50mm Summitar f/2 vs. Summicron f/2 vs. Summarit f/1.5

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Can anyone tell me a bit about the differences among these collapsible lenses, in terms of contrast, color rendering, sharpness, handling, and price?

 

[xayraa33]

remember, the Summarit does not collapse.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

ah, OK, sorry!

 

[retnull]

SummiTAR does collapse.
Very often confused with the SummaRIT (which does not).

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Summitar: early version of the Summicron (or maybe a developmental step on the way to the Summicron). A real sleeper of a lens - wide open great for portraits and not clinically sharp although by f:4 its pretty sharp. Collapsible, light (for a lens made of brass), no click stops. Color palette is lower contrast. Screw mount - needs an adapter for an M-camera. Sherry Krauter was advocating for this lens at one point. Single-coated? Compare to a Summar (even earlier version collapsible f:2 lens - I prefer the Summitar). Should be dymo-taped in its open position for use on CL, M5, M8.

Summarit -- more in the Xenon-Summilux family line. Faster (f:1.5) - when that was as fast as consumer lenses went. Also single coated and fairly low contrast. Soft coatings easily scratched. Non-liner click-stops. Oddball filter thread. Non collapsible, heavier than the Summitar. This was my first Leica lens and I've always regretted selling it. With this and the Summitar, you really want to personally inspect the lenses before purchase because at this point they are all over 50 years old -- many have "cleaning marks" which will lower the already-low contrast. They can be polished and re-coated by John van Stelton, but that adds a couple of hundred bucks to the price of the lens. I loved the picture quality of this lens. I was coming to it from then-modern Nikon and Pentax glass and I always thought the lens had a 50's look to it -- like you could bottle Rat-Pack cool and market it. Tendency to flare - original hood prohibitively expensive to non-collectors, IMHO, but the odd-ball 40.5 filter thread makes aftermarket hoods difficult to find too. Comes in M-mount and screw-mount.

Summicron. Available in several flavors including collapsible- I don't know them all. But I do own a chrome, DR and 80's black tabbed version of this lens. Earlier versions often need a cleaning to return the "snap" to their images. My sense is that the collapsible Summicron has sliiightly less IQ than the rigid, as you can develop play in the brass barrell in 50 years of use. The rigid is generally, my favorite 50 of all time (on even days -- on odd days it is the modern Summilux Asph), sharp, smooth, contrasty, multi-coated, incredibly well-corrected. I use mine open all the time. The lens-testers will tell you that contrast and sharpness improve between f:2 and f:4. Me: I can't see it. F:2 and be there. Click stops. Standard 39mm filters on all versions, as far as I know. Easier to find shades. Generally M-mount only, although there were some LTM versions floating around. Cost: 2x-3x as much as the other two and worth every penny.

On prices, I don't have anything to say. Look at Sam Soshan, Tamarkin, KEH, B&H to get a feel. If I could only have one lens, it would be my 80's tabbed 50 Summicron, but the others have a distinct look to them, which may be what you are after, for all I know. For example: one of my favorite pictures I've taken in the last 10 years was at a wedding - bride and two friends sitting on a couch and lots of light coming in from tall windows on either side of the couch. Lens was a 35 Summaron, which flared all over the damn place. BUT the image had this timeless from-when-your-grandparents-were-cool feeling to it that was just right for this particular bride.

 

[Austerby]

Top quality Summarits seem to go for around £200 on auction sites, Summitars around £150 or lower - I paid around those levels for mine within the last couple of years. I paid £300 for an 80's tabbed summicron, my collapsible one came attached to my M3 but I'd guess at £200 for a good one, if not more. Unfortunately mine's not a good one but it does produce lovely soft portraits with a retro look. I'd agree with many of Benjamin Mark's comments on the comparative attributes of each lens.

 

[payasam]

You might like to search on RFF and on the Internet as a whole. Plenty of information.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Excellent, thank you, Benjamin! How does the DR Summicron compare to the non-DR rigid version?

 

[jarski]

Should be dymo-taped in its open position for use on CL, M5, M8.

does M8 suffer this even with collapsible 50's, or even M5 😕

I could understand collapsible tele's, such as Elmar 90 might stick back too long into the body, but never heard that 50's too..

 

[projectbluebird]

Excellent, thank you, Benjamin! How does the DR Summicron compare to the non-DR rigid version?

I understand that the optics are exactly the same, but if you don't need the close focusing feature, the non DR (of the same vintage) looks a bit nicer on the camera.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Excellent, thank you, Benjamin! How does the DR Summicron compare to the non-DR rigid version?

They are supposed to be the same design. I heard somewhere that the DRs were cherry picked for being particularly well-corrected and hence well suited for close-up work with the eyes attached, but this is urban legend, as far as I know. The DRs without eyes have that flat mounting plate on the top of the lens where the "eyes" slide on. Doesn't bother me and I love the images that both lenses produce. Both types of lenses have a lens head where the optical elements are located and a helical, which can be separated by simply unscrewing them. The two pieces should have the same serial number to ensure you are not getting the helical from one lens and the lens group from another. More urban legend: these pieces with matching serial numbers were supposedly matched at the factory and adjusted there for best performance. Kind of like Hassie backs and their dedicated inserts.

Whatever you decide to get, make sure you get a "test-and-return" privilege. My DR, which seemed like a fabulous deal when I bought it, really needed a CLA (actually vignetted at wide apertures due to internal deposits on the lens). I had the lens fixed and kept it as the price of the CLA, when added to the price I paid to purchase the lens, resulted in then-market price for his type of lens, more or less. I took the view that the seller had, in fact, marked down the price of the lens to account for a CLA.


Best regards,

Ben Marks

 

[John Shriver]

DR's were only cherry-picked for focal length. The DR mount was made for only the design focal length, lenses that came out a little to long or short in focal length were used in rigid mounts, which were made for varying focal lengths.

 

[Ronald M]

John is correct. DR are exactly 51.9 or so and mounts match. Rigids are anywhere in the tolerence range and are mated to specific mounts for that length. Quality wise, they are the same lens.

What nobody has said is there are both early and late versions of DR/Rigid. The early was closer to the collapsible, had heavy chrome plating, and a different focus ring.

Later ones were satin chrome.

 

[Nando]

I have a Summitar, a Summarit, a Summicron I and a DR Summicron II. Of all of them, I like the Summitar the best. Although the DR Summicron is probably technically superior to any of the other lenses, there is something about the way that the Summitar renders wide-open that I find very nice. Tones are always beautiful. The nagging thing about the Summitar is the non-standard filter thread. It drove me nuts. The best solution I found was to use the e39 adapter from SK Grimes. Leica made one too (SCHNOO) but it is too rare and expensive, often costing more than the lens itself.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I knew we'd get the straight poop sooner or later. - Ben ;-)

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I have a Summitar, a Summarit, a Summicron I and a DR Summicron II. Of all of them, I like the Summitar the best. Although the DR Summicron is probably technically superior to any of the other lenses, there is something about the way that the Summitar renders wide-open that I find very nice. Tones are always beautiful. The nagging thing about the Summitar is the non-standard filter thread. It drove me nuts. The best solution I found was to use the e39 adapter from SK Grimes. Leica made one too (SCHNOO) but it is too rare and expensive, often costing more than the lens itself.

Thanks for recommending a lens I can actually afford to own...

 

[bean_counter]

The nagging thing about the Summitar is the non-standard filter thread. It drove me nuts. The best solution I found was to use the e39 adapter from SK Grimes. Leica made one too (SCHNOO) but it is too rare and expensive, often costing more than the lens itself.

the poor man's solution is to find an early(?) Summitar filter, with the glass held in by a black 'beauty' ring, which may be unscrewed. ring is the standard 39mm thread 😎

barn door shade won't fit anymore, tho, which is a shame, as it is very effective

 

[Nando]

the poor man's solution is to find an early(?) Summitar filter, with the glass held in by a black 'beauty' ring, which may be unscrewed. ring is the standard 39mm thread 😎

barn door shade won't fit anymore, tho, which is a shame, as it is very effective

That's the first time I heard of that one!

There was someone on LuF that transferred glass from new e39 Heliopan UV/IR filter to the ring of an old Leitz Summitar filter. The Leitz Summitar filter had the retaining ring. The key is to find one. I found that most Summitar filters do not have the retaining ring. I did try it and everything was going smoothly until I went to remove the glass from the Heliopan UV filter I purchased. I could not get the glass out of the Heliopan UV filter even after removing its retaining ring. I gave up that idea.

Also tried the Series VI adapter. It works well but it makes the lens really bulky. The adapter is huge!

The SK Grimes adapter is nice. It's only $64 and it doesn't increase the size of the lens that much. It makes it about the same size as the collapsible Summicron. It works perfectly with the 12585 hood. In fact, the hood fits more snuggly with the adapter. It was a bit loose before as my 1946 Summitar doesn't have the correct groove for the hood. I think that the later ones do. I haven't tried the barn yard door hood with the SK Grimes adapter yet. I don't normally use that hood with the lens. It is very effective but I find it ugly.

 

[Nando]

Thanks for recommending a lens I can actually afford to own...

Your welcome. 😀

I should have also mentioned that I haven't really used my Summarit that much. My example seems to have a stuck aperture blade and I'm afraid to use it in case I damage it further. The aperture closes down but one aperture blade seems to stay put. The aperture doesn't open up all the way either - it gets stuck between f2 and f1.5. I've only shot two or three rolls with it. I'll send it for repair eventually. I do like what I've seen from the Summarit. If you want "Leica Glow", the Summarit will give it to you! However, I still prefer the Summitar's look and also its handling. The focusing ring of the Summarit has a very long throw and the lens is quite heavy. The Summitar is light and snappy.

 

[Nando]

I knew we'd get the straight poop sooner or later. - Ben ;-)

I guess. 😀 My preferences aren't based on anything scientific. I often find it really difficult to explain why I like one lens over another.

I like how you mentioned the Rat Pack in one of your previous posts. I have the same feeling and in fact, I named my Summitar Dino after Dean Martin. 🙂