Tested: 50/2 Summicron vs 50/2.5 Summarit

[Prosaic™]

Images from my own testing. Both lenses at f2 / f2.5 respectively. Kodak Portra 160VC.

 

[Krosya]

summicron has nicer bokeh

 

[robinsonphotography]

Summicron wins for me in all those shots....thanks for the test examples!

 

[benmacphoto]

I may be biased since I own two Summicrons, but I love their signature.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Very revealing. I happen to already like Summicron-bokeh. Your samples show what I have come to expect from my 50.

-Ben

 

[Turtle]

Summicron wins for me in all those shots....thanks for the test examples!

But the summarit was shot at 2.5 and the cron at F2. Shoot them both at the same aperture then we have a real comparison (for bokeh).

 

[FA Limited]

i like your tests a lot, but i guess keeping the aperture similar would have made a big difference
in the first summicron picture, there seems to be a lot of purple around the camera

 

[Roger Hicks]

But the summarit was shot at 2.5 and the cron at F2. Shoot them both at the same aperture then we have a real comparison (for bokeh).

Quite.

Cheers,

R.

 

[helen.HH]

the CRON Does it for ME....😀 a bit more 'POP' and a Creamier OOF

THANX for Posting !!

 

[scottwallick]

I'm going to get one of these two lenses. Tomorrow. Probably. I found a nice used version of each. So this was a timely comparrison.

So thanks.

I think I'm going to go with the Summicron. I have the 35mm Summarit, which I've been very pleased with. A little variety couldn't hurt.

 

[Turtle]

guys, I hate to be a party pooper, bus as I stated earlier, they were shot at different apertures. whats more, the shot of the railing was obviously shot quite a bit closer in with the cron, as can be seen by the size of the first knurl. Focus distance has a dramatic effect on bokeh and seeing as both the distance differs and the aperture, I am not sure why you are concluding anything from these images. It is a complete waste of time...

What these images do show - and this is important to me - is that even Leica lenses, even classics like the cron, can produce less than buttery bokeh if the subject is a tough one (like the railings). Both lenses here produced fairly 'snaggly' bokeh and you can bet that a few inches back and at 2.5, the cron's would be much less pleasant too!

It makes me laugh how shots with tough subjects like the railings are always used by Leicaphiles to show how inferior the bokeh is from CV (and even Zeiss) lenses, which they put next to Leica shots shot under conditions that would show good bokeh from any lens (like a figurine on a table shot up close with a bank of smooth foliage five or ten metres away).

I am not trying to be critical because I know the shots were uploaded to be helpful, but trust me when I say that unless you perfectly, and I mean perfectly, replicate bokeh shots using a tripod and the same apertures, you cant conclude very much.

 

[Prosaic™]

Thanks for the feedback and let me state clearly: these are from my own evaluation under the parameters I was interested in. What appears to be a small difference on paper as to maximum opening and minimum focusing distance can make quite a difference in photographic results.

For my type of application I will prefer the Cron. It sells used for less than a new 50 Summarit and handles better overall.

 

[raid]

The Summicron seems to do well.
I would have taken photos at 2.5/2.8 and then 4/4 and 8/8 for the Summarit/Summicron. It makes the comparisons more direct.

Thanks.

 

[Turtle]

There is another issue with the Summarit which is important and that is focus shift close up at F4-5.6.

I did not realise looking at these images that you had deliberately shot them both at min distance ( 0.8 for the summarit and 0.7 cron) and aperture to show their 'max aperture closest in look'. I thought it was a side by side - like for like - comparison. I stand corrected.