wijayane Posted July 9, 2009 Share #1 Posted July 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I wonder whether there is an obvious difference between the two lenses (summicron 35 and summarit 35) in terms of picture quality, sharpness, contrasts, colour etc. Since there is a difference in the price tag and would it be worth it to go for the summicron or would it be ok to settle with the summarit? Thanks in advance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Hi wijayane, Take a look here any obvious difference between Summicron 35 f2.0 and Summarit 35 f2.5 ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kenneth Posted July 9, 2009 Share #2 Posted July 9, 2009 I wonder whether there is an obvious difference between the two lenses (summicron 35 and summarit 35) in terms of picture quality, sharpness, contrasts, colour etc. Since there is a difference in the price tag and would it be worth it to go for the summicron or would it be ok to settle with the summarit? Thanks in advance. I have no experience of the 35mm Summarit but alot of people here seem to like it. I have a 35mm Summicron asph and it is critically sharp which may not be flattering for portraiture but as an all round lens I find it wonderful and it gets about as much use as my 50mm. I hope this helps Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wijayane Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted July 9, 2009 Thank you very much, Kenneth. I will still have time to decide in about 2 or 3 month's time. Summarit seems to be many's favourite as you said and looks like it would save a bit on the cost while summicron is a faster lens and might also worth the extra spent. A bit hard to decide at this minute ^___^ Thanks again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 9, 2009 Share #4 Posted July 9, 2009 Sean Reid's review of the Summarit, with comparisons to the Cron, would be extremely helpful in your decision IMO. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wijayane Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted July 9, 2009 Thank you very much Jeff. I'll look into that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 9, 2009 Share #6 Posted July 9, 2009 Thank you very much Jeff. I'll look into that. Sean's site requires a small annual fee, or else I'd give you a quick summary of how he addresses every one of your points, and more. You'll have the facts, as tested, then you can make an informed choice best on your needs and preferences. He covers the whole Summarit line in general, and then specifically reviews the 35. In addition, his other reviews provide a wealth of info. And, personally, I think his essays on photography and art in general are the best part of his site. No affiliation, here...just a big fan. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 9, 2009 Share #7 Posted July 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've heard conflicting views, some say no or little difference, others say the Cron is slightly sharper and more contrasty. If I were in your shoes I'd pay the subscription to Sean's site and make a more informed decision (and see some comparisons). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted July 10, 2009 Share #8 Posted July 10, 2009 I've heard conflicting views, some say no or little difference, others say the Cron is slightly sharper and more contrasty. If I were in your shoes I'd pay the subscription to Sean's site and make a more informed decision (and see some comparisons). I would say that is a fair appraisal James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_s Posted July 31, 2009 Share #9 Posted July 31, 2009 In the tradeoff between aperture, size, price I think f2 is a sweet spot for a standard focal length. From f2.5 to f2 is 2/3 of a stop but the Summicron is still quite small (something I strongly prefer). There are a lot of second hand pre-asph summicrons around. I have no experience with the Summarit, but a smaller aperture lens tends to be sharper and flare less. The pre-asph summicron is very good in my opinion. But I hand hold and use 400+ speed film. For more critical work one would need to do more research. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbelyaev Posted August 1, 2009 Share #10 Posted August 1, 2009 There is no significant difference between these lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 1, 2009 Share #11 Posted August 1, 2009 Buy the Summicron. You will own one in the end, so you may as well buy and enjoy it now, if you have the cash. Then you will have saved money by not buying the Summarit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted August 1, 2009 Share #12 Posted August 1, 2009 Very wise words Andy. - Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 1, 2009 Share #13 Posted August 1, 2009 We've all done it Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted August 1, 2009 Share #14 Posted August 1, 2009 Agree with Andy : Summicron 35 asph has been my first lens with which i feel at all comfortable when using it wide open, and this, for me, is its real value; add the larger max aperture, the intrinsic value of the name, the probable better mechanics and you obtain a really LASTING value; lenses are not tied to the development of electronics, and if you are confident that Leica will continue to have a future and its traditional compatibility with "old" lenses, it's a SURE choice. This is not to say that Summarits have to be regarded as junk lenses: I was not so sure that 75 would have been a favorite length for me, so I took the Summarit... and am happy with it: but after 1,5 year of intensive use on M8 I think that maybe I would have done better to have the Cron (even if 75 at f2 is already, I think, a critical focusing): BUT if one day there will be for me a 24x36 diigtal M my wiew could be different: this surely won't happen with focal 35. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted August 1, 2009 Share #15 Posted August 1, 2009 We've all done it Carl More than once.... - Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted August 1, 2009 Share #16 Posted August 1, 2009 ...per sbelyaev (post #10), performance-wise, "There is no significant difference between these lenses.". If cost is your main driver, go for the Summarit. If not, go for the Summicron. I own neither of these lenses, but used them previously, before eventually opting for a Summilux ASPH, on the grounds that I do a lot of low-light photography. It is clear that apart from the Summicron's 2/3 extra stop, and perhaps a perception of relative "cheapness" associated with the Summarit's cost, the previous posters have little by way of anything substantive to differentiate between both lenses. Like them, I also have little or nothing to add. Incidentally, I take the view that the value of a lens is in its performance. Build quality is not an issue with Leica lenses, except for the odd outlier. I am therefore a bit surprised that no one mentioned a test drive. Not sure how feasible this is, wijayane, but I would certainly recommend it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted August 2, 2009 Share #17 Posted August 2, 2009 Roger and Francis looked at all the Summarits and their conclusions was the centers are the same, the edges only adequate. Unfortunately I can not find the review on their site now. The Summarit line most definately has less robust build and do not use aspheres which is why the edges lack.. The Summarits were made to compete with the used lens market Leica lenses. Some of them do not come with lens shades. While optically they are ok of an older design, I believe them to be a kludge mechanically and not up to previous Leica standards. You lose more than a bit of speed and the value as a used lens just will not be there. If you want to save money, buy a used Leica or Zeiss or even a new Zeiss. You can not loose more than you put into it. A used Leica will not loose value. A Summarit will be like a new car. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chroma project Posted August 4, 2009 Share #18 Posted August 4, 2009 There is something magical about the way Summicron renders color and nuances! Noctilux, Summicron and Summilux is the only way to get the *Leica look* good luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabron Posted August 4, 2009 Share #19 Posted August 4, 2009 The Summarit is actually a 2.4 lens (despite being identified as a 2.5). This makes it a 1/2 stop slower than a Summicron. I got mine in mint- condition with two filters for $850 (shipped). I would have had to pay more than twice that for a Summicron in comparable condition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.