Comparison: CV 35/2.5C Skopar vs Leica 35/2.8 Summaron

[Zulu]

I recently bought a Summaron, but because of the age of the lens, the front element has begun splitting, which I am not happy about, so I am going to return the lens.

I'm looking at the Voigtlander 35/2.5C Color Skopar as an alternative option, one that fits with my pocket, but I would like to hear comments on the lens characteristics before I go ahead and order one.

TIA

 

[BrianPhotog]

Sharp, but more contrasty then you'd expect. Shooting B&W, putting a deep yellow filter on it would be redundant.

 

[ChrisN]

Very nice lens. As Brian indicates, good contrast. A modern-looking lens, as opposed to a soft classic.

 

[richard_l]

Just for the record, I don't think Chris was implying that the Summaron is soft. Some are soft because of fogging or separation, but a 35mm f/2.8 Summaron in good condition is like a slightly slower version of the Summicron, very sharp and contrasty. To get the soft, classic look, you need one of the old 35mm Elmars or else a diseased Summaron.

 

[jaapv]

Close-up perfomance of the Summaron is very soft; it shows nice vignetting at larger apertures. The Color Skopar is certainly more modern in those departments.

 

[Zulu]

Thanks everyone. I will be visiting Cameraquest for my CV soon!

 

[richard_l]

Close-up perfomance of the Summaron is very soft; it shows nice vignetting at larger apertures. The Color Skopar is certainly more modern in those departments.

I've never noticed vignetting with a Summaron. Close-up softness is a common observation by those who try to use a goggled Summaron without the goggles.

The main deficiencies of the Summaron compared to the Summicron are: (1) it's slower; and (2) center to edge sharpness is less uniform, particularly wide open.