CV 35mm 2.5 vs leica 35mm summarit

CV 35mm 2.5 vs leica 35mm summarit

  • I prefer buying the summarit new. Worth it.

    Votes: 28 28.3%

  • No. I'll prefer the CV. Cheap, small and good enough.

    Votes: 71 71.7%
  • Total voters
    99
T

time

Established
Local time
10:43 AM
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
79
Hello all

Earlier I bought the summarit.
I sold after 3monthes, because I find it too slow to be the only one 35mm.
Now realize that I should keep it till I get the summicron, the biogon or summilux or nokton 1.2 v2. (I had the cv nokton 1.2 v1 - sold it due to the size and unsharpness at 1.2).

So I wonder how good the cv35mm 2.5 is compared with the summarit. Is the summarit worth that price. What do you think about the cv?
 
It's REALLY good.

It's REALLY good.

My 35mm color-skopar (LTM) is as good or better than my 35mm IV summicron (compared at f2.5 vs. f2.8 respectively), and I'm happy with both of them. My skopar was also superior, at comparable images size, to a new 28mm f2.8 elmarit I tried.

I can't speak to lens-to-lens variability, but this skopar compares equally to anything I've used.

If backlighting is likely to be an issuue, then I've read the skopar can flare. I've not noticed this as a problem, however.

Denton
 
The color skopar really is a gem for its price... I use it and the c-biogon and sold my summicron (though version 2). I like both of them better.

That said, the 50mm summarit is my favorite lens (a really great lens). That sometimes makes me want to get the 35mm summarit. Then again I think for the same price I have the color skopar and the c-biogon... which are awesome in their own rights.

They all have different looks and feel, but they are all good... you cannot go wrong.

By the way, if you didn't like the V1 nokton, don't get the V2 nokton. It's not different enough for you to feel good about it if you didn't like the first version. However you could get 35 1.2 and a 35 2.5 CV lenses for less cash than the summicron and used probably less than the Summarit new.
 
I don't know the Summarit, but I really like the VC 35/2.5. It is slightly lighter than the older v.2-3 35 Cron and is half a stop slower but otherwise I can not tell the difference in the images (but of course I am slobby amateur at such things). Being new, it seems to handle better than a 30-year old user lens. I know the build quality isn't as good as the classic Leicas but it seems very solid. And there isn't any haze or issues from being used....

I also sold my 40mm CLE Rokkor in favor of this lens, if that tells you anything more. I think I am satisfied with simply using it as my main lens, all things considered.
 
Even if the summarit is "better" than the skopar, it would be by such a small amount that the price gap can't be justified.
It's an excellent lens. Period.
The only reason I sold mine was to get f/2 (Hex-M which is excellent but humongous compared to the skopar)
 
having tried so many lenses over the years i decided that for the money...the non cv lenses were just not worth it...for me.

also...i love using the smaller cv lenses on my cameras...they tend to be slower but it has not been a major burden at all.
 
It would be great to see a few images from the skopar and summarit side-by-side. Based on what I have seen I would expect the summarit to be more "gentle" with the OOF. But I have no first hand experience.
 
The discontinued CV 35mm/2.5 Color-Skopar Pancake I in LTM has the same optics, but has a wider stubbier lens barrel and shorter focus throw, which makes for very fast handling on the street. It can be used on a Barnack. A minor drawback is its minimum focus of .9 meters (but close enough for anything I would do with a 35mm). It has a very shallow optional screw-on lens hood, so flare protection could be an issue -- a trade off for small profile.
 
back alley said:
having tried so many lenses over the years i decided that for the money...the non cv lenses were just not worth it...for me.

also...i love using the smaller cv lenses on my cameras...they tend to be slower but it has not been a major burden at all.
Click to expand...


I had a series 1 ltm 2.5/35 color skopar and it was a lovely lens. I sold it when I got the f2 Biogon, but actually would like a CV as well really. Mine was very slightly soft wide open, but had a different look than the Biogon. It coeld also flare a bit, which I sometimes don't mind.

Mike

U25074I1245801978.SEQ.0.jpg
 
I would imagine the fact that the color skopar is $400 and great has tilted the poll more than the Summarit not being a great lens. If the 35mm Summarit is anything like the 50mm version, it is a hell of a lens. The fact remains that the Color-skopar can't be beat for the money. I still think I like the c-biogon better... but the skopar being super small and a little faster comes in handy at times.
 
we talk alot about money, lens characteristics, soft corners and imaging etc...

if i had tons of cash i might be making different choices, if i were young again, i might be making different choices...

but at 61, lenses are not nearly as important to me as they once were...at 61, images have suddenly become paramount to me. i want to make some that have real impact on me before i die.
and i have discovered/decided that it's a combination of several factors that contribute to the final image...and the lens is but one small factor.

i agree that this lens might be better than that other lens...but i don't care anymore...if the lens on hand creates something that i find acceptable then bully for me.

as much as i might talk about gear to my friends...it really goes in one ear and out the other...they only care about the images that i create and if they like them or not.
 
...which is where information about characteristics of lens can be useful at times.

For example, I have a Canon 35mm 2.8. Great lens but I'm often low on light - only a few months of good sun in Seattle - and many of my shots have soft, swirling corners than I'd like. It doesn't fit the image I see in my head when I take the shot. I'd be okay with the softness but the find swirl very attention grabbing.

So for me, that has become something of a defining characteristic I look for in a new 35mm - something moderately fast that doesn't have those characteristics around f2.8 or less.

All that said, the Canon is a solid lens and works well for many purposes. And swirl doesn't wreck shots by any means - it just isn't my preferred aesthetic.
 
back alley said:
i want to make some that have real impact on me before i die. and i have discovered/decided that it's a combination of several factors that contribute to the final image...and the lens is but one small factor.

i agree that this lens might be better than that other lens...but i don't care anymore...if the lens on hand creates something that i find acceptable then bully for me.
Click to expand...

Truth... I'm starting to get to this point too. I will always buy and sell and try things for fun, but I have a good core set-up now that I don't need anything for my daily photography. I am also putting my money into printing and book making which is very cool too.
 
I had the C-Biogon and the 35/2 biogon and I preferred the pics with the C, but both are great. I thought long and hard before choosing the C over the Summarit and still wish I'd tried the Summarit before the prices went up. Another to consider is the UC Hex and the chrome LTM Hex. I'd love to try these as I love my Hexar AF.
 
Sean Reid evaluated a couple of lenses for the RD-1. The article was on Luminous-Landscape. The CV35/2.5 fared pretty well compared to a 35/2 Summicron. Obviously, the comparison was on an APS-C digital camera, so on full frame or film the results can come out different. That would surprise me though, as the Skopar on is one of the better lenses on film that I have..

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom