Leica LTM Comparative results from 1939 Summitar and 50mm Summilux ASPH - some examples

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
sleepyhead

sleepyhead

Well-known
Local time
9:59 AM
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
1,682
There has been some interest in seeing pictures taken with an old (1939) uncoated Summitar on the Epson R-D1s camera.

Here are some examples, and for comparison some 50mm Summilux ASPH shots taken within a few minutes of each other. All pictures were at f/2 (except the second Summilux picture, which was at f/1.4), and these are completely unprocessed JPG files out of the camera with no adjustments what-so-ever. Most were taken at or near the minimum focus distnaces of each lens (1 meter for Summitar, 0.7 meters for Summilux).

The difference in out-of-focus areas, contrast, and sharpness of the two lenses is apparent. I paid 12X more for the Summilux than the Summitar...

THESE THREE ARE FROM THE SUMMITAR.
 

Attachments

  • EPSN6711.jpg
    EPSN6711.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 0
  • EPSN6712.jpg
    EPSN6712.jpg
    87 KB · Views: 0
  • EPSN6715.jpg
    EPSN6715.jpg
    48.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
And These Three Are From The Summilux.
 

Attachments

  • EPSN6716.jpg
    EPSN6716.jpg
    100.9 KB · Views: 0
  • EPSN6718.jpg
    EPSN6718.jpg
    90.4 KB · Views: 0
  • EPSN6722.jpg
    EPSN6722.jpg
    134.5 KB · Views: 0
I also prefer the Summilux photos but can't see a 12 times difference in quality .... for a Summilux ASPH at f/2.0 I would have expected some slightly higher contrast and sharpness.
 
Keith said:
I have to say I really prefer the Summilux ... the Summitar images look flat and soft by comparison.
Click to expand...



On the R-D1s I also prefer the Summilux, but prefer the Summitar for film - maybe it's a psychological digital/film thing...

Anyway, with the RAW files from the R-D1s and some photoshopping, alot of that flatness and softness can be changed. If I have time later I'll give it a go.
 
maddoc said:
I also prefer the Summilux photos but can't see a 12 times difference in quality .... for a Summilux ASPH at f/2.0 I would have expected some slightly higher contrast and sharpness.
Click to expand...


I'll try to post a crop from the full-size file later from the Summilux - it's screaming sharp.
 
THANK YOU Yaron for posting these!!! YEA
The summilux is spot on....Crisp

haven't given up on the SUMMITAR though /quite soft but I do think you could have heightened the CONTRAST considerably... but I do like the summitar
I am still excited to try it on my Rd1s
but I;m sure it will be DIVINE on the M4

THanx again....keep posting
Best-H
 
Last edited:
The Summitar pictures are not to be sneezed at. Contrast can always be raised while printing or in a photo editing program.
 
Sorry to be so blunt, but I think you've processed both sets of images far too flatly and it's really hard to tell very much. If you made Photoshop/darkroom adjustments to show each set with some blacks and whites in them, then you could start to judge the relative sharpness. They look like good photos, but right now all I see is mush from both lenses.
 
Thanks for showing us this comparison,
Wonderful sharpness on the Summilux. The Summitar shots aren't bad either, but the softness is quite apparent.
Guess I got to save up for some more glass when I decide to get that Epson hehehe.
 
I suppose comparisons like this can be interesting, - but a bit like me comparing the ride and handling of my ex wd 16H Norton with my Yamaha FJ1200.....both give great pleasure, - but the outcome is very predictable! :)
Dave.
 
Frank Petronio said:
Sorry to be so blunt, but I think you've processed both sets of images far too flatly and it's really hard to tell very much. If you made Photoshop/darkroom adjustments to show each set with some blacks and whites in them, then you could start to judge the relative sharpness. They look like good photos, but right now all I see is mush from both lenses.
Click to expand...


Hi Frank, YES, you're right, but I posted COMPLETELY UNPROCESSED JPGs STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CAMERA in order to show the "native" differences between the lenses.

Here are some versions, one photo from each lens, with some mild photoshop work.
 

Attachments

  • EPSN6711_1.jpg
    EPSN6711_1.jpg
    84.6 KB · Views: 0
  • EPSN6718_1.jpg
    EPSN6718_1.jpg
    69.7 KB · Views: 0
And here's a 100% crop from one of the Summilux shots "to prove to Gabor" that it's a pretty sharp lens ;)

This picture was taken at 0.7m at f/1.4 by the way.
 

Attachments

  • EPSN6718_1_crop.jpg
    EPSN6718_1_crop.jpg
    67.1 KB · Views: 0
Coated Summitar

Coated Summitar

It would be great if your test was with a coated version, but I'm sure the years between the two lenses makes for the most dramatic statement.

