40mm Summarit f2.4 (Minilux) vs 40mm Summicron f2 (CL)

Well the title pretty much says it.

 

Ignoring (if possible) any camera that is attached to both of these

lenses what are your opinions on this comparison?

 

Erwin Puts (in his review of the Summarit 40mm f2.4/Minilux) would

seem to place the quality of this lens in between the 35mm Summicron

f2 Asph (Best) and the 40mm Summicron f2 (not quite as good as

Summarit)

 

He doesn't actually find a lot of difference between all 3 designs

and seems to think the 40mm f2.4 Minilux lens is the pinnacle of the

Double Gauss design. (Bit strong maybe?)

 

Can those with experience of both 35mm/40mm Summicrons and the

Minilux's Summarit 40mm offer any thought or samples to illustrate?

(Real world stuff not 'test' shots of newspapers pinned to walls.)

 

Thanks

Trevor,

 

The 40mm is a real gem although it has a simple coating. I suppose the E0 elmarit has better design in terms of unsollicited reflection but at a lower economic cost.

 

Back to the CL, I recently discovered the product of Akihiro Asahi:

http://www.aki-asahi.com/store/html/cl/cl.php

 

Who can help me in identifying the shade attached to the CL lens?

Thanks

The shade appears to be the #12585. The Summicron C doesnt have the clip groove but if you strip the rubber off the collapsible hood the ventilated shade will clip to it. When my rubber shade dried out and cracked I put the ring in the lathe and turned it down to 42mm and put a groove in the remaining rubber, however I now use the #12526 which is perfect for this lens.

Hi Trevor. I don't have any experience with the Minilux 40mm. However, the attached photos were made with the 40mm rokkor cl version lens. The photos were made approximately 27 years apart. Is that real world enough?<div></div>

.

.<div></div>

hi -- it is a little bit contradictory for you to ask people to speak to the differences between these closely matched lenses but then to belittle critical testing. i would venture to say that, assuming each of the lenses you mention is used properly (focused well, properly shaded, etc), objective differences, if any, will be noticeable ONLY on th etest bench. each will give very good performance for handheld, available light shooting.

 

i must say i also disagree with the idea that it is possible to separate out the performance of the lens from the camera body on which the lens will be used. the minilux is a nice compact camera, but IME it exhibits all the typical drawbacks of active AF. this will degrade performance, if only occasionally, as compared with a carefully focused M camera. also, the rf base-length is longer in the M, so the M camera is capable of better focus.

 

i use an m4p -- motor m -- rokkor 40mm an awful lot. it is a great combo.

Roger, how do you frame for 40mm in the MP? The 40 view of the world is a very nice one, don't you think? Encompasses a lot, but very naturally.

<p><a title="Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount by Dirk | JapanExposures.com, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4352431759_2271a33848.jpg" alt="Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p>Old thread, nonetheless, may be of interest. Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount</p>

<p><a title="Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount by Dirk | JapanExposures.com, on Flickr" href="Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4352431759_2271a33848.jpg" alt="Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>

<p>Old thread, nonetheless, may be of interest. Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount</p>

Wonderful conversion, dirk-san! If I send you my old minilux with its 40/2.4, could you convert it for me? (Or recommend who can?)