Elmar or Summaron

[presspass]

I recently bought a IIIa with a nice Summar. I want to put together a kit that includes a 90 - the Elmar uncoated - and a 35. The question is, get an Elmar or a Summaron? I would prefer uncoated. Anyone tried both? If so, please share your opinions. The camera will be used only for Tri-X. Thanks,

 

[Bingley]

Were there uncoated Summaron 35s? I thought they were all coated. I haven't tried the Elmar 35, but the Summaron 35/3.5 I have (1949) is terrific.

 

[Erik van Straten]

There is a huge difference between the two. The Elmar is a triplet made from four lenses, the Summaron is a Gauss derivative made from six lenses and is coated. The Summaron is still state of the art, as long as you not look at the corners of the image at lager apertures.

The Elmar 35mm gives a very typical but sharp image, a bit of acquired taste so to say.

Leica III, Elmar 35mm uncoated, Tmax400.

Erik.

Leica MP, Summaron 35mm f/3.5 LTM, Tmax400.

 

[presspass]

Erik,
Thanks for the images. I don't know if there were any uncoated Summarons. I have enough current M-series lenses when I want to go diagnostic sharp. This is an attempt to get lenses with the same rending. BTW, do you use a hood and/or a UV filter on your Elmar?

 

[Erik van Straten]

No filter, but I use always a hood. For the Elmar a FLQOO and for the Summaron a FOOKH. More important: I have my lenses carefully cleaned for haze (inside).

Erik.

 

[harpofreely]

Leica MP, Summaron 35mm f/3.5 LTM, Tmax400.

Love this, great Summaron 3.5 example.

 

[faurefan]

I really love my Summaron 35 f/3.5. Pretty sure it's coated. I have the FOOKH hood, but the pictures I took before I got the hood were really great too.

 

[benmacphoto]

I really like my Elmar.
It is a later lens that is coated, and has been professionally cleaned.

Back light can still wash out the photo a bit, as seen here.

But it performs great over all.

 

[Luddite Frank]

I have an uncoated Elmar 35 from 1941. I have not had mine cleaned ( slight haze ), and always use a hood (FIKUS).

Condition issues notwithstanding, the Summaron is a better wide-angle lens in its inherent design. The Elmar 35 tends to soften towards the edges of the image, and may vignette with color films.

Being a post-war lens, I doubt any Summarons were un-coated, at least from the factory.

Good advice above about having any old Leica lens professionally cleaned to remove haze.

While the Summaron might be a "modern lens" in terms of its performance, it was still designed about 70 years ago, by optical engineers crunching numbers with slide-rules and plotting designs on paper. It's very good, but not "clinical" like a CV 35 mm.

If I had an opportunity to choose between a 35 Elmar and a 35 Summaron LTM for a shooting lens, condition and price being equal, I would go for the Summaron.

I'm glad I have my Elmar 35, as I have several Barnacks from the '30s, but I don't need another ( unless it's a nearly nickel version).

My next "must have" would be a Summaron 35.

 

[charjohncarter]

My Elmar 90mm is coated but is really compact and if I'm careful to use it correctly it is sharp. I also have a coated 100mm Canon Serenar, it too is sharp maybe sharper than the Elmar but it is heavy, longer, and needs a new spring to focus close. The serener doesn't get used much.