Summicron, Elmar or Summitar?

Bosk

Bosk

Make photos, not war.
Local time
12:56 AM
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
202
Location
Ballarat, Australia
View My Gallery
Hey guys,



I'm about to put my Canon 50 1.4 LTM up on eBay since I've decided its a little too large a lens for my taste and I rarely if ever use it wide-open.

So I'm planning on what to buy for a replacement 50 and have narrowed my choice down to the following: Collapsible 50 Summicron in LTM or M, Collapsible 1st gen 50 2.8 Elmar in LTM or M or 50 Summitar LTM.

In other words I'm looking for a small lens that's as easy to pocket as possible, has the traditional Leitz excellent bokeh and suitability for B&W film (90% of what I shoot these days) and will open up to at least 2.8.
I've considered getting an early Elmar, but 3.5 is just too slow for me as I prefer shooting ISO 100 films whenever possible.



So I'm hoping i can get a few opinons on which of these three vintage lenses offers the sharpest image, best bokeh, and so forth.

I'm also very keen to hear if anyone knows of the differences in size / weight between them, since I'm keen on getting the smallest "package" possible.
One consideration is weather the extra size / weight of the Summicron/Summitar is worth it over the Elmar (I'm guessing it's the lightest of the three) in exchange for the extra stop. I'd love to know how sharp all of them are at 2.8 since I see myself doing lots of shooting at that aperture.

As an aside I've also considered going the way of a Canon 50 1.8 but I figure for similar money why not just buy Leitz glass instead? The Canon 50 1.4 has been a great performer for me, very sharp, but a little too contrasty for my taste. Something with a more 'vintage' look for B&W will probably suit me better which is why I've stopped thinking about the Voigtlander 50 2.5 which I know is a modern design (and hasn't had any great reviews) and of course the 50 1.5 is pretty much the same size as what I have already.

It also goes without saying that I'd settle for a latest gen 50 2.8 Elmar or 50 2.5 Summarit in a heartbeat (gratuitous sharpness would be a nice distraction from the over-contrast!) but sadly they're both out of reach of my wallet right now.



Sorry if I've managed to drag this post on a bit but hopefully I've outlined what I'm looking for pretty well.

Cheers! -Bosk
 
I own a Summitar LTM 50 mm f/ 2 lens and a Summicron M 50 mm f/ 2 Dual Range. The Summicron is a little more good performer, but also the Summitar is a grat lens. I use both with many satisfactions. The Elmar 50 mm f/ 3,5 is a very great performer but is also very fiddle to use, due the aperture ring situated around the first lens. The Elmar 50 mm f/ 2,8 is better but not at the same level of the Summicron.
Ciao.
Vincenzo
 
Three excellent performers Bosk. Very difficult to pick one.
If pocketable size is what matters the most, then go for the Elmar. The body of the Elmar is not smaller than the Summitar/cron but its hood is. You have to think about the hood. The only proper hood for the Summitar/cron (collapsible) is the square hood (barndoor) and it's pretty big; I use it with my Summitar, it's perfect but bulky. The round one (12538) is usable but it can't handle strong incident light.
On the other hand, the Summitar has a wonderful bokeh (it's my favourite lens btw); and finally you can't go wrong with the Summicron which is basically a more constrasty Summitar. But don't expect the coll. summicron to handle flare better than the Summitar; those lenses are equally prone to flare and the use of the barndoor hood is necessary.
 
Old Elmars are cheap and good. I'll second what Marc said about flare control, my collapsible 'cron is much worse in that respect than my Elmar, I always use a hood with it thus adding to the size of the package. In fact my modern tabbed Summicron flares more than my old Elmar.
The one handling drawback of the f2.8 Elmar is that the barrel rotates so you need to apply the infinity lock to change apertures. You get used to this.
 
Bosk,
I own both a Canon 50/1.4 and a Summitar. There is a HUGE difference sizewise, and after using the Canon you will find any of your three choices to feel very compact. I can only speak to the Summitar as I have not owned nor used the Elmar or Summicron. I very much like the Summitar as it can be quite sharp when closed down a little and can also be pleasantly soft wide open. It's a versatile lens, but as others have spoken to already, it performs best with it's "barn door" hood. FWIW I often shoot without the hood indoors and it is generally not a problem, depends on time of day and lighting.
 
As lens hood i use the IROAA model both on the Summicron 50 mm f/ 2 Dual Range and the Summitar 50 mm f/ 2, although the IROAA id not indicated for the Summitar, nevertheless work fine.
Ciao.
 
The Summitar is really a pre-collapsible Summicron whilst the Elmars, old & new are a different optical configuration. I'd say the new design Elmar-M for a new look & resolution, plus either of the classic double Gauss designs, Summitar or Summicron. The differences between Summitar & collapsible Summicron disappear by about 5.6. The Summitar does (at least mine does) show greater curvature of field.
If you do need & use f2 all the time, then I'd be hard put to choose between the Summitar & an older Summicron.
usual 2c disclaimer 🙂
David
 
I either have or have used all three. My personal choice is the Elmar 50/2.8. Yes, it's a bit more fiddly. But it makes for a wonderfully compact kit and takes marvelous pics. I don't bother with a hood and have had little flare trouble (just need to pay attention to avoid strong light sources in the frame). Interestingly, I have found the Elmar to have slightly greater depth of field which can be helpful when shooting quickly. And you can't beat the price of an early 50/2.8 Elmar.

