90mm Tele Elmarit vs Summarit?

[analogpics]

Hey friends, so I picked up a *like new* 90mm Tele Elmarit on eBay last week. It really looks like no one's ever shot with it, but, I set up my M10 on a tripod and tested it on a focus chart (and went to the Leica Store here in LA and had them test it too) and it looks like it's front focusing quite a bit.

So I'm contemplating either returning it, or getting it calibrated up to spec for my modern digital M bodies, but I've heard that can introduce other problems like back focusing when its stopped down or being soft when shot at infinity.

If I return it, I'd probably pick up the more modern 90mm Summarit 2.5 which hopefully I wouldn't have any focus issues with (?) Seems like it's not much larger/heavier than the Tele Elmarit.

I currently also have a 9cm Elmar f4, so ideally sticking with something 2.8 or faster, but if there's any other options i should consider, let me know 🙂 Thanks in advance!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have a Summarit-M 90mm f2.5 and it front focuses very slightly wide open, with the focus shifting backward as you stop down. At f4 it's perfect.

Most rangefinder lenses have some focus shift like that. Does yours front-focus at all apertures or just wide open?

I like my Summarit; it is VERY sharp and has nice bokeh. It's a little bigger than a Tele-Elmarit but is also half a stop faster.

 

[analogpics]

I have a Summarit-M 90mm f2.5 and it front focuses very slightly wide open, with the focus shifting backward as you stop down. At f4 it's perfect.

Most rangefinder lenses have some focus shift like that. Does yours front-focus at all apertures or just wide open?

I like my Summarit; it is VERY sharp and has nice bokeh. It's a little bigger than a Tele-Elmarit but is also half a stop faster.

Hey Chris! Yeah, the focus shift is most obvious at 2.8-4. Steve Huff's review of the summarit sounds pretty great and he mentioned how he's never had any focus issues with any of the summarit line (i have the 50 and no probs here).

In the comments, someone said they sent their tele-elmarit and m9 to leica, and still have issues with focus.

May also consider the Elmarit-M f/2.8 though it is noticeably larger/heavier...but the summarit seems like it may be a better fit for me, though I'm not gonna lie, not a huge fan of the rubber focus ring, but i know i'm just being petty lol 😛

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Hey Chris! Yeah, the focus shift is most obvious at 2.8-4. Steve Huff's review of the summarit sounds pretty great and he mentioned how he's never had any focus issues with any of the summarit line (i have the 50 and no probs here).

In the comments, someone said they sent their tele-elmarit and m9 to leica, and still have issues with focus.

May also consider the Elmarit-M f/2.8 though it is noticeably larger/heavier...but the summarit seems like it may be a better fit for me, though I'm not gonna lie, not a huge fan of the rubber focus ring, but i know i'm just being petty lol 😛

I like the Summarit lenses a lot; optically they're incredible, and they are a lot less expensive than the equivalent Summicron or Elmarit lenses are.

I have the 90mm f2.5 and the 50mm f2.4; and I want to get the 35mm Summarit but I haven't found a good one I could afford yet. I bought and returned two of them last month. One was decentered (one side of the photos was sharp, the other side soft) and the other had a wobbly lens barrel.

I ended up spending the money on a nice M2 body to go along with my M3. I love the M3 but using it was a 35mm lens is a pain; I like the 35mm framelines in the M2. Now I have to save some money again to get the 35mm Summarit.

I have a 35mm f3.5 Summaron and a 35mm f2 Canon (both LTM, used with adapters on my M bodies) that I can use while I wait. They're both very sharp lenses; the reason I want the Summarit is mostly ergonomics. I like lenses with focusing tabs, which the Canon doesn't have. The Summaron has a metal knob, which I don't like as much as a focusing tab, and the lens is so tiny that setting the aperture is a pain.

I bought a 7artisans stick-on focusing tab from B&H for $7 to see if it would fit my 90mm Summarit-M, and it works perfectly!

