Marsopa
Well-known
Hi:
I have been offered one of the mentioned lenses priced more or less in the same range (being the summarit cheaper). I've read a lot about the summarit (a recent thread has encouraged me) but nothing about the Nikkor so I'm doing some searching work.... just a couple of questions... does the nikkor has such a strong character as the summarit? is normal that the price is higher for nikkor being the two lenses in the same condition? How much would you price them being a 8.5-8 over 10 with respect optics and general condition?
Thanks and bests
Juan Luis
I have been offered one of the mentioned lenses priced more or less in the same range (being the summarit cheaper). I've read a lot about the summarit (a recent thread has encouraged me) but nothing about the Nikkor so I'm doing some searching work.... just a couple of questions... does the nikkor has such a strong character as the summarit? is normal that the price is higher for nikkor being the two lenses in the same condition? How much would you price them being a 8.5-8 over 10 with respect optics and general condition?
Thanks and bests
Juan Luis
ferider
Veteran
Hi Juan,
the Summarit has quite pronounced comatic aberation. Gives it a very distinguished look, somehow like the Noctilux - some like that, I don't. I prefer the Nikkor. Great wide open (a Sonnar and it shows) and sharp close down. Plus it can be modified to focus down to .7m. Smaller, too, very well built, and filters (43mm) are easier to get.
A good Summarit should cost around US 200-250. A good Nikkor around US 300 - 350.
Best,
Roland.
the Summarit has quite pronounced comatic aberation. Gives it a very distinguished look, somehow like the Noctilux - some like that, I don't. I prefer the Nikkor. Great wide open (a Sonnar and it shows) and sharp close down. Plus it can be modified to focus down to .7m. Smaller, too, very well built, and filters (43mm) are easier to get.
A good Summarit should cost around US 200-250. A good Nikkor around US 300 - 350.
Best,
Roland.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I also give a nod to the Nikkor 5cm f1.4
it is one of the best of all the speed lenses of the 1950s
it is one of the best of all the speed lenses of the 1950s
jmkelly
rangefinder user
No, the character of the Nikkor is not as pronounced as that of the Summarit, for the reason Roland cited. The price differential might be simply due to demand, or it might be that the Nikkors have generally held up better than the Summarits. I have had three Summarits and five Nikkors. All three Summarits needed CLA's, and only one of the Nikkors. I think that there are fundamental differences in the wear and tear between a Summarit and a Nikkor both described as 8/10.
Hacker
黑客
The Summarits seem to often come with fog (not sure why), and they come in both the LTM and M-mounts. The M-mounts are slightly more expensive.
dave lackey
Veteran
Juan,
It depends on what you want from your images. I dearly love the Summarit as it has a character that I can find nowhere else. It renders my images in a vintage sort of way.
I used the Nikkor Millenium 50mm 1.4 lens for a year prior to getting the M3 and the Summarit. So far, all of my images, except one have been eclipsed by the Summarit.
It really depends on what you are looking for. I just never did bond with the S3 2000 and the Millenium lens. It did produce my single most-favorite image so far but the Summarit has the potential for far better results because of the character I am looking for...
Either way, they are both fun to use.
Good luck,
It depends on what you want from your images. I dearly love the Summarit as it has a character that I can find nowhere else. It renders my images in a vintage sort of way.
I used the Nikkor Millenium 50mm 1.4 lens for a year prior to getting the M3 and the Summarit. So far, all of my images, except one have been eclipsed by the Summarit.
It really depends on what you are looking for. I just never did bond with the S3 2000 and the Millenium lens. It did produce my single most-favorite image so far but the Summarit has the potential for far better results because of the character I am looking for...
Either way, they are both fun to use.
Good luck,
ferider
Veteran
For clarification, Juan: Rotoloni distinguishes between 3 version of the Nikkor
1) Early lenses "Made in Tokyo": this includes the so-called 5005 series.
2) Later classic lenses "Made in Japan"
3) The new Millenium lens Dave mentions.
1) is the best portrait 50mm lens I know. It has very nice bokeh. But it is quite rare
2) is very nice, with a bit harsher bokeh wide open; but more resolution
3) is very high performing, in the same league as the Summilux ASPH, IMO. But (much) more expensive, and only usable on Leicas with S/M mount adapters.
Best,
Roland.
1) Early lenses "Made in Tokyo": this includes the so-called 5005 series.
2) Later classic lenses "Made in Japan"
3) The new Millenium lens Dave mentions.
