Adrian Nasti
Adrian N
Greetings all - this is my first post to RFF (so be gentle!) Compliments though to a great resource and community.
I wanted to kick things off with some thoughts on the above two lenses.
I originally owned the ASPH some years ago but sold my M system (a stupid idea). Last year I decided to get back into film M's and wanted to own a 35 prime again, but was shocked at how much new ASPH's were going for. I then looked at the Summarit.
I did a fair bit of research on both lenses and after some consideration bought the Summarit. I decided on this lens because the extra stop of the ASPH did not seem to justify the cost over the Summarit. The E Puts review also seemed to suggest that there was little difference between the two lenses.
Having owned both lenses now, I can honestly say that there was something lacking in the Summarit. I lived with it for months but the images I produced with it never grabbed me (it may have been the images themselves of course but I was never that impressed with the performance of the lens).
To cut a long story short, as I had originally owned the ASPH some years ago and produced consistently good pictures with that lens, the Summarit somehow did not have the same impact. I have now settled on a ASPH and can't be happier.
I get the impression that the Summarit line has not been that successful for Leica (this is pure speculation of course but what the heck). The other factor that swayed me away from the Summarit was that the lens, although very well made, somehow did not have the clout of the ASPH in terms of build.
Anyone have a similar experience with the Summarit line?
I wanted to kick things off with some thoughts on the above two lenses.
I originally owned the ASPH some years ago but sold my M system (a stupid idea). Last year I decided to get back into film M's and wanted to own a 35 prime again, but was shocked at how much new ASPH's were going for. I then looked at the Summarit.
I did a fair bit of research on both lenses and after some consideration bought the Summarit. I decided on this lens because the extra stop of the ASPH did not seem to justify the cost over the Summarit. The E Puts review also seemed to suggest that there was little difference between the two lenses.
Having owned both lenses now, I can honestly say that there was something lacking in the Summarit. I lived with it for months but the images I produced with it never grabbed me (it may have been the images themselves of course but I was never that impressed with the performance of the lens).
To cut a long story short, as I had originally owned the ASPH some years ago and produced consistently good pictures with that lens, the Summarit somehow did not have the same impact. I have now settled on a ASPH and can't be happier.
I get the impression that the Summarit line has not been that successful for Leica (this is pure speculation of course but what the heck). The other factor that swayed me away from the Summarit was that the lens, although very well made, somehow did not have the clout of the ASPH in terms of build.
Anyone have a similar experience with the Summarit line?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Never owned either, but there have been many complaints about the Summicron ASPH being glued together, and the lens hood sitting at a cockeyed angle on the lens. Most people report fine performance with the Summicron; but the build quality doesn't sound like anything to write home about.
J. Borger
Well-known
I never liked the 35 summicron asph and realy prefered the summarit.
The summarit has lower contrast which i consider a virtue. I loved it;s creamy files, especially for B&W.
In the end i am back to the summicron type IV and prefer that lens to both: the summarit and the asph summicron. At least the copy of it i own now (i used to have a copy which was not very good at all)
It's all very personal in the end because all these lenses are extremely good!
Yes the summarit line is perhaps not very succesful. But in my opinion the line is very underrated! I can't say build quality is far behind the asph. A tad yes .. but not far
The summarit has lower contrast which i consider a virtue. I loved it;s creamy files, especially for B&W.
In the end i am back to the summicron type IV and prefer that lens to both: the summarit and the asph summicron. At least the copy of it i own now (i used to have a copy which was not very good at all)
It's all very personal in the end because all these lenses are extremely good!
Yes the summarit line is perhaps not very succesful. But in my opinion the line is very underrated! I can't say build quality is far behind the asph. A tad yes .. but not far
J. Borger
Well-known
Adrian Nasti
Adrian N
When I refer to the summarit - I am of course referring to the recent addition to the Leica lens lineup not the original lenses from years ago
Richard G
Veteran
I have been considering the 50mm Summarit, a staggering 11mm shorter than my Summicron. But I am happy with my Summicrons, tabbed 50 and pre-ASPH (IV) 35. The only build issue with mine was feeling a rattle in it and finding that all of the mount screws were loose. Cripes. Tightened them a couple of months ago and no problem.
J. Borger
Well-known
That was very clear from the begining. I am referring to the new lens!
horosu
Well-known
I have the Summilux ASPH and while very satisfied with it was looking for something lighter for hiking and traveling, so I settled on the Summarit, based on its excellent reviews, the fact that it's coded (I plan the purchase the next M digital) and that's it's available. I haven't recevied it yet, but I will report feedback as soon as I will.
I also had the Summicron ASPH and the Zeiss Biogon and of the two vastly preferred the Biogon: it had a high resolution without being overly harsh in contrast to the ASPH.
I also had the Summicron ASPH and the Zeiss Biogon and of the two vastly preferred the Biogon: it had a high resolution without being overly harsh in contrast to the ASPH.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Can you provide some facts to back up your claim? Warranty data, etc? Since you never owned either either lens why repeat internet hearsay which is worthless? I own a Summicron ASPH and the mechanical and optical build quality are both superb.
Jim B.
notturtle
Well-known
I think the V4 was the one with the glue issue. The asph has no such problems as far as I am aware.
Adrian, are you shooting mono film, colour slide, digital? I personally shoot the ZM line and could not be happier. If I was to delve into Leica, the 35 summarit would likely be a contender with the new 24 3.8. The majority of the asphs are too expensive for me. In many respects the ZMs combine the best of the asphs and pre-asphs..... very high resolution across the frame with wonderful tonal smoothness if thats your bag.
Adrian, are you shooting mono film, colour slide, digital? I personally shoot the ZM line and could not be happier. If I was to delve into Leica, the 35 summarit would likely be a contender with the new 24 3.8. The majority of the asphs are too expensive for me. In many respects the ZMs combine the best of the asphs and pre-asphs..... very high resolution across the frame with wonderful tonal smoothness if thats your bag.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
The 35mm Summilux ASPH gave me what I was looking for in a lens after shooting with Cron III and Cron IV. Besides the extra stop, it provided a pop to my fotos that were lacking in the other lenses.
Adrian Nasti
Adrian N
Notturtle,
I shoot mainly slide and B&W and agree with your assessment of the ZM lenses. I own the Planar 50/2 and am very impressed..incredibly sharp but not too much contrast
I shoot mainly slide and B&W and agree with your assessment of the ZM lenses. I own the Planar 50/2 and am very impressed..incredibly sharp but not too much contrast