The Summarit ... do you like it?

[raid]

I wonder how the Leitz 50mm/1.5 Summarit differs optically and performance wise from the Canon 50mm/1.5. Is it better or worse or how different?
Also, how would you rate the Summarit when compared to the Summar and the Summitar? Maybe some users of more than one of these four lenses could comment on how they perceive these lenses to be. Thanks.


Raid

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Like it?!? I *Love* it! It does have weak points, but it has a very unique personality. I took it for a well-deserved spin last week. It's been on my M3 pretty much the last two weeks.

It's not for everybody, though, say, those concerned with MTF graphs, corner-to-corner sharpness, etc. It's like Fenugreek, not a spice everybody likes or knows how to handle, or should be used indiscriminately.

Edit (forgot to address your other questions):
The Summarit and the Canon 50 f/1.5 are two different beasts. The Canon seems to me to be more corrected, which sometimes makes the bokeh a little bit harsh, but you really have to try; I found this out by accident; despite the "Sonnar look", I did see some double-lines in the bokeh when the background had prominent straight lines. The Summarit does not have this problem.

On the other hand, the Summarit wide open is not as "sharp" as the Canon is wide open in the plane of focus (or whatever the term is). But the bokeh is very very different and smooth and kind of silky, but a "muddy" silky.

The Canon flares badly when direct sunlight hits it directly, including some pseudo rainbow arching in the image, whereas the Summarit simply exhibits veiling glare (and hence you lose contrast).

The Canon has more contrast than the Summarit. The Canon is slightly shorter and lighter than the Summarit, and the Canon uses 40mm filters, where the Summarit uses 41mm or "slip-on" filters.

The Summarit is on a different level than the Summar or Summitar. Going from less contrast to more contrast, I'd list them this way: an uncoated Summar, the Summarit, the Summitar (coated). If you ever find a coated Summar, I'd say the contrast is about the same when shot wide open.

::deep breath:: any questions? 😀

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Unfortunately, a lot of these have scratches on the front coating, adding flare to softness.

The first shot, I took with the first Summarit I owned (lots of scratches, pretty common), the second with my current one, whose only defect is a slight smudge in the coating of an inner element. Both were shot wide open.

 

[jan normandale]

Like it?!? I *Love* it! It does have weak points, but it has a very unique personality. I took it for a well-deserved spin last week. It's been on my M3 pretty much the last two weeks.

It's not for everybody, though, say, those concerned with MTF graphs, corner-to-corner sharpness, etc. It's like Fenugreek, not a spice everybody likes or knows how to handle, or should be used indiscriminately.

Fenugreek?? Now that's a descriptive mixed metaphor. 😀

 

[jan normandale]

Unfortunately, a lot of these have scratches on the front coating, adding flare to softness.

The first shot, I took with the first Summarit I owned (lots of scratches, pretty common), the second with my current one, whose only defect is a slight smudge in the coating of an inner element. Both were shot wide open.

Nice shots Gabriel, very dreamy quality to this lens, great for these portraits. Still a lot of the performance is in the holder of the camera. Like the chef who uses fenugreek... ;- )

 

[bobomoon]

This guy uses a summarit and rocks it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/junku-newcleus/

 

[raid]

Unfortunately, a lot of these have scratches on the front coating, adding flare to softness.

The first shot, I took with the first Summarit I owned (lots of scratches, pretty common), the second with my current one, whose only defect is a slight smudge in the coating of an inner element. Both were shot wide open.

Nice photos,Gabriel. The second photo looks better.

Raid

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This guy uses a summarit and rocks it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/junku-newcleus/

Yep, those are nice shots. That also shows how versatile this lens is. You're not "stuck" with low contrast, you can adjust contrast to your liking.

Stopped down to about f/2.8 or f/4 it is quite sharp. Already wide open, a good sample can be reasonably sharp, and the blurred areas nice and buttery.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Fenugreek?? Now that's a descriptive mixed metaphor. 😀

I do tend to put my silver in my mouth. No, wait, my boots in the bucket. No wait, my kicks in my spoon. No, wait... 😉

 

[telenous]

This guy uses a summarit and rocks it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/junku-newcleus/

I love what Junku does with his Summarit. The contrast in his images is spectacular. The kind of black he gets out of it is astounding. I do not know how he does it, one would have thought that a lens that predates the early Summilux is very low contrast. Perhaps it's a combination with the quite contrasty Neopan 1600 which I suspect he uses. He's a very, very talented photographer.

 

[OldNick]

Raid - I responded to your question on p-net.

Gabrielma - Your first example resembles the results that I got with a Summarit that I once owned. The second example is beautiful. If I had one that delivered that kind of image, I would hold on to it.

Jim N.

 

[richard_l]

...I do not know how he does it, one would have thought that a lens that predates the early Summilux is very low contrast...

That's a generalization used by people who want to appear knowledgeable about Leica lenses but actually have little or no first-hand experience with them. It would be annoying if it weren't kind of funny.

Richard

 

[telenous]

That's a generalization used by people who want to appear knowledgeable about Leica lenses but actually have little or no first-hand experience with them. It would be annoying if it weren't kind of funny.

Richard

Richard,

I do not count my experience with Leica lenses in years but sadly only in months. My understanding of optics is perhaps rudimentary for the time being but I know what I see. I use the language and terminology I 've learned from other enthusiasts in this very forum to discuss my experience with these lenses. I am not sure what ticked you off particularly about my remarks but, you will allow me to say, your comment was itself a generalisation, and rather bitter at that.

Best
Alkis

 

[richard_l]

...I use the language and terminology I 've learned from other enthusiasts in this very forum to discuss my experience with these lenses...