1) is the best portrait 50mm lens I know. It has very nice bokeh. But it is quite rare
2) is very nice, with a bit harsher bokeh wide open; but more resolution
3) is very high performing, in the same league as the Summilux ASPH, IMO. But (much) more expensive, and only usable on Leicas with S/M mount adapters.
Best,
Roland.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Yes, that has been a problem with every Summarit I have seen. I have understood that the lubricant Leica used on the focus helical was volatile over the long haul, but who knows? Another issue is damage to the drip coating, and other cleaning marks; though neither seriously degrades lens performance, people are inclined to pay less for lenses showing this kind of damage.
John Shriver
Well-known
Very different lenses. Leica would have liked to make a lens like the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5, but Zeiss had the patent on that design. So Leitz had to license a design from TT&H, which became the Xenon, and then was the Summarit when coated. After WW-II, when the German patents were all voided as a reparation, Nikon (Nippon Kogaku) could clone, and then improve, on the Sonnar design. They first made a 50/1.5 copy, then they improved it to the 50/1.4.
The Sonnar design has vastly less air-glass surfaces, and thus much higher contrast and lower flare.
The Summarit is a more dreamy lens wide open. The Nikkor holds contrast wide open, and it optimized for close distances. The Nikkor is sharp in the middle, but the Sonnar design so gracefully falls off in sharpness towards the corners wide-open. Nikon focused more on contrast, Leitz (at this time) more on sharpness.
The Sonnar was a pain to manufacture, the three element group in the back, with steep curves, is very hard to manufacture and glue up properly. It was expensive from Zeiss, it was expensive from Nikon, and it was expensive in Canon's 50/1.5 version.
The Sonnar design has vastly less air-glass surfaces, and thus much higher contrast and lower flare.
The Summarit is a more dreamy lens wide open. The Nikkor holds contrast wide open, and it optimized for close distances. The Nikkor is sharp in the middle, but the Sonnar design so gracefully falls off in sharpness towards the corners wide-open. Nikon focused more on contrast, Leitz (at this time) more on sharpness.
The Sonnar was a pain to manufacture, the three element group in the back, with steep curves, is very hard to manufacture and glue up properly. It was expensive from Zeiss, it was expensive from Nikon, and it was expensive in Canon's 50/1.5 version.
raid
Dad Photographer
If the 50mm 1.4 Nikkor LTM sells for $300-$350, does the 50mm 2.0 Nikkor LTM sell for $250? I sold mine for $275, I think.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Yeah Raid, $275 is a good price for the HC F2.0 Nikkor, I sold the earlier "Tokyo" one for like $295 last year, when I found a minty 57' one on my Tower 35, for the same price camera and all TOGETHER for under $300
Juan,
Hmmm Summarit vs. Nikkor, well the Summarit is for that vintage "LEICA GLOW" look mostly all have ~FOG~ YUCK! - but nothing a CLA can`t handle, look out for cleaning marks due to the soft front element glass......these lenses really do give that CLASSIC Leica magazine look of the 1950`s, and REALLY GOOD FOR SHOOTING WOMEN`S PORTRAITS!!!! , and sexy "dreamy" colorful stuff.
The Nikkor well it`s how much you love the "Sonnar" look that counts here, crisp sharp photos and it has that really nice close up feature (which I can never figure out how to do correctly! - all my pics turn out blurry
) they have a robust glass coating and very good overall look on finished photos.......the "TOKYO" version is a BETTER performer in my book, but sadly is pretty rare.Tough choice, I use BOTH lenses very very often in the work I do, so I don`t want to pick one over the other.....I say if you can afford it BUY BOTH!!!
Tom
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
At the time, the Nikkor was considered superior to the Summarit. High sales of Nikkors to Leica owners established the Nikon reputation as a maker of high quality modern lenses.
For that reason, someone seeking a more distinctive lens with vintage qualities may well prefer the Summarit. The Nikkor has a few idiosyncracies at wide appertures. By f/2.8 and f/4, it is often indistinguishable from a modern lens by all but a small group of specialists. In the widely used f.2.8 to f/5.6 range, the out-of-focus backgrounds can have distracting effects -- doubled lines and an overall "harsh" character that is a side-effect of the decision to make the lens both sharp and contrasty.
For that reason, someone seeking a more distinctive lens with vintage qualities may well prefer the Summarit. The Nikkor has a few idiosyncracies at wide appertures. By f/2.8 and f/4, it is often indistinguishable from a modern lens by all but a small group of specialists. In the widely used f.2.8 to f/5.6 range, the out-of-focus backgrounds can have distracting effects -- doubled lines and an overall "harsh" character that is a side-effect of the decision to make the lens both sharp and contrasty.