 

[analogpics]

I like the Summarit lenses a lot; optically they're incredible, and they are a lot less expensive than the equivalent Summicron or Elmarit lenses are.

I have the 90mm f2.5 and the 50mm f2.4; and I want to get the 35mm Summarit but I haven't found a good one I could afford yet. I bought and returned two of them last month. One was decentered (one side of the photos was sharp, the other side soft) and the other had a wobbly lens barrel.

I ended up spending the money on a nice M2 body to go along with my M3. I love the M3 but using it was a 35mm lens is a pain; I like the 35mm framelines in the M2. Now I have to save some money again to get the 35mm Summarit.

I have a 35mm f3.5 Summaron and a 35mm f2 Canon (both LTM, used with adapters on my M bodies) that I can use while I wait. They're both very sharp lenses; the reason I want the Summarit is mostly ergonomics. I like lenses with focusing tabs, which the Canon doesn't have. The Summaron has a metal knob, which I don't like as much as a focusing tab, and the lens is so tiny that setting the aperture is a pain.

I bought a 7artisans stick-on focusing tab from B&H for $7 to see if it would fit my 90mm Summarit-M, and it works perfectly!

Hey Chris, yeah i'm starting to lean towards that summarit since i dunno if there's anything i can do with the 90 tele elmarit, though i really like the size/weight/ergonomics...

I do have the 50 summarit 2.5 currently, though, unlike yourself, i prefer focusing with the lens barrel vs a tab so looking at other 50 options (leaning to the new voigtlander 50 1.5 ii, but that's another thread i have going lol) Interesting to hear about the decentering on the 35 summarits...i wonder if the QC is a bit more lax with the summarit line?

Oof, i really wanted an m2 for several months, but decided i'm good with the m4 for the time being.

I actually really like the Canon 35 f2, only reason i dont use it more is my copy does exhibit front focusing as well (and i do like having 0.7 min focus vs the 1m of the canon). Have you tried the 35mm cv color skopar? That lens is actually pretty great for it's price, super compact/sharp and my copy is bang on with focus.

Anyways, back to the 90mm tele elmarit...yeah the focus point does seem to go back as i stop down (which my nikkor 8.5cm f2 ltm does as well), so does that mean that if i get it calibrated to shoot accurately at 2.8, then it'll back focus as i stop down? I focus tested my 50 summilux wide open at different distances, then ran some tests at f2-5.6 and it's actually pretty spot on through out that range. Hoping i can get a 90 which can perform as well, at least with the focus *fingers crossed*

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Hey Chris, yeah i'm starting to lean towards that summarit since i dunno if there's anything i can do with the 90 tele elmarit, though i really like the size/weight/ergonomics...

I do have the 50 summarit 2.5 currently, though, unlike yourself, i prefer focusing with the lens barrel vs a tab so looking at other 50 options (leaning to the new voigtlander 50 1.5 ii, but that's another thread i have going lol) Interesting to hear about the decentering on the 35 summarits...i wonder if the QC is a bit more lax with the summarit line?

Oof, i really wanted an m2 for several months, but decided i'm good with the m4 for the time being.

I actually really like the Canon 35 f2, only reason i dont use it more is my copy does exhibit front focusing as well (and i do like having 0.7 min focus vs the 1m of the canon). Have you tried the 35mm cv color skopar? That lens is actually pretty great for it's price, super compact/sharp and my copy is bang on with focus.

Anyways, back to the 90mm tele elmarit...yeah the focus point does seem to go back as i stop down (which my nikkor 8.5cm f2 ltm does as well), so does that mean that if i get it calibrated to shoot accurately at 2.8, then it'll back focus as i stop down? I focus tested my 50 summilux wide open at different distances, then ran some tests at f2-5.6 and it's actually pretty spot on through out that range. Hoping i can get a 90 which can perform as well, at least with the focus *fingers crossed*

Years ago, I had a pair of M6 bodies and several lenses. After suffering a stroke in 2013, I had to sell all of it because I needed money. I'd been working as a high school teacher and had to quit because of the stroke. I was a single father raising my son alone and he was about to start college. I didn't want him working as a student, so I put him through school with my income as an artist and by selling off my gear. He graduated last year and quickly got a job making more than I made as a teacher, and he is taking care of me now since I am still in poor health. I've been gradually building back my equipment, and since M6 prices are absurd now, I got the M3 first, then the M2.

Back when I had my original Leica kit, I tried several 35mm lenses. One was the 35mm Color-Skopar. I sold it after a short time. It was very sharp but vignetted terribly and contrast was rather high compared to the Leica lenses I had.

I ended up back then with a 35mm Summicron version IV, the so-called Bokeh King. I REALLY regret having been forced to sell that lens because they're so expensive now that I will never be able to buy another. Little or no vignetting, pleasing image contrast, and sharp! Like the Color-Skopar, it was a tiny lens. The images matched well with those from the 50mm f2 Summicron version IV that I had. I don't miss that lens as much because its image quality is near identical to the 50mm Summarit, though I liked that the Summicron was smaller than the Summarit.

I also had a Zeiss 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon for awhile. It was INCREDIBLY sharp, even wide open; sharper than the 35mm Summicron. I did not like it as much though because, like the Color-Skopar it vignetted badly, even stopped down, and it had harsh, very high image contrast.

I remember shooting a little bit of color negative film with the 35mm Color-Skopar and the Biogon when I had them, and both lenses actually gave very pleasing results in color. I mostly shot B&W (and today I shoot nothing but B&W with film; I use digital for color), and I did not like those lenses in B&W.

 

[analogpics]

Years ago, I had a pair of M6 bodies and several lenses. After suffering a stroke in 2013, I had to sell all of it because I needed money. I'd been working as a high school teacher and had to quit because of the stroke. I was a single father raising my son alone and he was about to start college. I didn't want him working as a student, so I put him through school with my income as an artist and by selling off my gear. He graduated last year and quickly got a job making more than I made as a teacher, and he is taking care of me now since I am still in poor health. I've been gradually building back my equipment, and since M6 prices are absurd now, I got the M3 first, then the M2.

Back when I had my original Leica kit, I tried several 35mm lenses. One was the 35mm Color-Skopar. I sold it after a short time. It was very sharp but vignetted terribly and contrast was rather high compared to the Leica lenses I had.

I ended up back then with a 35mm Summicron version IV, the so-called Bokeh King. I REALLY regret having been forced to sell that lens because they're so expensive now that I will never be able to buy another. Little or no vignetting, pleasing image contrast, and sharp! Like the Color-Skopar, it was a tiny lens. The images matched well with those from the 50mm f2 Summicron version IV that I had. I don't miss that lens as much because its image quality is near identical to the 50mm Summarit, though I liked that the Summicron was smaller than the Summarit.

I also had a Zeiss 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon for awhile. It was INCREDIBLY sharp, even wide open; sharper than the 35mm Summicron. I did not like it as much though because, like the Color-Skopar it vignetted badly, even stopped down, and it had harsh, very high image contrast.

I remember shooting a little bit of color negative film with the 35mm Color-Skopar and the Biogon when I had them, and both lenses actually gave very pleasing results in color. I mostly shot B&W (and today I shoot nothing but B&W with film; I use digital for color), and I did not like those lenses in B&W.

Hey Chris, man, i'm sorry to hear about that. I remember when my grandfather suffered a stroke when i was growing up 🙁

Yes, the prices on the m6 is getting out of hand lately, though i honestly would like to try one (contemplated selling my m5 and CL to go towards it). That 35 cron v4 is great, it was my first leica lens and i also regret selling it, though i love my 35 cron asph that i still have. I also didn't realize the 50 cron v4 is smaller than the summarit! I may have to look into that.

As far as bw, have you tried the collapsible 50 summicron? I use that lens a lot with hp5. Really "gentle?" rendering but still quite sharp.

