Turtle
Veteran
.... because my experience has only been great 
. I am talking construction not reliability.
My 35 is not heavy per se, but dense. Focus is incredibly smooth (if a touch light). Feels beautifully made and performs flawlessly.
My 75 just arrived and I was amazed. Dense, solid as a rock, perfectly weighted ultra-smooth focus, perfect aperture ring. Ergonomically and in terms of feel, I find it hard to imagine anything better.
I have a 24 lux and recent 90 elmarit-M. I used to have a LHSA 50 Lux. I think aside from the satin (summarit) finish rather than more coarse finish on the top ends lenses, what is there between them in build? Assuming my 75 summarit performs OK (focus test underway), a slightly different design format, rubber focus ring etc seems to be the only difference in build. I have no idea why Ken Rockewell regards these summarits as 'not real Leica lenses.' I see no reason why the 75 and 35 Summarits I have will not stand up just as long as my other Leica lenses. IMHO you'd have to be mad as a fish to go for a lux or cron to get 'better build,' with the summarits built as solidly as they are.
I actually wish the 24 3.8 Elmar had been made as a 'Summarit' with no asph elements, lower price and modest contrast signature to match the other slower Leica lenses like the Summarits and Elmarit-M. would have made for a cracking line. With the line as it is, there is no full on wide angle that is compact with a signature like the summarits, which is a shame. The 24 lux is very well matched signature wise but of course a very different lens.
. I am talking construction not reliability.My 35 is not heavy per se, but dense. Focus is incredibly smooth (if a touch light). Feels beautifully made and performs flawlessly.
My 75 just arrived and I was amazed. Dense, solid as a rock, perfectly weighted ultra-smooth focus, perfect aperture ring. Ergonomically and in terms of feel, I find it hard to imagine anything better.
I have a 24 lux and recent 90 elmarit-M. I used to have a LHSA 50 Lux. I think aside from the satin (summarit) finish rather than more coarse finish on the top ends lenses, what is there between them in build? Assuming my 75 summarit performs OK (focus test underway), a slightly different design format, rubber focus ring etc seems to be the only difference in build. I have no idea why Ken Rockewell regards these summarits as 'not real Leica lenses.' I see no reason why the 75 and 35 Summarits I have will not stand up just as long as my other Leica lenses. IMHO you'd have to be mad as a fish to go for a lux or cron to get 'better build,' with the summarits built as solidly as they are.
I actually wish the 24 3.8 Elmar had been made as a 'Summarit' with no asph elements, lower price and modest contrast signature to match the other slower Leica lenses like the Summarits and Elmarit-M. would have made for a cracking line. With the line as it is, there is no full on wide angle that is compact with a signature like the summarits, which is a shame. The 24 lux is very well matched signature wise but of course a very different lens.
WalterM
Established
Some people bash the line because it's low cost, others bash it because you can get cheaper older lenses for around the same. However, I personally think the 75mm summarit is the best midranged 75mm on the market.
I've handled one before and it's so compact. Love it. I have no qualms with the build quality either.
All that said, I still crave a 75mm 'Lux.
I've handled one before and it's so compact. Love it. I have no qualms with the build quality either.
All that said, I still crave a 75mm 'Lux.
mmk60
Member
The aperture ring on my 75 summarit came loose last year and Leica fixed it under warranty. Apart from that issue, I LOVE IT.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Turtle: I would take what you have to say with as much weight as what Rockwell says: you own and use a Summarit. That's good credibility.
To anyone who uses, or has used, both the 75 Summarit and the 75mm C-V: how do they compare?
To anyone who uses, or has used, both the 75 Summarit and the 75mm C-V: how do they compare?
Last edited by a moderator:
BillBingham2
Registered User
From what I have heard the lower cost is due mostly to the shared guts around the lenses. This reduces the initial design costs and on going manufacturing costs quite a bit. Remember Leica does far more QA work inspecting and tweaking their lenses than any other commercial company. I'm sure part of the savings comes from using less exotic glass to, I am sure they are up to standards with respect to longevity but only time will tell.
While there are some great used lenses out there there is something wonderful about buying new also. I got my first Leica lenses new and loved it. I have a feeling 15 years from now they will be retaining their value well.
Thanks for the info and great luck with them.
B2 (;->
While there are some great used lenses out there there is something wonderful about buying new also. I got my first Leica lenses new and loved it. I have a feeling 15 years from now they will be retaining their value well.
Thanks for the info and great luck with them.
B2 (;->
JohnnyT
Established
Those Leica's summarit are exquisite; great, low cost and really nice.
Last edited by a moderator:
ferider
Veteran
A clean used copy of the ASPH 35/2 is less than the Summarit new. You can buy 4 new Color Skopars for the price of one 35/2.5.