-Randy
 
Vincenzo Maielli said:
....The Elmar 50 mm f/ 2,8 is better but not at the same level of the Summicron.
Click to expand...


Does anyone else agree with this statement?

I was under the impression that the Elmar was a similar performer to the Summicron, simply a stop slower.
 
I actually have a 2.8 Elmar that I will be posting for sale here this weekend. Leica 50/2.8 Elmar s/n 1453099, screw-mount s/n 1453099. $200. The Summitar is also a very nice, collapsible lens. In terms of a comparison, both the Elmar and the Summicron have been in production in one form or another for decades. Early versions of both have softer coatings than their modern versions, are marginally more prone to flare than their modern versions and so on. A hood is more of a necessity with the older lenses, although I always use one, even on my modern glass.
 
You really have to personally try all three to see which you'd prefer. Not only are there subtle renditions that are very subjectively judged but the ergonomics are quite different. I've owned, or have owned all three. Sold the Elmar not because I did not like the results but disliked the ergonomics which to me is a VERY important aspect of the kind of rangefinder shooting I do. My favorite 50 is the Summicron DR, with my Summilux being a close second. That said though the Summitar gives a beautiful look as well, as do my Jupiter-8 and even my Industar-22!

Good news is if you buy used and buy smart you can sell-off any of the three for about the same or more than you paid. Even at a small loss it's a cheap "rental".

Buy them, hold them, use them, shoot them...keep what you like best in the end.
 
What Rich just said makes a ton of sense to me. As for ergonomics, I definitely prefer my rigid Summicron to my Elmar 50/2.8. But then, the Elmar tucks under my arm and in my pocket so much better that I'm willing to sacrifice some ergonomics to have my camera with me more often. Also, I think there's a part of me that just likes the "old school" fiddliness. Part of the same reason I like shooting with rangefinder cameras and film in the first place. Regardless of your ultimate personal choice/preference, as Rich just said and implied, you can't go wrong with any of these lenses either in their image taking quality or their resale value so buy what interests you and find out for yourself what you want to shoot with.

-Randy
 
Bosk said:
Does anyone else agree with this statement?

I was under the impression that the Elmar was a similar performer to the Summicron, simply a stop slower.
Click to expand...
It's the current 50/2.8 Elmar that's commonly reported to be as good a performer as the summicron, not the 1st generation version.

I have an optically flawless 1st. generation Elmar and I have to say that it's rather soft at f2.8. Sure, it's that nice creamy Leica-softness which is in every way superior to - say - Cannon softness 😉 , but it's quite soft at 2.8 none the less. Enough so that I avoid 2.8 unless soft is the look I really want.

So, depending on what you like to shoot, you may find the 1st. gen. 50/2.8 Elmar to be functionally an f4 lens for most purposes (That's how I think of it)- in which case a clean, late 50/3.5 Elmar might do you just as well, with the benefit of being more compact, at the cost of an even more fiddly aperture setting.
 
Last edited:
ddutchison said:
So, depending on what you like to shoot, you may find the 1st. gen. 50/2.8 Elmar to be functionally an f4 lens for most purposes (That's how I think of it)- in which case a clean, late 50/3.5 Elmar might do you just as well, with the benefit of being more compact, at the cost of an even more fiddly aperture setting.
Click to expand...

If the 2.8 Elmar isn't sharp wide-open then I may as well opt for a Summicron instead since f4 is far too slow for most indoor shooting with ISO 100 film.

Is there a big difference in size/weight between the two?
 
2.8 Elmar would be my choice. A very fine lens that matches the DR/rigid Summicrons from 1956 on. I would sell any of the other two and keep the 2.8 if I had too. I have a mint late one

Coll `crons lack contrast 2.0-4.0 and are not super sharp at those stops. Stopped down they are fine. I gave mine to my son.

Summitars are not sharp wide open, but have nice charactor for portraits. They use odd size accesories. Most are hazy and need cleaning. I have two fine examples. I am not ashamed to use them.
 
Ronald M said:
Summitars are not sharp wide open, but have nice charactor for portraits. They use odd size accesories. Most are hazy and need cleaning. I have two fine examples. I am not ashamed to use them.
Click to expand...

That's a fair description of the Summitar. I add it's an excellent performer stopped down, as sharp as the Summicron coll. and the Elmar. It's rather soft wide open but wonderful for portrait. The bokeh - I can't help saying that again and again - is magic. It's cheap; Bosk just try one, and resell it if you're not happy with.
 
Leica repair expert Sherry Krauter much prefers the Summitar as her favorite 50/2, so much so that she replaced her DR Summicron with one. While not as razor sharp as the Summicron, the image quality is magical to her (or words to that effect) giving a nice range of sharpness on either side of the image plane.
 
awilder said:
Leica repair expert Sherry Krauter much prefers the Summitar as her favorite 50/2, so much so that she replaced her DR Summicron with one. While not as razor sharp as the Summicron, the image quality is magical to her (or words to that effect) giving a nice range of sharpness on either side of the image plane.
Click to expand...


Sherry's a woman of taste 🙂
I could easily sell my Summicron Rigid, but I hope I never have to sell my Summitar.
 
Bosk

I only have a current Elmar-M, haven't used the original. The results are excellent to my eyes. I normally shoot between 4 and 5.6 with it and the out-of-focus areas are beautiful. I will try to post a picture later to illustrate.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom