M Lenses 35 and 50

[Jan Cornelius]

What are the differences between:

Elmar 50
Summicron 50
Summerit 50

and

Summaron 35
Summicron 35

Not specifiaclly the technical differences, but quality-wise upon the end-result ...

 

[35mmdelux]

elmar 50 is f/2.8 or f/3.5, depending on the year made. new ones f/2.8
summicron 50 is f/2.0
summarit 50 is too old to matter, generally f/2.5

Summaron 35 is too old to matter (generally f/3.5)
summicron 35 is f/2.0

the summicrons are considered the best standards in any make. not only is there a tonality difference between them and ANY other lens, but the OOF (bokeh) exceptional. PAA

 

[laptoprob]

What 35mmdelux describes as too old to matter are in fact older, not currently produced lenses. Back from the days before the sharpness rally which made all lenses contrastier. Generally the older lenses are softer in contrast. Exceptions provide the rule.
Summarit also exists in a 1,5 version. Softer wide open but faster.
Bokeh, sharpness and contrast are variables in result. And speed ofcourse.

Is this an answer for you?

Rob.

 

[phototone]

The Summaron 35 is NOT too old to matter. Made in f/3.5 and f/2.8 versions, this lens has beautiful qualitites. I think all Summarons are coated.

Here are some shots with my 35mm Summaron f/3.5 on my IIIc.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=9163&cat=4198&page=5

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=9167&cat=4198&page=5

 

[peter_n]

Jan I can only speak to two of the 50s, having owned them both. The Elmar-M is derived from a Zeiss Tessar formulation and is sharp with a warm color rendition. The Summicron is very sharp with a comparatively cool color rendition. If you are interested in backgrounds, both have nice OOF areas. A generalization is that the Elmar-M is good for people and the Summicron is good for everything else - IMO the Summicron is unkind to people because of its sharpness. I had two current Summicrons and sold them both and now I have the current Elmar-M. If there was an f2.0 Elmar-M I would buy that. 🙂

 

[MCTuomey]

Great, classic look to those Summaron photos, pt. The tones are really nice. Btw, what film are you running with it?

 

[MCTuomey]

Peter, do you think this photo exemplifies the "harsh" people qualities of the Summicron? I'm mulling over whether I like my new DR for portraits.

 

[peter_n]

No, not at all Mike. That is a very nice picture taken at wide aperture. A very intriguing expression on that young face too! If I'd taken this I'd be really happy! 🙂

You have a couple of things going for you in this picture, first your subject is young, and secondly you're using a wide aperture that softens up the overall impression a bit. I only have experience with the current Summicron, not earlier versions. That lens seems OK with young people too, but when you get to middle-aged and older people it is very harsh. Painful to look at the pics.

Its not just the Summicron, I've read (but not seen) that pics taken with one of the current 90mm Leica lenses are "too sharp" also. And I've taken a couple of shots with my Canonet that show way too much detail in a person's face - unflattering to a female especially.

 

[MCTuomey]

Thanks for the clarification and help, Peter. I do tend to like the results from shooting wide open with my DR and CV 35/1.7. When I have to stop down, I'm not so pleased with the results of my DR for portraits, though. It's not harsh, but it's not friendly either.

I'm striving for a candid look that is deeper and "richer" than I'm getting today. Something like the texture of Kertesz or Brassai in the 30s, actually, although I don't mean to imitate slavishly. It's a depth thing I'm after. There's this subtle difference between a softened image and a "rich" image - can't really describe it very well. I've noticed here on RFF that photos taken with older Leica lenses sometimes display this quality. Russian lenses sometimes produce it, too.

A fellow I know who has taught history of photography classes locally told me that it's probably the film more than anything else that renders this quality, btw. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

Sorry this has gotten so OT, but you know what too much coffee and Sunday AM can do. 😉

 

[back alley]

film, processing and post processing are key to 'the look' of the final shot.


joe

 

[FrankS]

I agree that film plays an important role in the final look. That is why I avoid the modern thin emulsion films with t grains or flat grains. (TMax and Delta) They may be sharper, but at the expense of "richness."

 

[mkyy]

This is a picture from my pre-ASPH 35 Summicron wide open on HP5+. I found it sharp but not harsh.

 

[MCTuomey]

mkyy,

Agree with you. Your photo is pleasingly sharp. A nicely done, modern candid portrait.

But as I mentioned earlier my own tastes have bgun to shift to the "rich" or thickly textured feel you see in certain work from the 30s and even earlier. I use and like HP5+ and obtain similar results (my lenses are different), but am not able to get the look I'm after with it.

The closest I've come is probably shooting TriX with my lenses almost or completely wide open. I've beginning to think I need to learn to process my own negatives. Reason is that the RFF members' work that seems closest to my goal all seem to do their own processing.

 

[FrankS]

Developer choice and variables in film developing are aslo major players. Do begin to develop your own film. It's easy.