Anyways, back to the 90 tele-elmarit...i'm sending it back and going to snag a 90 summarit i believe. Trying to see the differences between the older 2.5 vs the 2.4. All i saw is the min focus distance went from 1meter to 0.9 meter

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Hey Chris, man, i'm sorry to hear about that. I remember when my grandfather suffered a stroke when i was growing up 🙁

Yes, the prices on the m6 is getting out of hand lately, though i honestly would like to try one (contemplated selling my m5 and CL to go towards it). That 35 cron v4 is great, it was my first leica lens and i also regret selling it, though i love my 35 cron asph that i still have. I also didn't realize the 50 cron v4 is smaller than the summarit! I may have to look into that.

As far as bw, have you tried the collapsible 50 summicron? I use that lens a lot with hp5. Really "gentle?" rendering but still quite sharp.

Anyways, back to the 90 tele-elmarit...i'm sending it back and going to snag a 90 summarit i believe. Trying to see the differences between the older 2.5 vs the 2.4. All i saw is the min focus distance went from 1meter to 0.9 meter

The 50mm v4 Summicron is heavier than the 50mm Summarit, but is thinner. The f2.5 version of the Summarit has a thinner barrel than the f2.4 version I have, so the difference between your f2.5 Summarit and the v4 Summicron is less significant. For some reason, Leica made the f2.4 versions of both the 35mm and 50mm Summarit lenses with very fat barrels so that they'd accept 46mm filters. They're ugly and look 'too big' for a rangefinder camera; more like SLR lenses. I am willing to tolerate that though, since they're optically superb and affordable to a poor artist like me, lol.

I have never shot with a collapsible Summicron. I'd love to have one; if I got one, I'd get it in LTM mount so I can use it on my screwmount Leicas, too. The problem is that most of them have haze and a lot of scratches on the glass, and the good ones are very expensive. The v4 and v5 Summicrons are the only 50mm Summicron I have used. The v5 is optically identical to the v4; the barrel was changed to have a regular focusing ring instead of the narrow ring with a tab that the v4 has. I preferred the 4, since I like the tab.

The f2.5 and f2.4 versions of all of the Summarit-M lenses have the same optics. Only the number printed on the lens changed. Just a marketing change! There were changes in the lens barrels. As you mentioned, the f2.4 version of the 90mm focuses slightly closer, and the 35mm and 50mm lenses are smaller in the f2.5 versions than in the f2.4 versions.

The stroke I had was fortunately not very bad. I walk with a limp and get dizzy sometimes, and I am not able to work as a teacher anymore. Teaching high school is stressful, and I think staying with that would have shortened my lifespan.

Regarding the M6; the M4 you have is a better camera. The M6 framelines were reduced in size to make it possible to fit in 28mm framelines in a finder that really should have had nothing wider than 35mm frames. The result is that you get a lot more on film than the framelines show, which always annoyed me. The M3 and M2 I have, and the M4 you have, allow a lot more accurate composition. I just use a 28mm Voigtlander viewfinder when I use a 28mm lens. The only real advantages of the M6 are that is has a very good built-in meter that uses modern batteries (unlike the CL and M5 that both need mercury batteries), and it is a newer camera so less likely to be badly worn out when you buy a used one.

 

[HenningW]

Regarding the M6; the M4 you have is a better camera. The M6 framelines were reduced in size to make it possible to fit in 28mm framelines in a finder that really should have had nothing wider than 35mm frames. The result is that you get a lot more on film than the framelines show, which always annoyed me. The M3 and M2 I have, and the M4 you have, allow a lot more accurate composition. I just use a 28mm Voigtlander viewfinder when I use a 28mm lens. The only real advantages of the M6 are that is has a very good built-in meter that uses modern batteries (unlike the CL and M5 that both need mercury batteries), and it is a newer camera so less likely to be badly worn out when you buy a used one.

