Whateverist
Well-known
Apart from the max aperture, is there an appreciable difference between a 50m Elmar and a 50mm Summitar of similar vintage? Are they comparable in quality or does one have a noticeable advantage over the other?
Sid836
Well-known
Are you comparing an early or a late Elmar against Summitar?
From very early Elmars, I'd rather use a Summitar, from late Elmars (70s and on) I prefer the Elmars.
From very early Elmars, I'd rather use a Summitar, from late Elmars (70s and on) I prefer the Elmars.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
If I recall correctly the Elmar formula is sharper across the whole range, while the Summitar is supposedly optimized for f/2-f4.5
Whateverist
Well-known
I wasn't even aware they were substantially different across time apart from the addition of coating.
Thanks!
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
The Elmar was recalculated to take advantage of new glass types, somewhere in the 1950s I believe. The front element became flatter, but overall performance remained very similar to the old Elmar. I'm sure the addition of coating did a lot to improve contrast.
A year or two before the introduction of the Summicron, the Summitar aperture blades were changed from 10 to 6 blades. Going from a rounded to hexagonal aperture opening. This is said to reduce vignetting.
A year or two before the introduction of the Summicron, the Summitar aperture blades were changed from 10 to 6 blades. Going from a rounded to hexagonal aperture opening. This is said to reduce vignetting.
Whateverist
Well-known
I like to shoot indoor at wider apertures so I took the plunge on a Summitar. After the first test roll I'll now how it compares with an Elmar first-hand - and whether it needs some CLA love. It's clean but the aperture ring is fiercely stubborn.
jcb4718
Well-known
I don't think you would notice the difference in sharpness between the lenses unless you went looking for it but out-of-focus effects (bokeh) are immediately apparent. The Summitar has a very busy, swirly sort of bokeh -quite characteristic. The Elmar is smoother.
Whateverist
Well-known
Sharpness isn't something I'm very worried about. I develop and print myself so any gains in initial sharpness are evened out by my newbieness in the rest of the process.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Probably the most noticeabl differece between both of them would be bokeh. Summitar has some distinct one, that some hate, some like (I for one love it 
). Also, there are some versions of Summitar as well. Early ones where uncoated, later ones are. Some have rounder diafragm while some have it hexagonal, so YMMV.
Elmar:
Summitar:
Regardless, I find both lenses pretty different and fun to use.
Regards
Marcelo
). Also, there are some versions of Summitar as well. Early ones where uncoated, later ones are. Some have rounder diafragm while some have it hexagonal, so YMMV.Elmar:
Summitar:
Regardless, I find both lenses pretty different and fun to use.
Regards
Marcelo
Emile de Leon
Well-known
I have the Elmar m modern and the 9 bladed coated Summitar..
IMO..the Elmar slays the Summitar for general usage and look..and the Summitar is no slouch..
IMO..the Elmar slays the Summitar for general usage and look..and the Summitar is no slouch..
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Somehow I agree. I would probably not say Summitar is your everyday lens. That would be Elmar. Summitar has some looks that may not be for every ocassion. Have to say Summitar best Elmar for portrait, IMHO.
Regards.
Marcelo
traveler_101
American abroad
I have a 1946 Elmar which is very good, I think, especially considering I shoot it without a shade. It is one of the earliest single coated versions. Shooting without a shade is convenient; sometimes it loses contrast in strong light but generally I do like the images.
So it is good to see others praise the Elmar because it seems to me that the Summitar has a cache that the Elmar lacks. Certainly a lot of photogs interested in LTM favour the Summitar. I have periodically caught cases of "Summitar fever" myself, but when it strikes I quickly recall the post I read, I think it was on this forum, that suggested the only way to really tame the lens's problems with flair is to employ its original "barn door" shade. One look at that contraption cures me of my periodic episodes of the fever (LoL). Nonetheless the Summitar still beckons.
Steve M.
Veteran
When it comes to Leica lenses (and most lenses to be honest) there is no discernible difference in quality between different lenses, there is only different types of rendering. Some may prefer the Elamr, some may prefer the Summitar.
Ronald M
Veteran
My experience is 1950s elmar is equal to Summitar 5.6 and smaller.
Summitr is quite soft at 2.0 and still softer than the elmar at 2.8, kind of even at 4.
Elmar takes nice 39 mm filters and general leica shades for 50 mm. Summitar filters and 3 kinds of barn door type of shades are freeky. You need to match the shade to the type of grove, v shape, flat bottom, and one I forget.
Buy the elmar. If you can find a Elmar M it is even better.
Summitr is quite soft at 2.0 and still softer than the elmar at 2.8, kind of even at 4.
Elmar takes nice 39 mm filters and general leica shades for 50 mm. Summitar filters and 3 kinds of barn door type of shades are freeky. You need to match the shade to the type of grove, v shape, flat bottom, and one I forget.
Buy the elmar. If you can find a Elmar M it is even better.
Whateverist
Well-known
Yeah, I'm digging this lens. Wide open it has a weird effect halfway between dreamy and myopic, but stop it down a tick and it delivers. I'm pretty pleased considering this is an uncoated lens just shy of its eightieth birthday.
Rollei Retro 400s, developed at box speed:
Rollei Retro 400s, developed at box speed: