the event you bought it for is gone in the midst of these transactions (a surf contest, a rare bird) you're out of luck.

 

Do you think it is OK for someone to buy a $7000.00 lens (with no intention to keep it) to shoot a surf contest and then return it in less than 10 days when there is nothing wrong with the lens? It may be legal and no one can prove what their intention was but I think it's a waste and contemptuous of any trust between buyer and seller.

 

As a prospective buyer faced with a choice of the "used" $7000.00 lens or a factory fresh model would choose which? You can say they're both under warranty, but warranties come with down time and tedious communications and shipping issues. Look at all the people in this forum unhappy over repair delays and quality at Leica, NJ and Solms.

[gdi]

On the other hand it adds another layer for error. I've had to take defective stuff back to B&H and seen the procedure for inspecting returned items. I'd rather have a new item.

 

It's a pain if you order something (happened to me with a 600mm Canon tele lens from a different dealer) and find out it's been used and have to return it. You've got the whole UPS repackaging delivery-redelivery thing going on. And if the event you bought it for is gone in the midst of these transactions (a surf contest, a rare bird) you're out of luck.

 

Do you think it is OK for someone to buy a $7000.00 lens (with no intention to keep it) to shoot a surf contest and then return it in less than 10 days when there is nothing wrong with the lens? It may be legal and no one can prove what their intention was but I think it's a waste and contemptuous of any trust between buyer and seller.

 

As a prospective buyer faced with a choice of the "used" $7000.00 lens or a factory fresh model would choose which? You can say they're both under warranty, but warranties come with down time and tedious communications and shipping issues. Look at all the people in this forum unhappy over repair delays and quality at Leica, NJ and Solms.

 

I would never do that personally, and I don't think many would. But the return policy is time based (plus shutter actuation with a digital body) and doesn't indicate how it is allowed to be used during the "trial period".

 

 

The real point is that you'll probably never know if it has been returned or not. If it is not marked in any way and packed as new, it is new to you. Whether it s $200 or $7000, makes no difference.

 

(And if I lived in Westchester, I'd go to the shop and cherry pick the $7000 lens I liked best! )

[robsteve]

TBH, I don't think either of them is particularly special. To do a test like this, you need to tripod mount the camera, use the 2 second self-timer to release with a a cable release and also a focus magnifier.

 

I'm confused. You bought both lenses and are going to return one to B&H. Does that mean B&H will no longer be able to sell it as new, unused?

 

Mark:

 

I think that this may be partly the reason why some lenses, not just leica, get a reputation for having poor quality control. There are people that cherry pick their lenses by ordering a couple and returning the worst. This returned lens is then sent out to the next customer who returns it wondering about the quality control of the manufacturer. I suppose eventually the majority of the stock of that lens left at the retailer will be the duds.

 

This same thing can happen in retail outlets, where the customer tries a few lenses and keeps the best. The ones he doesn't choose goes back on the retailers shelf for the next buyer.

[gdi]

Mark:

 

I think that this may be partly the reason why some lenses, not just leica, get a reputation for having poor quality control. There are people that cherry pick their lenses by ordering a couple and returning the worst. This returned lens is then sent out to the next customer who returns it wondering about the quality control of the manufacturer. I suppose eventually the majority of the stock of that lens left at the retailer will be the duds.

 

This same thing can happen in retail outlets, where the customer tries a few lenses and keeps the best. The ones he doesn't choose goes back on the retailers shelf for the next buyer.

 

Well if the lenses actually are duds, then it is a quality control issue.

 

Anyway, I bet the number of people actually buying 2 copies and sending one back is very low and not enough to result in only duds being available. Personally, I have never sent a lens back in my life (other than a few ebay purchases!)....

[dalippe]

First off, as the originator of this thread, I can assure you that we are definitely off the subject. Perhaps there should be a thread on B&H return policy if someone can convince the moderators that is a proper use of the Leica User Forum That said, I personally will make one last post on the subject and then leave it to others to have the last say.

 

Mark:

 

I think that this may be partly the reason why some lenses, not just leica, get a reputation for having poor quality control. There are people that cherry pick their lenses by ordering a couple and returning the worst. This returned lens is then sent out to the next customer who returns it wondering about the quality control of the manufacturer. I suppose eventually the majority of the stock of that lens left at the retailer will be the duds.

 

This same thing can happen in retail outlets, where the customer tries a few lenses and keeps the best. The ones he doesn't choose goes back on the retailers shelf for the next buyer.

 

Clever, but I don't think it holds up. First, I don't think many people order many copies of the same lens and then return defective ones as unwanted. I think that most people order one copy each of similar lenses and then choose the best model for their needs. If they notice a defective lens, they return it as defective.

 

And even if this cherry picking were going on, do the math and you'll see that it it only makes a dent where there is already a problem. Let's imagine a simplified (and extreme) scenario:

o The number of customers equals the number of lenses.

o Half of all customers are "cherry pickers". The other half are "victims". I'm sure you'll agree this is extreme.

o The cherry pickers go first, each buying a working lens.

o The victims get the remaining stock.

o Perceptions of a company's QC are determined only by the experiences of victims (extreme assumption again).

 

In this case it is easy to see that if the true rate of defectives is r, then the perceived rate of defectives is 2r. This looks like a big change, but think of actual values of r. I would think reasonable QC would keep r less than or equal to 1 in 1000. So the cherry pickers would double this to 2 in 1000, adding only 1 additional defective to every batch of 1000. On an internet forum of 1000 victims, there will be one additional complaint. This wouldn't even be a noticeable change. If another company, lets call it Leica, had an unreasonable rate of defectives (say 100 in 1000), then the cherry pickers start to have an impact, adding 100 extra complaints to said internet forum. So only the weak need fear the cherry pickers

Do you think it is OK for someone to buy a $7000.00 lens (with no intention to keep it) to shoot a surf contest and then return it in less than 10 days when there is nothing wrong with the lens? It may be legal and no one can prove what their intention was but I think it's a waste and contemptuous of any trust between buyer and seller.

 

No, I don't think that is OK. But I have no problem with him ordering the lens, spending some time taking pictures in his living room or yard and then returning the lens because he isn't happy with its performance.

 

And while your scenario undoubtedly goes on, I'm pretty sure it is the rare exception rather than the rule. There will always be somebody who abuses a useful privilege. But I for one am willing to get the very occasional lens that has made a trip to the beach (and I think it is very occasional) in exchange for the convenience of being able to try products at home to see if they suit me. Besides, if he ruined the lens at the beach, I'll discover that fact and return it for a working one. If he didn't, then I guess I'm getting screwed in some abstract sense, but it is of no practical consequence.

 

OK, with that I sign off from the B&H debate. I probably should have spent this time reshooting with a tripod

[DaveB]

Something not right about discussing B&H return policy on a Saturday before sunset when no one from the firm can offer a defense.

 

 

David, I presume you're already familiar with this earlier thread regarding the 75mm lenses.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/40693-leica-75mm-trio-comparision-lux-cron.html

[dalippe]

Something not right about discussing B&H return policy on a Saturday before sunset when no one from the firm can offer a defense.

 

 

David, I presume you're already familiar with this earlier thread regarding the 75mm lenses.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/40693-leica-75mm-trio-comparision-lux-cron.html

 

Yes, on page 4 Guy shows a bunch of crops to demonstrate that the Summarit is sharpest. Only to my eye the cron seemed sharper at f/2.5 in the example that purported to show the rit as sharper! Do you think the rit looks sharper in those crops? I felt a little stupid reading that thread because Guy used such strong language ("the Summarit just rips them all apart") that I thought there must be something wrong with my eyes.

[DaveB]

Do you think the rit looks sharper in those crops? I felt a little stupid reading that thread because Guy used such strong language ("the Summarit just rips them all apart") that I thought there must be something wrong with my eyes.

 

I just cannot tell either.

 

I take pride in my sense of sight, hearing, smell and taste. Seriously, I think I'm pretty capable of discriminating subtle differences in terms of sharpness, tonality, etc.

 

But since I bought my M8 and started hanging out in these Leica groups my confidence has really been shaken.

 

People see distinctions where I don't. Part of that is probably because I'm not a professional, but an amateur. I've learned a lot recently when folks here point out or describe things that I had not previously appreciated.

 

But I'm looking at those 2.5 Summarit vs. Summicron examples of Guy's right now and just can't make a serious distinction between them.

 

Those are full size crops, am I right? I've been looking at those photos for weeks and honestly can't see a difference that I can articulate.

 

Somebody from Leica USA will probably show up tomorrow demanding I surrender my camera and lenses.

 

I already knew that I had failed the entrance exam when my Noctilux appeared to me to focus just fine.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dalippe]

I just cannot tell either.

 

I take pride in my sense of sight, hearing, smell and taste. Seriously, I think I'm pretty capable of discriminating subtle differences in terms of sharpness, tonality, etc.

 

But since I bought my M8 and started hanging out in these Leica groups my confidence has really been shaken.

 

People see distinctions where I don't. Part of that is probably because I'm not a professional, but an amateur. I've learned a lot recently when folks here point out or describe things that I had not previously appreciated.

 

But I'm looking at those 2.5 Summarit vs. Summicron examples of Guy's right now and just can't make a serious distinction between them.

 

Those are full size crops, am I right? I've been looking at those photos for weeks and honestly can't see a difference that I can articulate.

 

Somebody from Leica USA will probably show up tomorrow demanding I surrender my camera and lenses.

 

I already knew that I had failed the entrance exam when my Noctilux appeared to me to focus just fine.

 

Well, I think I can see differences. But as I said they favor cron, rather than the rit. Look for example at the rock in the upper left of the frame. The texture is more visible with the cron. On the upper left of that rock, there is a kidney shaped piece and a "seam" between it and the rest of that rock. I think that seam jumps out more in the cron image. Look also at the texture on the facing side of the rock that more or less vertically centered, but on the far right side of the image. Again, I think it jumps out more in the middle image, the one from the cron. So in my images, the Summarit looks sharper. In Guy's text he claims the Summarit is sharper, but in his images the cron looks sharper to my eye.

 

Oh well, maybe Guy will contribute to this thread and tell us what makes the Summarit look sharper to him...

 

David