35mm Summaron f/2.8 vs 40mm

What are users thoughts on the non goggle Summaron vs the Rokkor/Cron 40mm? I

have been using a Rokkor 40mm for several years. It's a fine lens with very

nice bokeh. Is the f/2.8 Summaron sharper, up close, with smoother out-of-focus

rendering?

I used both Summaron-M and 40 Summicron. The summicron frames are much sharper than summaron at max. open. At F8, which I usually set for landscape photos, their sharpness and contrast are similar but colors are different. Summaron feels somehow warmer. This what I experienced of but might be different from other opinions.

 

I have not tried Rokkor before but read it is very close to 40 Summicron. Maybe you can get a summaron to compare with your Rokkor.

the build quality of my 2.8 summ. emulates (same body?) the ver 1 cron, which are much better than either 40.

Good info. I suspect the M Rokkor may be a little softer wide open, at min focus range vs the 40 cron or Summaron f/2.8. The Summaron is said to have the same image qualities as the fixed mount (11818) 50 Cron. Hopefully there are more reports to come.

"I suspect the M Rokkor may be a little softer wide open, at min focus range vs the 40 cron or Summaron f/2.8."

 

And why would you suspect that?

My 40-cron at f2 is definitely sharper than the 2,8 summaron i had at f2,8. I have no worries about the build quality of the 40, but the summaron was superb, probably over-engineered, vintage Leitz. It also had a vintage long throw focus which I didn't find as quick to use on the fly.

 

Outside at mid apertures they are comparable for sharpness, inside the 40 gives you an extra, very usable, stop...

 

The 40 can occasionally be prone to strange flare effects, but i never did use the summaron as much, which is why I sold it on. My 40 will be with me until i don't have a camera to mount it on.

Try the 3.5 version of the 35mm Summaron. It's superb & you can get one in great condition for app. $200. The 2.8 starts at app. $550.<div></div>

. . . sorry for the "poster size" pic.

Joel, my Rokkor 40mm is a superb lens. It's image characteriestics are all positive, sharp to the corners without harsh OOF effects. Plus it is one of the most ergonomic, smooth operating lenses in the 35 - 50mm range; the equal of a Leica mount. About 6 months ago I did a informal test with the two optics. I have impressions which may or may not be accurate. So, I ask if anyone with more experience using the two lenses could discuss image characteristics.

Paul, your shot is about what I expect from a pristine 3.5 Summaron. Wonderful smooth palate of colors. I've yet to shoot B&W with it but look forward to doing so. Even though it is a much older design, the 3.5 Summaron compares favorably with a 2.8 35 Elmarit R when stopped down. Both wonderful lenses that can be acquired at reasonable prices.

"Try the 3.5 version of the 35mm Summaron. It's superb & you can get one in great condition for app. $200. The 2.8 starts at app. $550."

 

Still soft, ime. Remember, I had a 3.5, typically low contrast. I bought a 2.8 mint- LTM (rare in itself, but in this cond...) recently for $400...much better than my former 3.5, $135 with clip-on hood.

These lenses are a generation apart, and it's a bit of an apples vs oranges comparison. I would expect them to have different characteristics, and each should be used for different effects.

I was actually more referring to why you would think the 40mm Summicron would be superior to the Rokkor? If you have the first Rokkor from the Leitz Minolta CL then it will yield identical photos. The lenses although assembled in Germany (Summicron)and Japan (Rokkor) it appears there was some parts sharing going on. If you have the CLE Rokkor then it does have slightly more contrast and warmer images than the first Rokkor and Summicron C.

Ahh, I was refering to my Rokkor 40mm for the CLE. Most of my Rokkor images are taken with a subject more than 6 ft away. I believe there is not much difference in the mid apertures and 10 ft focus distance between the Rokkor and Summaron. At close-up range and/or wide open is where one may see image character differences which I have interest in. The f/2.8 Summaron is said to have the dame classic look as the DR.

They are both superb lenses.

I own both the lenses. The Summicron C 40/2 on the Leica CL and the Summaron 35/2.8 with goggles on the Leica M5. About the optical renditions i agree with Thomas Tseng.

Ciao.

I bought a new 35mm 2.8 Summaron for an M3 back around 1972. One of the sharpest lenses I had ever used up until then. Later, I bought a CL, w/o the 40mm lens, and used the 35 on it with good results, along with a 90mm. Then somebody stole it, with the 35 on it. So I bought a new CL, with the 40mm. Comparable results with it. BUT, I HAD THIS PROBLEM: somehow, the way I held the camera while shooting, my finger would often move the focus ring of the 40mm. Don't know how or why. I had never had that problem with the 35mm. My fault, obviously, but just thought I would throw that out to see if anybody else had ever had that problem with the 40mm + CL.

 

CL was a neat camera, as were the M cameras. But I moved to Leica R cameras, because at the time I was taking a lot of vertical format pictures, and I had difficulty focusing with the rangefinders vertically---would have to focus horizontal, and then switch to vertical to take the shot. Maybe that was where I was moving the focus ring. I'll never know, unless some of you can perhaps tell me if or why you had a similar experience

 

But but both lenses great---if in focus!

 

Tom

The Leica Historical Society published an article claiming the Summaron to be as sharp as the later Crons but with softer edges. Is the Summaron f/2.8 correct hood a IROOA? Is its Bokeh similar to the DR?

I find the 2.8 summaron to be great. I even prefer it to the new 35 'lux' I owned. It handles well, has very nice smooth out of focus rendering, better than the lux,(to my eyes anyway), is plenty sharp. Sorry , i have no experience with the 40 'cron'.

Hi guys, I am looking into getting a CL for an ultra compact camera I can keep in my

pocket. This will be my first rangefinder/leica, so I am trying to get a grasp on as much

info I can.

 

My main question I am trying to figure out is which lens I should buy. I am on a tight

budget as I am a student, and am really looking for the best bang for the buck.

 

I'm just looking at standard lenses (40mm-50mm range), and I would love to get a lens

that has great signature leica image quality, but doesn't cost a ridiculous amount. The

summicron 40/2 looks at first to be the most obvious choice...but maybe there is

something else?

 

Perhaps getting an older screw mount, and buy the adapter could be cheaper? But I want

to ensure that these older screw mount lenses still have amazing image quality.

 

I really want a fast lens, nothing slower then f2, and will be shooting primarily in B&W so

colors aren't quite as important as speed and overall clarity/sharpness.

 

Thanks for any input.