Summitar and Summarit questions

[marc_lieberman1]

Is there any reason to prefer a Summicron or Summilux over a Summitar

or Summarit or vice versa for an M camera?

 

Is the Summitar merely a screw mount version of the Summicron and the

Summarit a screw mount version of the Summilux?

 

Is there a reason to prefer either a rigid lense over a collapsible

lens or vice versa?

[alex_lofquist]

The Summicron and Summilux (many versions) are significant redesigns over the Summitar and Summarit.

[djl251]

Looking at the pictures - I swear you can't tell one from the other. I have all of them

except the Summarit. God knows why. Gear lust thats all. It's a sickness.

[tony_salce]

Marc,

 

I suggest you speak to Sherry Krauter about the Summitar. She will tell you that in her opinion it is one of the most underrated Leica lenses with a 3 dimensional character unmatched by other Leica lenses.

 

I have one. It is nice.

 

I prefer the signature of the DR Summicron.

 

Best regards,

 

Tony Salce

[ronald_moravec1]

The lenses are old and they may need maintenance. Good optical samples make georgeous images. Leica never made any really bad lenses. Manufacturing technology of the time allowed more individual variation in the lenses than what is acceptable today. Pros would always test a bunch and pick the best.

 

What you find when you test, and I have done it with mine, is the circle of really good definition wide open gets bigger and bigger with each generation. By the time you are at 5.6, you can`t tell them from a modern lens. The glow many talk about is mostly visable at wider aperatures as is the optical signature of the individual design. Newer lenses have much better flair control and harder coatings.

[alvin_hear]

<p>Marc - I just recently learned the difference with these lenses from this <a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/ll.htm"> Leica lens review page<p></a>

[jorge]

Marc,

<br><br>

I have a Summarit (LTM, I don't know if there were any in M bayonet). Build is all right but not to modern standards. Focusing could be smoother and the aperture ring is loose and kind of imprecise, with vague clicks; maybe it's just lack of maintenance. After all it's over 50 years old.

<br><br>

Optically it is of very low contrast, highly prone to flare, showing very good detail in center and going soft through the field to very soft in the corners. It is a moody lens, very good for portraiture and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2308160">pictorial work</a>. It definitely has "the glow" :-) and superb bokeh. It might be said that its images are also very "tridimensional". Its low contrast makes it a lens not much suited to color work, at least I doin't like the unsaturated images I've got from it. However, it's a lens that I like very much for B&W when I'm after a "vintage" or "holliwoodesque" look.

[brad_shimmin1]

Hi Marc. I have the Summitar, and indeed the fit/finish of this old lens really suffers, but if you can find one with good glass, you won't regret it. Like the others have said, it really delivers a unique look. Here are a couple of pics.

[brad_shimmin1]

sorry, forgot the caption. sigh.<div></div>

[brad_shimmin1]

and one more<div></div>

[peter]

LURVE the summitar, lurve it, lurve it, lurve it! Yep, as people here tell you it has a very nice signature, especially in b/w photography.

[les_lammers]

I like the older lenses for their unique signature. You can buy and try all of them discussed here for less than the price of one new super lens. I am doing just that and will keep the ones *I* like the most. They will be CLA'd too.

[peter]

Having already opined that I lurve the summitar, I should add that in my view it depends on what sort of photography you do and what effects you most like. As someone else said "it's a disease." I have that disease and I have accumulated over the years; an elmar, a summitar, a summicron DR, a summarit and a later model black summicron. I also have two varieties of canon SM 50mm lens - the 1.8 chrome and the 1.4 black and chrome. Believe me when I say they are all different and all give subtly different renditions and I do not regret owning any of them. But of the two you have nominated, I would go for the summitar, it is more flexible in terms of producing excellent outcomes in a wider range of conditions / subjects. One minor problem is getting the filters if you need them. Adaptors are available to convert normal 39mm filters but these are also hard to find.