Might be your favorite lens, with excellent build, etc etc. But low cost it is not.
Roland.
Might be your favorite lens, with excellent build, etc etc. But low cost it is not.
Roland.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Goegeous lenses. Frances kept the 50 we were sent for review (and we had to pay for it!). But we already had 3x35, a 75 Summicron and 3x90 (Summicron, Thambar, Apo-Lanthar). See the review at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps firstlook summarit.html for eight ways they saved money:
How did they save the money?
There is an inevitable suspicion that these 'cheap' lenses (in Leica terms) are somehow not up to Leica standards, but there are several entirely legitimate ways in which they have saved money.
First, they are comparatively slow. For example, other current 50mm lenses include the f/1 Noctilux, f/1.4 Summilux, f/2 Summicron and f/2.8 Elmar. The last is collapsible and sells partly on this and partly on its retro appeal. It is very much easier to build a sharp, well-corrected slow lens than a fast one.
Second, their close focusing distances are modest: 0.8m (just under 3 feet) for the 35mm and 50mm, 0.9m (3 feet) for the 75mm and 1m (39 inches) for the 90mm. This makes for a smaller, lighter, cheaper mount. For a given standard of engineering, there is a very close correlation indeed between size, weight and price. For comparison, the 75/2 Summicron focuses below 0.7m.
Third, there are no built-in lens hoods (shades). Hoods are sold as accessories and fit on an external (male) screw thread with a Leica-patented positive stop that allows the hood always to stop at the same position when fully tightened, as on the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21. The lenses are supplied with a bumper ring -- a simple collar -- that covers the thread when no hood is installed; the hoods come with their own lens caps. The male thread is simple anodized black, not the rather anatomical-looking red of the Tri-Elmar.
Fourth, there are no aspheric surfaces. All are made with common curves. There is no real need for aspherics in comparatively slow lenses with modest close-focus limits.
Fifth, there are no floating elements. This results in a slight loss of correction when focused close, but not one that is significant for most people.
Sixth, they are supplied with suedette pouches instead of lined, real leather cases.
Seventh, they have pressed metal lens caps in two sizes, one for 35mm and 50mm (39mm filter) and the other for 75mm and 90mm (46mm filter). Made in sufficient quantities, these are cheaper (and in the opinion of many, more attractive) than pinch-type caps. They are surprisingly deep (10-12mm; 12.7mm is half an inch) which makes them particularly secure.
Eighth, the lenses are available only in black anodized light alloy; the more expensive brass chrome mounts are not offered.
Cheers,
R.
How did they save the money?
There is an inevitable suspicion that these 'cheap' lenses (in Leica terms) are somehow not up to Leica standards, but there are several entirely legitimate ways in which they have saved money.
First, they are comparatively slow. For example, other current 50mm lenses include the f/1 Noctilux, f/1.4 Summilux, f/2 Summicron and f/2.8 Elmar. The last is collapsible and sells partly on this and partly on its retro appeal. It is very much easier to build a sharp, well-corrected slow lens than a fast one.
Second, their close focusing distances are modest: 0.8m (just under 3 feet) for the 35mm and 50mm, 0.9m (3 feet) for the 75mm and 1m (39 inches) for the 90mm. This makes for a smaller, lighter, cheaper mount. For a given standard of engineering, there is a very close correlation indeed between size, weight and price. For comparison, the 75/2 Summicron focuses below 0.7m.
Third, there are no built-in lens hoods (shades). Hoods are sold as accessories and fit on an external (male) screw thread with a Leica-patented positive stop that allows the hood always to stop at the same position when fully tightened, as on the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21. The lenses are supplied with a bumper ring -- a simple collar -- that covers the thread when no hood is installed; the hoods come with their own lens caps. The male thread is simple anodized black, not the rather anatomical-looking red of the Tri-Elmar.
Fourth, there are no aspheric surfaces. All are made with common curves. There is no real need for aspherics in comparatively slow lenses with modest close-focus limits.
Fifth, there are no floating elements. This results in a slight loss of correction when focused close, but not one that is significant for most people.
Sixth, they are supplied with suedette pouches instead of lined, real leather cases.
Seventh, they have pressed metal lens caps in two sizes, one for 35mm and 50mm (39mm filter) and the other for 75mm and 90mm (46mm filter). Made in sufficient quantities, these are cheaper (and in the opinion of many, more attractive) than pinch-type caps. They are surprisingly deep (10-12mm; 12.7mm is half an inch) which makes them particularly secure.
Eighth, the lenses are available only in black anodized light alloy; the more expensive brass chrome mounts are not offered.
Cheers,
R.
