Elmar vs Summitar

[davidnewtonguitars]

Not really Elmar vs Summitar..

I have a '38 Leica Standard Model, and more recently a IIIc. I have been swapping the Elmar back & forth between them, sometimes using a Industar 22 on one or the other, I can hardly tell the difference in picture quality.

Will the collapsible Summitar give me anything over what I am using now, I am drawn to a '50's lens for the IIIc, keeping the little Elmar for the Standard.

 

[splitimageview]

Summitar is quite nice wide open.

 

[HuubL]

Image quality-wise, there is not much that could be improved on the Elmar. It's a great little lens delivering sharp and contrasty (for its time) images. The Summitar is no slouch either, but I see the f/2 vs 3.5 for the Elmar as its greatest bonus. Mind you, Summitars came in a number of versions, the later, post-war ones with coating, which does improve the contrast a bit. Nevertheless, many people like the way the uncoated lenses deliver.

 

[Hatchetman]

Summitar @f2.8 is pretty sharp so I'd see it as a gain of one stop. It is A LOT bigger though.

 

[02Pilot]

Echoing what's already been said, Summitar is worth almost two stops but gives up a lot of the compactness that makes the Elmar/Barnack combo so appealing. Elmar will be generally a bit sharper and give a bit more contrast than the Summitar. Rendering is otherwise quite similar. Much as I love the Summitar's rendering (especially around f/4), for general purpose daylight usage, it's hard to beat the Elmar.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

Yes, I would really hate to lose the "slide in the pocket" thing.
I guess I would like to have a dedicated lens for the IIIc, but it would be silly to just get another Elmar.

 

[MIkhail]

I would get collapsible 35mm for more flexibility.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

I've been 5cm only for so long, but have been considering that also. Either a color skopar or 25mm snapshot skopar, because they can come with the finders, but neither are collapsible.
A 3.5cm Summaron is a possibility, but I'm not sure I like its style, and the Leica finders are so expensive.

 

[MIkhail]

I've been 5cm only for so long, but have been considering that also. Either a color skopar or 25mm snapshot skopar, because they can come with the finders, but neither are collapsible.
A 3.5cm Summaron is a possibility, but I'm not sure I like its style, and the Leica finders are so expensive.

Yes, all true...
also, summaron is kind of old lens. Skopars are nice.

 

[rumbliegeos]

From my perspective the big difference is in the ease of changing the aperture and using filters. The Summitar has an aperture ring that can be accessed when filters are installed, and with an inexpensive adapter, you can use easily obtained modern filters. I liked the compactness of the red-scale Elmar I once had, but I did not like its fiddly aperture control. And given the fragility of the coatings, I wanted to have a protective filter in front the glass all of the time.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I don't know what year your IIIc is but if it's post-war I'd get the post-war Summitar, which is coated, and a very good lens.

Samples:-

Regards, David

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

Thanks David, your opinion is highly regarded.
On the other hand, I might rather have a Willys Jeep with 50cal gun.
That's what I call shooting!

 

[Dralowid]

For me it is as much about weight as size. I'm thinking of getting rid of my Summarit because it makes the whole thing unbalanced. Nowadays the extra stops seem far less importance than once they were. A late, coated Elmar is very good thing indeed.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I'm thinking of getting rid of my Summarit. A late, coated Elmar is very good thing indeed.

I agree with Michael here. A coated Summar is also very good. A Summitar is for me insupportable, not only bacause of the weight, but also because of the distortion. I know that to say this in this church is blasphemy.

Erik.

 

[splitimageview]

Coated Elmar for pocketability

Coated Summitar

Uncoated Summitar

Collapsible Summicron

Collapsible 50/2 Nikkor (Sonnar)

This is my set depending on the subject, situation, film, and mood. 🙂

 

[mcfingon]

I agree with Michael here. A coated Summar is also very good. A Summitar is for me insupportable, not only bacause of the weight, but also because of the distortion. I know that to say this in this church is blasphemy.

Erik.

I don't think that's blasphemous Erik. It's taken me a while, but I now think the two Elmars I have ('46 and '97) are my favourite lenses, particularly when you take portability into account. And that's what the Leicas were made for, isn't it?

 

[Dralowid]

Maybe it is an age thing, as I get older my lenses get smaller. For LTM I have Elmar, Summar and a 2.8 Summaron.

For my M I have Elmar M and the same Summaron.

It is enough. Anything else just doesn't get used.

 

[Erik van Straten]

For my M I have Elmar M and the same Summaron.

It is enough. Anything else just doesn't get used.

When I really must go back to two lenses, it would be a Summaron 35mm f/2.8 and a Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5, both LTM. The Elmar-M is a beautiful lens, but the retraction/extension is not very user friendly.

Erik.

 

[Hatchetman]

Summitar Distortion?

Summitar Distortion?

Never noticed any. Any examples?

 

[Bar8barian]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx