summaron versus elmar 35mm

L

loneranger

Well-known
Local time
3:16 AM
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
427
View My Gallery
To those of you who have had the 35/3.5 summaron and elmar, what is the difference in picture quality, which one is better for color or B/W?
thanks
 
Here is my current collection of 35mm lenses. The summarons are althogether 'better' lenses in terms of less distortion, better rendering of colors and more contrast. However, keep in mind that the difference between the elmar and the summaron 3.5 is not that big as between these lenses and the summaron 2.8. If you want to shoot color, I would take the most contrasty lens and that would be the summaron 2.8. Further, both the summarons are quite a bit sharper fully open than the elmar. But sometimes I take out one of the little elmars, just because they are so tiny and stopped down, make wonderful pictures (and yes, the oldest nickel one from 1933, has coated lenses). More resolution, you will get from the summicrons...

M8.2%20and%2035mm%20lenses.JPG
 
Last edited:
Ron has it

Ron has it

I have all three, and the little 3.5 Elmar and Summaron down two stops would be pushing an enlargement of 8X10, 5X7 would be safe. The 2.8, except for speed is superior in my humble opinion to the early Summicron 35's. An 11 X 14 is just possible with fine grain film with the 2.8 at f4 or better.
 
Vow, nice stash. What lens is that attached to the M8, looks interesting.
Ron (Netherlands) said:
Here is my current collection of 35mm lenses. The summarons are althogether 'better' lenses in terms of less distortion, better rendering of colors and more contrast. However, keep in mind that the difference between the elmar and the summaron 3.5 is not that big as between these lenses and the summaron 2.8. If you want to shoot color, I would take the most contrasty lens and that would be the summaron 2.8. Further, both the summarons are quite a bit sharper fully open than the elmar. But sometimes I take out one of the little elmars, just because they are so tiny and stopped down, make wonderful pictures (and yes, the oldest nickel one from 1933, has coated lenses). More resolution, you will get from the summicrons...

M8.2%20and%2035mm%20lenses.JPG
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Niels and thanks Loneranger. The non-Leitz lens on the M8.2 is the Orthostigmat from Steinheil, its an f 4.5 35mm lens. I call it the mickey mouse lens because it has double ears. It is made of brass and terribly havy, but with less impressive optics - more like a paperweight really.
 
Ron (Netherlands) said:
The non-Leitz lens on the M8.2 is the Orthostigmat from Steinheil, its an f 4.5 35mm lens. I call it the mickey mouse lens because it has double ears. It is made of brass and terribly havy, but with less impressive optics - more like a paperweight really.
Click to expand...

Please! The 211 grammes of the Steinheil compare not too bad with the 172 grammes of a 3.5 Summaron type 2, and very favourable with the 338 grammes of the chrome Asph (which is my favourite paperweight 🙂)....
 
jbr said:
Please! The 211 grammes of the Steinheil compare not too bad with the 172 grammes of a 3.5 Summaron type 2, and very favourable with the 338 grammes of the chrome Asph (which is my favourite paperweight 🙂)....
Click to expand...

Indeed, what is a few grammes, ......may be that's why I took the black asph, it is less heavy (not the painted one of course) 🙂
 
Ron (Netherlands) said:
Here is my current collection of 35mm lenses. The summarons are althogether 'better' lenses in terms of less distortion, better rendering of colors and more contrast. However, keep in mind that the difference between the elmar and the summaron 3.5 is not that big as between these lenses and the summaron 2.8. If you want to shoot color, I would take the most contrasty lens and that would be the summaron 2.8. Further, both the summarons are quite a bit sharper fully open than the elmar. But sometimes I take out one of the little elmars, just because they are so tiny and stopped down, make wonderful pictures (and yes, the oldest nickel one from 1933, has coated lenses). More resolution, you will get from the summicrons...

M8.2%20and%2035mm%20lenses.JPG
Click to expand...

Hello:

Any performance difference between the nickel (?) and chrome Elmars?

yours
FPJ
 
Last edited:
FPjohn said:
Hello:

Any performance difference between the nickel(?) and chrome Elmars?

yours
FPJ
Click to expand...

Hi FPJ,

I guess normally there should be no difference since the lens construction didn't change, however my nickel seems a little bit sharper or may be more contrasty in bright conditions, apparantly because its lenses (both front and back) are coated. The chrome one is uncoated (it is from 1936). Since the nickel elmar stems from 1933 it is of course after factory coated , I guess shortly after WWII when Leitz had a lens coating service. There are of course also chrome elmars to be found which are coated as well. The nickel ones are more rare since they were only produced from 1931 till 1933.
 
Last edited:
loneranger said:
Nice photo,
are there different versions of the summaron?
Click to expand...

Perhaps this should be answered by Erik, however let me try first 🙂

The summaron comes in quite some variations. First the f 3.5, it comes in an older and newer barrel (the older version can be seen in my photo below left the lens directly above the elmars). The newer version, albeit with same optics, has a bigger, more modern barrel and was made in M-mount (not sure if some were made in ltm). The modern version comes in two types, one with goggles, for the M3 and one without, to be used with M2 and later models. There is also a rare fixed focus version.
Then there is the f 2.8 summaron. Optically the 3.5 and 2.8 are not identical and by many the 2.8 is acclaimed as an optically 'better' lens. It is the one at the top of my photo at the left side. It comes in many variations, i.e. with and without goggles, as ltm and M-mount version, and even with a convertible mount. Later production models have different coatings.

So what will it be.... (I would prefer to try them all)
 
Last edited:
The Summaron 35mm f/3.5 is a perfect match to the 50mm f/2 collapsible Summicron.
The 35mm f/2.8 Summaron is a great match to the first 50mm f/2 rigid Summicron.
I think the philosophy at Leitz in those days was to find fine combinations of lenses.

Erik.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Roastchestnuts
Tiny Voigtlander 35mm f3.5 Aspheric
2 3
Replies
54
Views
5K
Yokosuka Mike
Yokosuka Mike
R
Summaron 35/2.8 vs LLL 35mm 8 element
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
10K
froyd
froyd
Shab
A 35mm lens for a Nikon FM3A
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Dogman
Dogman
Miles.
Leica 35mm "goggled" Lens Issue
Replies
13
Views
2K
KoNickon
K
B
Nikon Z8 IR Response (pix)
Replies
0
Views
968
Benjamin Marks
B
Back
Top Bottom