Turtle
Veteran
You'd be struggling with the way 35 cron asph prices have gone up lately with the M9. Besides, thats apples and oranges. Comparing new vs new or uses vs used there is still a considerable difference. And even if they were the same price, there would be reasons to prefer the summarit if speed was not your only goal.
ferider
Veteran
I have no issues with anybody preferring the Summarit for any reason, and no issues with its price either, it's up to seller and buyer to agree on that.
I am objecting to calling a lens that goes for US 1695 at B+H, and for which there are plenty of very competitive offerings at half or quarter price "Low Cost".
I am objecting to calling a lens that goes for US 1695 at B+H, and for which there are plenty of very competitive offerings at half or quarter price "Low Cost".
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
Short answer: Nothing
Short answer: Nothing
For some, the best lenses are the most expensive lenses. Otherwise, how do we know they're the best?
Short answer: Nothing
For some, the best lenses are the most expensive lenses. Otherwise, how do we know they're the best?
Turtle
Veteran
ferider,
low cost is relative I guess, both in absolute terms (depends on how wealthy you are) and comparative terms (vs other lenses). I agree, they are not cheap and compete with the CVs and ZMs, but in my experience offer some significant advantages as well as some shortcomings. Whether one wishes to pay for those percieved advantages is personal, as you say. I found it sad that Leica kept pushing up the cost of lenses introduced at a substantially lower price making them less competitive against the ZM lenses. Still, on the used market 50 Summarits were going for about $600 and 35/75s for about $900.
low cost is relative I guess, both in absolute terms (depends on how wealthy you are) and comparative terms (vs other lenses). I agree, they are not cheap and compete with the CVs and ZMs, but in my experience offer some significant advantages as well as some shortcomings. Whether one wishes to pay for those percieved advantages is personal, as you say. I found it sad that Leica kept pushing up the cost of lenses introduced at a substantially lower price making them less competitive against the ZM lenses. Still, on the used market 50 Summarits were going for about $600 and 35/75s for about $900.
Turtle
Veteran
Well, an update:
After marveling at how sharp the lens is at min focus and infinity and its wonderful handling and build, I discovered that these are the only two distances it focuses correctly. If begins to front focus from min distance to the point where at 2m it is about 8 inches to the front and at 5m it is front focusing by about two feet!
&^%(*&^O&Y WTF Leica!!!!
I had tested it with about fifteen frames on the tail of a roll of film, using a scale to test at min distance (0.8m) and also at some houses across the road, then at infinity at f2.5 - 5.6. Al frames were superb. It was only after using it for some project shooting that I noticed a problem (sharp eyebrows and not eyes) and completely blurry portraits shot from 2-3M. I then did a controlled test at all distances and saw that the front focus come up really fast beyong the minimum and is EPIC at middle distances before disappearing at 60m (the distance to the house) and beyond.
I find this amazing and I am furious to be quite honest. I can almost understand it with hugely complex lenses like the 21 lux asph, but with a simple lens like the 75 summarit? WT* Leica sort out your QC!!!! I lost never to be repeated portraits due to missed focus on a lens that evidently has something very wacky going on with the focusing.
Its the last time I do a quick focus test on film at min distance and distant subjects. I had no idea the extremes could be fine and the middle bit MILES out.
$1500 for a lens Leica cannot bloody well test properly. Thats why I bought the darned Summarit as I had heard of too many issues with the more complex 75 cron and its floating element!
Anyway, now to get the lens back to the US from Afghanistan. I have generally accepted the Leica premium so I don't have to deal with **** like this....
Oh and the good news? At 0.8m and inifity it is unbelievably sharp wide open. Seriously eyeball slicing sharp with fantastic edges. Sadly at every other distance my example is completely useless.
Edit: I have just looked at the cam and something is most definitely wrong. Looks like they machined it completely wrong or something as it has evidently not engaged the roller properly (as evidenced by the anodising coming off on the very edge of the cam where the roller has only been in in contact over a tiny area (fraction of a mm). You can see the camera cam roller has engaged it on the very edge and in comparing it with my other Leica lenses it is less than half the thickness. Just been over the portraits that went wrong and it is quite depressing.
After marveling at how sharp the lens is at min focus and infinity and its wonderful handling and build, I discovered that these are the only two distances it focuses correctly. If begins to front focus from min distance to the point where at 2m it is about 8 inches to the front and at 5m it is front focusing by about two feet!
&^%(*&^O&Y WTF Leica!!!!
I had tested it with about fifteen frames on the tail of a roll of film, using a scale to test at min distance (0.8m) and also at some houses across the road, then at infinity at f2.5 - 5.6. Al frames were superb. It was only after using it for some project shooting that I noticed a problem (sharp eyebrows and not eyes) and completely blurry portraits shot from 2-3M. I then did a controlled test at all distances and saw that the front focus come up really fast beyong the minimum and is EPIC at middle distances before disappearing at 60m (the distance to the house) and beyond.
