Summarit vs. Elmar

[aad]

I bet everyone as geek-headed as me will be unable to resist that title!

I took both my Summarit and 50/3.5 Elmar around for comparisons in daylight conditions the other day. I know the Summarit is a low-light lens, and I've had god results with it so far, but I couldn't resist the test.

Film is Kodak BW400CN, all exposures are identical between lenses- generally f11/1000, or 16/500, and the time difference was the time it took to change lenses.

The scans are the "low-res" versions from the lab, and are unaltered. The prints are sharper.

Well, I see I hit a maximum. Is that 5 per post, or per day? Anyway, the first of each image is the Elmar.

Next time I'll post actual pictures of something interesting!

Aaron

 

[aad]

Let's see if I can squeeze in the last one.

 

[former member]

I could not resist.

Have not compared the Elmar with the others. The Summarit held its own at F4 with the Type I Rigid Summicron.

The Summarit is probably the most under-rated/maligned lens in the Leica line-up. Mine ran $125 and $140 respectively, add in a CLA still comes out less than an Elmar.

 

[richard_l]

In your examples, the Elmar wins, but there are a lot of variables to consider.

 

[doubs43]

The first three pictures are sharper and exhibit less flare than the last three. There's also more shadow detail in the first three. That's how I see them anyway. Looks like the Elmar is the better lens in this comparison.

Walker

 

[Skinny McGee]

From your prints, which lens do you consider to the best?

This would be a very intersting thread to start especial for those who are looking and coparing lens on the site

 

[Nick R.]

The elmar wins on these shots but try some low-contrast portraits to give the summarit a fighting chance.

 

[aad]

The Elmar looks better in prints as well. On the color prints (that scanned terribly) the Summarit is warmer and softer, with a little less detail.

I have some shots in low light with the Summarit wide open, and they're quite nice-and completely out of reach of the Elmar. It's a lens with a very specific purpose and mood. I just had to compare the two-the Elmar lives on the camera most of the time, the Summarit was bought just for low light shots, and does a nice job of it. At small apertures and bright light, the little Elmar is the choice, and it fits in my coat pocket.

 

[FPjohn]

Hello:

The Summicron was supposedly produced to give Elmar performance + two stops. Would you be willing to post Summarit/Summicron comparison shots? (We don't ask for much do we?)

yours
Frank

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'd just have to say that of course the Elmar is going to "win" against the Summarit in any "sharpness" and acutance test.

They are two very different lenses. It's like comparing a Ginsu knife and a butter knife: if you're going to have paté, I'd more than likely go and use the butter knife, I wouldn't go with the really sharp Ginsu (unless it's wrapped in PVC).

You'll find that the f/3.5 Elmar has a different fingerprint at f/3.5 than the latest, 1990s modern Elmar-M; I think it'd be really interesting to see the differences between these lenses at the same conditions you've made these tests. I'm pretty sure you're going to find the Summarit will have less contrast, more flare, and more grain clumping in the negatives at any aperture than the Elmar at the same aperture.

 

[aad]

I'll set up some lower light stuff soon. I have used both lenses in low light, but not pictures of the same subject at the same time.

I really don't think this is a "win/lose", but I have seen some mention in various places that "all" lenses are sharp-or even equal-as the aperture approaches 8 or more. And besides sharpness, the colors are different in the color shots, and these show different greys.