Summitar 2.0 vs Elmar 3.5

[anoldsock]

I'm a little new to the whole Leica scene, so I want to ask for some advice. I picked up my Leica IIIc at a local camera shop in Houston which included the Summitar lens. Maybe this sounds stupid, but I am thinking of getting the Elmar 3.5 lens because it'll be easier to carry around in my pocket.

Obviously the Summitar 2.0 is a faster lens, but what have your experience been with using the two different lenses, or are there any suggestions of another collapsable lens similiar to the Elmar 3.5? Also, I'm on a bit of a budget, so how much should I expect to pay in getting a shootable lens?

 

[payasam]

The Summitar is pretty small when collapsed.

 

[anoldsock]

It's pretty small when I compare it to my SLR's, but even with the Summitar collapsed, it dosen't fit comfortably in my pocket. At the same time, I don't want to sacrafice image quality for convinence.

I know it's a pretty subjective questions, but other than the speed of the lens and DoF, am I losing anything by swapping out the Summitar for the Elmar? How do the two lenses compare in regards to image quality?

 

[gjlynx]

I have a 1949 Summitar and a 1936 Elmar. The Elmar is a more recent aquisition, so I have less experience with it, but it definitely renders colors much more muted than the Summitar. The Elmar has a little bit of haze so I'm not sure if that is a factor. The collapsed Elmar is barely noticible on the camera. I like the images from the Summitar better and it's definitely easier to manipulate the aperture on the Summitar.

 

[Ronald M]

Haze and no coating like the 1930 elmar give the flat dull pics. Any haze at all. no matter how slight degrades the image. Check with a penlight. Large bright sources will not work.

The later coated elmars will make the same pic as the Summitar for all practical purposes. Accesories are easier to find for the Elmar. Some do not like the diaphragm setting next to the lens surface on the Elmar. That does not bother my small fingers. You can always carry a toothpick if you have fat fingers.

 

[Solinar]

I'd shoot with the Summitar and enjoy the IIIc as is.

The 3.5 Elmar is more fiddly and is more of a daylight lens. Its positive points are that it is much lighter, much easier to get accessories for the than the Summitar and its a more compact lens that will not block the built-in finder.

Use the Summitar for a while indoors or deep shade at f/2.8 - 4 and you'll probably never miss the Elmar.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

You could look for a Collapsible Industar-50. Cheap, same size as the Elmar, and improved aperture control.

 

[anoldsock]

The more I look into the Industar-50 the more it seems like a viable option, especially at its low selling point.

I looked through some photos on flickr and it seems like it's optically comparable to it's Elmar counterpart.

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on this?

 

[OldNick]

I have both the Summitar and the Elmar. I feel that lens condition is much more important in this choice than the particular lens characteristics. When my Elmar was new, over 50 years ago, it produced great images with both B&W and Kodachrome. Now it is somewhat hazy and the results are not the same. I had my Summitar serviced because the aperture ring was very stiff, and it produces great images. The Summitar does result in a slightly larger, heavier package for pocket carrying, but is worth the extra weight because of the resulting images.

Jim N.

 

[John Shriver]

I'd expect a clean Elmar to have more contrast than the Summitar, especially at wide aperture. Either get a haze-free specimen, or get it professionally cleaned.

 

[Graybeard]

The more I look into the Industar-50 the more it seems like a viable option, especially at its low selling point.

I looked through some photos on flickr and it seems like it's optically comparable to it's Elmar counterpart.

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on this?

There are a couple of Russian Elmar clones, the I-50 and the Industar-22. These are both well-made with brass and steel construction unlike the other Russian LTM lenses which are mostly aluminum.

I've found the optical performanceof these two Russian clones to be equivalent to that of the Elmar.