The M4 and the M6 finders are essentially the same, except that the early M6 finders can flare more due to cost cutting at the time. The issue with framelines, which had nothing to do with adding the 28mm lines, is that earlier framelines were made to be correct at the minimum focussing distance for the lenses of the time, which was 1m for almost all lenses. In the M6 and later the framelines were pushed in as the angle of view decreases as you focus closer with unit focussing lenses, but most lenses now focussed to 0.7m. That's why you got more on the film than in the viewfinder. The only solution, and a complicated one at that is to not only have parallax correction as you do with M cameras but to also have framelines that move, as you had in the Koni-Omega medium format cameras.

 

[peterm1]

An issue with some versions of the Tele Elmarit is that they can have a tendency to flare quite easily. I seldom let such quirks to bother me much as mostly they can be compensated for by avoiding shooting situations that cause it. And by using a deep hood.

 

[analogpics]

The 50mm v4 Summicron is heavier than the 50mm Summarit, but is thinner. The f2.5 version of the Summarit has a thinner barrel than the f2.4 version I have, so the difference between your f2.5 Summarit and the v4 Summicron is less significant. For some reason, Leica made the f2.4 versions of both the 35mm and 50mm Summarit lenses with very fat barrels so that they'd accept 46mm filters. They're ugly and look 'too big' for a rangefinder camera; more like SLR lenses. I am willing to tolerate that though, since they're optically superb and affordable to a poor artist like me, lol.

I have never shot with a collapsible Summicron. I'd love to have one; if I got one, I'd get it in LTM mount so I can use it on my screwmount Leicas, too. The problem is that most of them have haze and a lot of scratches on the glass, and the good ones are very expensive. The v4 and v5 Summicrons are the only 50mm Summicron I have used. The v5 is optically identical to the v4; the barrel was changed to have a regular focusing ring instead of the narrow ring with a tab that the v4 has. I preferred the 4, since I like the tab.

The f2.5 and f2.4 versions of all of the Summarit-M lenses have the same optics. Only the number printed on the lens changed. Just a marketing change! There were changes in the lens barrels. As you mentioned, the f2.4 version of the 90mm focuses slightly closer, and the 35mm and 50mm lenses are smaller in the f2.5 versions than in the f2.4 versions.

The stroke I had was fortunately not very bad. I walk with a limp and get dizzy sometimes, and I am not able to work as a teacher anymore. Teaching high school is stressful, and I think staying with that would have shortened my lifespan.

Regarding the M6; the M4 you have is a better camera. The M6 framelines were reduced in size to make it possible to fit in 28mm framelines in a finder that really should have had nothing wider than 35mm frames. The result is that you get a lot more on film than the framelines show, which always annoyed me. The M3 and M2 I have, and the M4 you have, allow a lot more accurate composition. I just use a 28mm Voigtlander viewfinder when I use a 28mm lens. The only real advantages of the M6 are that is has a very good built-in meter that uses modern batteries (unlike the CL and M5 that both need mercury batteries), and it is a newer camera so less likely to be badly worn out when you buy a used one.

Ahhh ok, yeah i think I'll end up selling the 50 2.5 summarit. The IQ is fantastic as to be expected, but i just really am not a huge fan of this particular focus tab (tbh, i'm one of the few that actually prefer non-tabbed lenses). The tab is too deep if that makes sense? The tab on my 40 m-rokkor is a different style and im actually ok with that one though. Even the 35 cron asph is fine...but tbh, i may look for a non-tabbed 35mm.

I can definitely understand not wanting to work at a high school. I would have a hard time dealing with that much angst and hormones in one classroom haha.

I do have the CL and M5, and for whatever reason, i just don't enjoy using them as much as the wonderful M4. Maybe I should just be happy with what i have, M body wise 😉

Oh and i almost forgot, i did send the 90mm tele-elmarit back. I may still get a 90 summarit down the road, but for the time being i think i'm going to just stick with what i have...I will try to sell my 8.5cm nikkor f2 ltm in the meantime