Serenar 1.9 vs Summitar 2.0 - comparison

[goamules]

I've had a summitar for a while, aver clean and clear one. The other day got the lowly Canon Serenar 50/1.9. Looking at it, I could see the resemblance to the Leica collapsible. I decided to shoot a side by side with the two. See if you can tell which.

 

[Mackinaw]

I currently have a 50/2.0 Summicron collapsible and did own a Canon 50/1.9 collapsible at one time.

As for your pics, my guess, the first pic in each series is the Leica, the second is the Canon.

Jim B.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

How close can 2 lenses be?
I will guess the same as Mack, the Summitar can be very sharp, mine is, and the Serenar can be cloudy, or so I understand.

 

[goamules]

Sorry, the first picture is the Canon, each set. I also was surprised, the Canon blows away the Summitar.

 

[Mackinaw]

No kidding. My memory of the Serenar was that it was soft wide-open (spherical aberration) but sharpened up nicely at F2.8. I'm surprised that the Summitar lacks contrast. Maybe that's why it was replaced by the Summicron.

Jim B.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Both are bw film era lenses, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[charjohncarter]

I have a 35mm Serenar f3.5 that I use on my LTM cameras it has a haze problem that I have conquered. It is sharp wide open and works well with any film I use.

I also only use my heritage lenses on my ff digital camera. I wonder if there is a great deal of difference between the old SLR lenses and modern DSLR lens or it it just hype.

Here is my 35mm Serenar f3.5 wide open on my IIIf:

Neopan Acros 100 expired by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have not tried the canon, but I have a 50mm f2 Summitar. It is tack sharp in the center wide open and becomes so in the corners after stopping down. It is lower contrast than modern lenses but for BW work that is not necessarily a bad thing, though I can see why you'd prefer the Canon for color. One of the best BW lenses I have ever used is the uncoated 75mm Zeiss Tessar on my ancient pre-war Rolleiflex Automat. Very sharp, low contrast, beautiful BW tonality.

 

[goamules]

I'm mostly a Canon LTM guy. I've always been impressed by their lenses. But the 50/1.9 seems to be a sleeper, nobody really tries for one, they move to the 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, or 1.8 50mm Canons. So I wanted to try it. And I was impressed to say the least. I bought a IIIF just to get the 1.9 that was on it. Even in the "old days" some liked Canon or Nikon better than Leica glass.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

Summit's wrong with your Summitar, here's mine.

 

[goamules]

Or it may need a hood worse than the Canon, because of their different quality of coatings. Didn't use a hood on either in the test.

 

[goamules]

I shot the Canon 1.9 with Delta 100: