guido_cruz
Newbie
Hi everyone. For any of you interested, I compared these two lenses. I'd like to hear your comments.
Thanks,
Guido
http://web.me.com/cruzdann/Leitz_vs_Canon/Summicron_vs._Serenar.html
Thanks,
Guido
http://web.me.com/cruzdann/Leitz_vs_Canon/Summicron_vs._Serenar.html
Last edited:
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Fun test! Glad to see you do it! 
How clean is the Summicron? No fogging?
I think BOTH lenses would fair better with hoods.....but I shoot my Canon f1.8 all the time without one
(I still have to find one, I know the results will be even better with one on)
I could have said the Canon lens would be better .......I`m a big fan of the f1.8 and also an advocate for the performance of the f1.5, it`s funny that so many so-called photographer`s at another German website, freak out just when they see another company`s lenses on a vintage Leica, they take it for face value that Leitz was/is better than anything Canon made at that time, but the truth of the matter was the Japanese glass was as good or even better in the 1950`s as the Leitz glass was/is
Yellow and Green filters would improve performance of both lenses for sure as well.......
I even think that the Summicron`s Grandfather the Summar performs better under some circumstances then the Summicron itself
I wish I could do a Summar/Summitar and early Summicron test to see how they all three compare
The Summicron honestly didn`t improve untill the 1970`s - that`s in my personal experience of using them
(I do love my 1992 version - at f16 it is razorblade sharp!)
The "Radioactive" early Cron is a novelty and more "hype" then it really was.....
The Canon f1.8 is a real beauty and also a talked down lens just as the Summar from Leitz was/is, but many new photographers are finding there was a reason that so many good photos were taken in Japan and Korea by the GI`s in the 1950`s while the f1.8 was the standard lens that Canon built it`s empire on
Happy Shooting!
Tom
How clean is the Summicron? No fogging?
I think BOTH lenses would fair better with hoods.....but I shoot my Canon f1.8 all the time without one
(I still have to find one, I know the results will be even better with one on)
I could have said the Canon lens would be better .......I`m a big fan of the f1.8 and also an advocate for the performance of the f1.5, it`s funny that so many so-called photographer`s at another German website, freak out just when they see another company`s lenses on a vintage Leica, they take it for face value that Leitz was/is better than anything Canon made at that time, but the truth of the matter was the Japanese glass was as good or even better in the 1950`s as the Leitz glass was/is
Yellow and Green filters would improve performance of both lenses for sure as well.......
I even think that the Summicron`s Grandfather the Summar performs better under some circumstances then the Summicron itself
I wish I could do a Summar/Summitar and early Summicron test to see how they all three compare
The Summicron honestly didn`t improve untill the 1970`s - that`s in my personal experience of using them
(I do love my 1992 version - at f16 it is razorblade sharp!)
The "Radioactive" early Cron is a novelty and more "hype" then it really was.....
The Canon f1.8 is a real beauty and also a talked down lens just as the Summar from Leitz was/is, but many new photographers are finding there was a reason that so many good photos were taken in Japan and Korea by the GI`s in the 1950`s while the f1.8 was the standard lens that Canon built it`s empire on
Happy Shooting!
Tom
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
To be honest I'm not sure how much of a difference a hood would really make, since the source of the flare is in the frame 100%. Hoods obviously don't protect against this, only against stray light coming in from the side.
ferider
Veteran
Thanks for doing that test.
I am not a Leitz lens fanatic - I love my Canon lenses.
But those Summicron pictures don't look right. Check against haze
and for proper collimation.
Best,
Roland.
I am not a Leitz lens fanatic - I love my Canon lenses.
But those Summicron pictures don't look right. Check against haze
and for proper collimation.
Best,
Roland.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
As Roland says. I used a Serenar 50/1.8 for 17 years and was entirely satisfied with it. I had the round hood made for it. There was also a rectangular one, I believe.
Morca007
Matt
Very nice little test, showed the differences well.
The cron certainly bleeds the light, while the serenar looks much more modern.
The cron certainly bleeds the light, while the serenar looks much more modern.
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
I bet the cron has internal haze. A hood would not make any difference here. Both lenses seem more or less equally sharp, but that doesn't surprise me at this F. Anyhow, the Serenar is widely recognized as a very capable lens!