I find this amazing and I am furious to be quite honest. I can almost understand it with hugely complex lenses like the 21 lux asph, but with a simple lens like the 75 summarit? WT* Leica sort out your QC!!!! I lost never to be repeated portraits due to missed focus on a lens that evidently has something very wacky going on with the focusing.
Its the last time I do a quick focus test on film at min distance and distant subjects. I had no idea the extremes could be fine and the middle bit MILES out.
$1500 for a lens Leica cannot bloody well test properly. Thats why I bought the darned Summarit as I had heard of too many issues with the more complex 75 cron and its floating element!
Anyway, now to get the lens back to the US from Afghanistan. I have generally accepted the Leica premium so I don't have to deal with **** like this....
Oh and the good news? At 0.8m and inifity it is unbelievably sharp wide open. Seriously eyeball slicing sharp with fantastic edges. Sadly at every other distance my example is completely useless.
Edit: I have just looked at the cam and something is most definitely wrong. Looks like they machined it completely wrong or something as it has evidently not engaged the roller properly (as evidenced by the anodising coming off on the very edge of the cam where the roller has only been in in contact over a tiny area (fraction of a mm). You can see the camera cam roller has engaged it on the very edge and in comparing it with my other Leica lenses it is less than half the thickness. Just been over the portraits that went wrong and it is quite depressing.
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
Sorry to hear about the missed shots. Yes Leica apparently employs a lot of QC people but they're fairly useless. I've had my share of faulty brand-new lenses from Leica too. There was the thread on the LUF a few months ago in which an enraged customer received either two or three 75/2 lenses from B&H in New York all with the same problem. Nice signed quality inspection cards in the box and all, and the lenses were hilariously crap. Buying new these days you have to thoroughly test immediately.
Turtle
Veteran
A basic focus test throughout the range should be the least you should get on a $1500 lens with same same spec as a $350 CV. The extra money should be in build quality, durability and guaranteed performance.
I have had the worst luck. After ten years and never a problem, I ended up returning two canon 85 1.8s, a CV 21, and now this Summarit all within 6 months. Having finally gotten the SLR outfit sorted with a 85 1.2L II (I gave up on the slower non-L lenses), I wanted something small and light for when I am taking only Ms into the field, with which I could shoot portraits.... and after the two faulty Canon EOS 85 1.8s got myself a duff Summarit. I have had such major setbacks shooting the portraits for this project it is painful. At least I finally have a reliable Canon rig I can used, which weight 1900g lens and body! I was expecting so much more from Leica.
I have had the worst luck. After ten years and never a problem, I ended up returning two canon 85 1.8s, a CV 21, and now this Summarit all within 6 months. Having finally gotten the SLR outfit sorted with a 85 1.2L II (I gave up on the slower non-L lenses), I wanted something small and light for when I am taking only Ms into the field, with which I could shoot portraits.... and after the two faulty Canon EOS 85 1.8s got myself a duff Summarit. I have had such major setbacks shooting the portraits for this project it is painful. At least I finally have a reliable Canon rig I can used, which weight 1900g lens and body! I was expecting so much more from Leica.
ferider
Veteran
Sorry, T. Sometimes it's the lens; sometimes it can be the camera/lens combo, too; when both are border-line with-in specs, but the combo is not, depending how the RF cams couple. I have several lens/camera combos that don't focus perfectly when looked at really close, one reason why I organize my stuff in kits.
Roland.
Roland.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Leica, Canon. I've had problems with both companies lenses. Never had a problem with a new Canon L lens, though (although I've had friends who have). Canon consumer primes I've bought have been all over the place, though. 85 1.8, spot on. 100 2.8, severe back focus. The 100 sent back three times, they never got it to focus correctly. These companies make the customer do the QC these days.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
My 50mm f/1.5 Summarit is built like a rock. Weighs like one, too.
kubilai
Established
Improved reliability
Improved reliability
Industrial process improve continuously, some people need to learn that ; and the new Summarit-M line is a case among numerous others.
I use and enjoy more and more my lovely/ 50mm Summarit-M.
Improved reliability
Industrial process improve continuously, some people need to learn that ; and the new Summarit-M line is a case among numerous others.
I use and enjoy more and more my lovely/ 50mm Summarit-M.
Last edited by a moderator:
Turtle
Veteran
Sure tolerances are an issues, but my Summarit will not focus at 3-5m at F8! I expect issues with lenses like the 74 lux or cron or 50 lux asph, but a pedestrian 75 2.5?
The only good news is that when focus is correct the performance is blinding. hopefully its a simple fix and I will get it back in short order. I happen to be going to the US soon to I will post it straight back from there.
The only good news is that when focus is correct the performance is blinding. hopefully its a simple fix and I will get it back in short order. I happen to be going to the US soon to I will post it straight back from there.