This was shot at f4 not f2, but still you can get the idea. Softness and contrast are always a 'compared with what' issue. The Summitar can hold its own with the latest and the greatest; and given the aid of Photoshop it has way more latitude in contrast alternatives/choices than any of the newer lenses of today.

Leica M4, Porta, 1949 Summitar @f4
 

Attachments

  • Summitar.jpg
    Summitar.jpg
    151.8 KB · Views: 0
Dektol Dan said:
The Summitar can hold its own with the latest and the greatest; and given the aid of Photoshop it has way more latitude in contrast alternatives/choices than any of the newer lenses of today.
Click to expand...


Hi, I completely agree - I was blown away by the quality of the photos from my Summitar when I first got it. Stopped down a bit it's more than adequately sharp, as your colour photo above shows.


Actually, it's the great results with the Summitar ON FILM, see this thread
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65176

...that sparked this comparison between the Summilux ASPH and Summitar using the Epson R-D1.

This was not meant to be any kind of scientific comparison.

IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A COATED AND UN-COATED SUMMITAR SIDE-BY-SIDE.

Anyone out there have both?
 
sleepyhead said:
IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A COATED AND UN-COATED SUMMITAR SIDE-BY-SIDE.

Anyone out there have both?
Click to expand...

I have both, "uncoated" 1941 original issue on my 1943 IIIC K and a 1943 wartime "coated" US Army issue lens off a 1946 "Stepped" rewind IIIC.

When I get a model here to shoot I`ll put a roll through my IIIC K in 100ASA color film and show the results, I`m sure that the looks will be minimal....not alot of differences.

Ohh btw my Summitar`s seem to shoot a whole lot sharper then the OP`s version does, it would be alot fairer comparision to shoot a 1950`s Summarit and a early 1960`s Summilux, NOW THAT TEST I WANT TO SEE!!!! - who`s going to do that one??? (seems not too many people have a Summilux version one to play with)

Tom
 
Last edited:
Frank Petronio said:
Sorry to be so blunt, but I think you've processed both sets of images far too flatly and it's really hard to tell very much. If you made Photoshop/darkroom adjustments to show each set with some blacks and whites in them, then you could start to judge the relative sharpness. They look like good photos, but right now all I see is mush from both lenses.
Click to expand...


OUCH!!

i shoot kodachrome so I no worry about such details.

anyway, Frank, I shot some HP-5 off my F6 and 50mm/1.4 zeiss and all I got back was mush, shot wide open.

Totaly disappointed to say the least. Is it possible that shooting wide open avail darkness smudged everything to the point of mush?

Paul
 
I have a mint Summarit. I compared it to a mint 1959 `Lux a few years back. The Summarit was sharper in the corners and 1/2 way to the corners than the `Lux. Centers were the same. I did not buy it.

Cost was $1000 at Marquette Photo in Chicago. This was a really fresh mint example. He also has a lens shade for it new in the box.

ask for Joe Herbert Wed- Sat. Joe has been a Leica ealer ther 60 years.
 
Ronald M said:
I have a mint Summarit. I compared it to a mint 1959 `Lux a few years back. The Summarit was sharper in the corners and 1/2 way to the corners than the `Lux. Centers were the same. I did not buy it.

Cost was $1000 at Marquette Photo in Chicago. This was a really fresh mint example. He also has a lens shade for it new in the box.

ask for Joe Herbert Wed- Sat. Joe has been a Leica ealer ther 60 years.
Click to expand...

Crazy as it seems that`s what I thought would be the outcome......with maybe the bokeh of the Lux being not as "dreamy" as the Rit is :)
(my next Leica lens will be a clean Summarit M as soon as I can find one - won`t be easy!) - I`ll still save at least $700+ if I buy one of those instead of a Lux series one, hardly worth the effort just for a name I say, Of course I`m partial to the Summarit and it`s signature anyway ;)

The Summarit is the second most underated Leitz lens after the Summar, seems these two lenses have caught hell for over 30 years and now people are realizing that they are true lenses of their time peroid and they record images that are truely "retro" and highly artistic in flavor, just as the Summitar does as well.....all three lenses being the kings of their craft with Black and White film.....

I have my 45' IIIC K to IIIFBD loaded and ready to go, with the "coated" Summitar on it already and I`ll take the "uncoated" one with as well, with Kodak Gold 100asa color film.

I have a appointment to shoot with Veronica Rachel on Friday, I`ll post the results at a new thread after they are done :D Stay Tuned!

Tom
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom