Jump to content

Summaron 35/3.5 VS Elmar 35/3.5 (Uncoated or coated)


justin_ng1

Recommended Posts

<p>Well, it depends on whether you are talking about the field or the central area and which aperture. The MTF charts (thanks to Mr. Puts in his Leica Compendium) indicate very similar contrast and sharpness/softness when the Elmar is at f/5.6 and the Summaron is at f/3.5. Because the Summaron is a double gauss design, the central area of the negative shows finer detail when stopped down than the Elmar, with better distortion control and less vignetting. If you ever get a chance to pick up a copy do so, as the 609 pages answer almost any question one can imagine about the optical and mechanical characteristic of every lens produced by Leica. There's also a free earlier version he put on the web without pictures, charts and diagrams although it stops several years short of the most recent offerings.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My coated elmar is softer & less contrasty than my Summaron, in line with Stephen's post, when used on M9.<br>

<em>I sold my coated elmar for no reason</em><br>

I kept both of mine, also for no reason. If you can't have both, Summaron is better, if clean.<br>

The Summaron, at moderate apertures is undistinguishable from any other more modern Leica 35's in the centre, to my eyes. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 35/3.5 Summaron (a 1951 LTM version) was until recently my mainstay 35mm lens, used on all my M bodies with the LTM adapter. It was a little less contrasty than the 35/2.5 Color-Skopar I bought to replace it, but it always did the job.

 

21070638068_91b70e7b7d_k.jpg

 

Leica M8, near Ketchikan Alaska

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...