Yes, the language and terminology used by enthusiasts is full of fiction and myth concerning older Leica lenses. I fell victim to this myself not long ago when I mentioned that older 50mm Elmar lenses are fairly low contrast. I was promptly corrected and realized that many impressions of older lenses are based on single examples which superficially seem in good condition but actually are choked with haze or virus or separations.

It takes only one remark like '35mm Summarons are terribly fuzzy at close focus,' to infect large numbers of people so that the lie is propogated. A few questions uncover the likelyhood that the 'bad' Summaron was nothing of the sort, but was the M3 version being used without the oculars required to adapt the finder and focus mechanism of the M3 to a 35mm lens.

Anyhow, in my response to your post, I was referring to the host of Leica 'experts' who for some reason have a need to propogate misinformation. After a while one hears the same lie so often that one begins to believe it and spout it off oneself. I have at times been guilty of this myself, and I find it reprehensible whether I or someone else does it.

However, it was clear that you were referring to hearsay, so I wasn't blaming you personally, just sounding off in general. I should have made that clear.

Richard

 

[richard_l]

By the way, I have a beautiful screwmount Summarit, but it has a serious problem. Apparently the glue between two lens elements has deteriorated to the point that when one looks through the lens a certain way, it looks brownish, dirty, and almost opaque. Someday when I win the lottery I may get it reglued, if I don't give it away first. I'm thinking about selling a user M3 and sweetening the pot with the sick Summarit.

Richard

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

having not ever used a summilux, I'm impressed with the summarit and I typically use fuji 800 or 400 color film bought at target -- their consumer grade stuff

I've begun to lose faith in Fuji 400. Fuji 800 is still great, but I don't know if there's something wrong with the way I'm scanning it, even when I ask for a print from a frame, it just doesn't seem to be as good as it used to be before.

Who knows, it's very possible it's (or, rather, highly unlikely it isn't) just me, but I've bought a few rolls of Kodak ::shudder:: HD 400, just to check it out and see if it handles well under poor-lit conditions, as well as seeing if it has "better scanibility" as they claim.

But Fuji 800, both the consumer grade and Press 800, rock. Gritty at times, but it rocks. I'm also about to experiment with Fuji B&W 1600. It seems that everybody likes citrus-punch contrast, so I'll give it a try.

 

[telenous]

Yes, the language and terminology used by enthusiasts is full of fiction and myth concerning older Leica lenses. I fell victim to this myself not long ago when I mentioned that older 50mm Elmar lenses are fairly low contrast. I was promptly corrected and realized that many impressions of older lenses are based on single examples which superficially seem in good condition but actually are choked with haze or virus or separations.

It takes only one remark like '35mm Summarons are terribly fuzzy at close focus,' to infect large numbers of people so that the lie is propogated. A few questions uncover the likelyhood that the 'bad' Summaron was nothing of the sort, but was the M3 version being used without the oculars required to adapt the finder and focus mechanism of the M3 to a 35mm lens.

Anyhow, in my response to your post, I was referring to the host of Leica 'experts' who for some reason have a need to propogate misinformation. After a while one hears the same lie so often that one begins to believe it and spout it off oneself. I have at times been guilty of this myself, and I find it reprehensible whether I or someone else does it.

However, it was clear that you were referring to hearsay, so I wasn't blaming you personally, just sounding off in general. I should have made that clear.

Richard

Thanks very much for clarifying your previous post, sometimes it's difficult to judge the spirit in which something is said, so apologies if I misjudged you.

I read the above with great interest, and I am willing to concede the point, especially as it does not go against my experience, consisting in having tried, believe it or not, five (!) rigid Summicrons of variable optical conditions and concluding that the ones which were in better shape definitely had higher contrast from the less well looked after ones. The last Summicron I had in my hands was nearly mint and IMHO it was clearly comparable in terms of contrast to the modern Leica offerings (with the exception of the Asphericals). Same goes for a 60's Summilux I tried for a while and the early Elmarit 90 I have. But I have not used any other vintage lenses, so I did rely on hearsay on what I said about the Summarit.

This is a topic of some interest, I 'd really like to discuss it further, ideally with some photo examples, but doing it here would hijack Raid's Summarit thread, so I 'll post a another thread when I 'm not short in time and I would appreciate any comments from you and all the others here.

So, going back to Raid's original question: From what I have seen, yes, I like the Summarit very much 🙂

Best,

 

[raid]

Alkis,
Such discussions would be fine here; I am interested in many Leitz lenses topics, and the Summarit in only one of them.

Raid

 

[raid]

I've begun to lose faith in Fuji 400. Fuji 800 is still great, but I don't know if there's something wrong with the way I'm scanning it, even when I ask for a print from a frame, it just doesn't seem to be as good as it used to be before.

Who knows, it's very possible it's (or, rather, highly unlikely it isn't) just me, but I've bought a few rolls of Kodak ::shudder:: HD 400, just to check it out and see if it handles well under poor-lit conditions, as well as seeing if it has "better scanibility" as they claim.

But Fuji 800, both the consumer grade and Press 800, rock. Gritty at times, but it rocks. I'm also about to experiment with Fuji B&W 1600. It seems that everybody likes citrus-punch contrast, so I'll give it a try.

Gabriel,

Maybe using Fuji 200 pushed to 400 would be another option if you find Fuji 400 to do poorly for your needs.

Raid

 

[OldNick]

I've found Fuji 200 to be very good for outdoor photography. Anything faster gets me to the limits of shutter speed/ aperture combinations, and I prefer to use mid-range apertures.

Jim N.