50/2 Summar vs 50/2 Summitar?

[Bosk]

I'm a little confused as to the differences between these two LTM lenses, both of them being 50/2 and collapsible.

Would anyone be able to fill me in on which is the better performer please?

 

[OldNick]

While I have never used the Summar, most results, even from a very clean lens, are softer than I like, from examples that I have seen posted. I use a Summitar which delivers very good results, though not as sharp and contrasty as the latest Leica lenses. Some say the Summitar is close to the early Summicron which followed it. It is definitely a better choice than the 50mm f/1.5 Summarit. I had one of those and swapped it for the Summitar.

Jim N.

 

[colyn]

I'm a little confused as to the differences between these two LTM lenses, both of them being 50/2 and collapsible.

Would anyone be able to fill me in on which is the better performer please?

The Summar is a pre-war lens that was never coated while the later (post war) Summitar was coated.
The Summar had a front element made of soft glass which in most examples is badly scratched.

 

[colyn]

It is definitely a better choice than the 50mm f/1.5 Summarit. I had one of those and swapped it for the Summitar.

Jim N.

What did you not like about the Summarit?

I just recently got one and find it to be an excellent lens. It does however flare without a hood but with its original hood I have been unable to detect any difference between it and the Summitar or Summicron.

 

[xayraa33]

the Summar is an earlier lens than the Summitar. both of a Gauss design , but the Summitar was much improved.the Summar was made until 1939/40.
The Summitar was made during the war and up to the early 1950s.
the Summar was not factory coated, although some were later coated if sent bact to Leitz or any seperate company that did coating.
this lens used the old european f number sequence.
the early Summitars were not coated, but the later ones were.
the early ones also used the european f number seq. but used the modern f number seq. after the war. some examples of the Summitar have a hex shaped aperture leave opening like the Summar, and others use a circular opening.

 

[Harry Lime]

The Summar was Leica's first high-speed lens, introduced in the mid 1930's. Up until it's introduction the fatest 50mm lenses that Leica made were the Elmar3.5/50 and Hektor 2.5/50.

The Summar has quite high resolution, but fairly low contrast and it is prone to flare. It has a unique look in the Leica lineup and really shines for black and white work, if you are looking for that period look. It can produce very beautiful results.

From the factory the Summar came uncoated, but you may encounter coated examples that were later 'upgraded' . There also is a rigid version, but it is very rare and expensive. The front element is very soft and it is close to impossible to find a mint example.

The Summitar followed the Summar, just before the outbreak of the war and in technical terms is the better performer. The Summitar performs a notch below the collapsible Summicron. Coated Summitars were restricted to the German Armed forces during the war, but it is not uncommon to find these. It's a good lens if you are looking for a period look. It does not perform at the level of a modern lens.

 

[Bosk]

Thanks very much for your replies guys. 🙂


I'm debating buying an LTM 50 of some sort and the Summitar sounds like a good, but not great option.
Perhaps I should simply spend more and buy an early Summicron. They seem to be usually at least double the price of a Summitar, I wonder if I'd really notice the difference as I rarely print and mainly view my images on the PC.

In any case I do want to get my hands on a collapsible lens one of these days, there's something about them that screams 'vintage' like the M bodies themselves.

 

[Dralowid]

The Summar, though an old friend will never stand up to the Summitar which is useable and consistent.

Hwever, do not forget the slower Elmar, either 3.5 or 2.8. Both produce excellent results for the minimum outlay (well at least the 3.5 is not expensive).

And surely the collapsible 3.5 Elmar is about as 'Leica' as it gets!

Michael

 

[Dingo]

Haven't met a Summar before, but still own one Summitar, a cheap choice of Leica I believe. This is a recent shot with a Fed 1, f/2.8 1/30. I like how it bokehs the background in some kind of circles, makes you dizzy.

 

[harry01562]

Haven't met a Summar before, but still own one Summitar, a cheap choice of Leica I believe. This is a recent shot with a Fed 1, f/2.8 1/30. I like how it bokehs the background in some kind of circles, makes you dizzy.

Nice shot, and very seasonal :angel:

An excellent example of how atmospheric the Summitar can be, and why so many of us still like to shoot one. I also like the Summar, when I'm looking for a vintage look, and for any B&W work. If you have the funds, try one of these older lenses, and see if you like the effect. I doubt that you would lose much on a resale, if you didn't enjoy using the lens. The main thing is the amount of lens wear on the front element. A nice one will cost more, but may be worth it to many users.

Harry

 

[jkelly]

In low light, the Summar can display low contrast, but in daylight it's excellent. Just watch out for flare. The Summitar, as others have noted, is an excellent all-around performer. Below are a Summar shot (B&W), and a Summitar shot (color).

 

[raid]

Here are photos taken with my clean Summar.
I may lost it or it was stolen. I may need another one ....



http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=606483

Raid

 

[OldNick]

What did you not like about the Summarit?

I just recently got one and find it to be an excellent lens. It does however flare without a hood but with its original hood I have been unable to detect any difference between it and the Summitar or Summicron.

The Summarit that I had may have been a bad example, but it had mechanical problems in addition to being extremely soft wide open. To create the lens barrel assembly, Leitz had very little space to take care of the aperture mechanism and my example was badly worn. Good luck with yours.

Jim N.

 

[like2fiddle]

I'm a little confused as to the differences between these two LTM lenses, both of them being 50/2 and collapsible.

Would anyone be able to fill me in on which is the better performer please?

I have never used a Summar, but I have a Summitar and it has multiple personalities, which I like. Wide open quite soft, almost dreamy, and closed down fairly sharp with decent contrast. Two examples of what I mean:

 

[johne]

For three test shots with my Summitar recently reworked by Sherry Krauter, see the following site:
www.gallery.swannsway.ch
Under johne

 

[colyn]

The Summarit that I had may have been a bad example, but it had mechanical problems in addition to being extremely soft wide open. To create the lens barrel assembly, Leitz had very little space to take care of the aperture mechanism and my example was badly worn. Good luck with yours.

Jim N.

Mine doesn't appear to have been used much.
Wide open it is slightly soft which is a trademark of this lens but stopped down to f/4 it sharpens up and the contrast is anything but low.

 

[johne]

Note: the third pic of mine mentioned above seems quite sharp at f2. Just a comment.
Johnehttp://www.gallery.swannsway.ch