Summarit lenses..

[kossi008]

With MFT graphs and resolution charts, you're likely to see the Summarit 35 outperform the ZM 35s.

Nope. The C-Biogon is even slightly better wide open. At f/5.6, they're about equal. The rest is sample variation...

PS: Incidentally, from the MTF charts, they are BOTH better than the Summicron asph at f/5.6. Not that I think these differences matter much in practical shooting...

 

[sper]

It is what it is, you should just take pictures or get a different lens.

 

[jsrockit]

At this point, all of the lenses you are talking about are good, if not great. Keep the Summicron and get the C-Biogon... what a combo that will be. Jealous.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Frances likes the 50 so much that it's now her standard 50 (mine is a C-Sonnar). The 75 and 90 are excellent but we already had Summicrons, and although the 35 is objectively better in many ways than my old Summilux, I much prefer the extra speed. There's more about how Leica saved the money in the review that Double Negative kindly mentioned:http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps firstlook summarit.html.

Cheers,

R.

 

[QDIEM4SC]

The 35 Summarit is the real deal.

The 35 Summarit is the real deal.

I have used some of Leica's finest, including the newer lenses like the 50 Summilux ASPH and the 35 Summilux ASPH, and the 35 Summarit is as fine an optical wonder as they are. I actually prefer it these days to any of the others. It is light, small, and produces magnificent bokeh.

Needless to say, I believe the Summarit lenses are relative bargains that are underestimated.

Since I don't think my words mean anything unless supported by actual images, I am enclosing a few photos I've taken with the 35 Summarit.

 

[QDIEM4SC]

The 35 Summarit is the real deal (Part II)

The 35 Summarit is the real deal (Part II)

I should also mention that the 35 Summarit is incredibly resistant to flare; more so than any other lens I've ever used -- I can literally point it at the sun with impunity.

More images below, illustrating what I mean.

Peter.

 

[Turtle]

It also deals with the concept of diminishing returns well i.e. you can spend a lot more on a faster 35 lux asph II, but at matching apertures there is not going to be much in it unless you get off on that sort of thing.

On a Leica M, with the lube swapped out on mine for something a touch heavier, I could use this for the rest of my life and probably will.

 

[Richard G]

The Summarit 50 would be a strong contender just for it's size: I think it is 11mm shorter than my tabbed Summicron. That is compact.

 

[Bavaricus]

It's a pity that so many people are talking about lenses they never have taken any pictures with them. MTFs are also only talking a small üpart of the story. Remembers me of people buying speakers only ba having a look at the frequency response (and the price). In most cases they were extremely disappointed.
I have a Summarit 90 and it's great, the best 90 i ever had, better than the Tele-Elmarit, the Hexanon and much better than the Apo-Lanthar. I also have the C-Biogon 35 which is great, on M8 definetely sharper than the Sonnar 40 and CV Skopar 35. The Sonnar has a nice signature, but i like the C-Biogon more which has a very fine bokeh anyway. Especially fully opened the C-Biogon is an other class than the Sonnar.

 

[mirrored]

i like the C-Biogon more which has a very fine bokeh anyway. Especially fully opened the C-Biogon is an other class than the Sonnar.

Slow lenses can be wonderful fully opened. No aperture blades with their own actions. Yesterday I got Elmar 50/2.8 last version and I wait Summarit 50 too. I can say something about their differencies soon. Summarit would be nice pair to my Summicron 35 v4 as a same tiny size.

When I look Flickr groups I have noticed slow lenses owners take perhaps more nice photos generally! There are not seen generally boring fully opened ultra narrow dof 'testing' stuff, which can have influence to my overal impression.

 

[semilog]

I have the ZM 35/2.8 and I love it. But probably the lens that's closest to it, among all of the dozens of 35's you can put on an M, is the Summarit. If I had either one, I can't imagine what would motivate me to switch to the other. They are just too similar to make any meaningful difference in most cases.

If I was going to switch it would be because I wanted a lens that would give noticeably different results: the 1.2 Nokton, the Summilux ASPH or pre-ASPH, or the Summaron. If you have a Summarit, there's only one thing to do: use it! And if you think it works better at 2.8 than at 2.5, shoot it at 2.8. It's only 1/3 of a stop difference anyway.

 

[kossi008]

MTFs are also only talking a small part of the story.

I completely agree, I just posted them to argue against the supposed numerical superiority of the Summarit over the C-Biogon.

I did buy the C-Biogon based on reviews, MTF and distortion charts, and: pictures, pictures and pictures. And price, let's not forget that.

And I do take pictures with it and I absolutely love it. But as Semilog said, if I owned the Summarit, I'd probably love it just as much. I've used a borrowed copy once, and it also quite impressed me.

 

[ramosa]

the summarits received some fairly good reviews, especially the 35 and 75 (if i recall). but for any of the focal lengths (i.e., 35, 50, 75, 90), i'd opt for something else, either new or used. too many of the captures taken with these lens seem somewhat character-less IMHO. but that could be a matter of my tastes and/or the captures that i have seen.

 

[Turtle]

ramosa,

They are pretty smooth in their look and somewhere between an oldie and a modern asph in overall terms. I find the 75 insanely sharp even wide open and the 35 has creamy bokeh no matter the distance or aperture. My only gripe is with the 35. The focus is too light. Mechanically they are solid as a tank. Pick up the tiny 35 and the density is no lower than other leica lenses

 

[woodleica]

I love my 75mm summarit