50mm Elmar, Summar, Summicron definition

[anthony_brookes5]

I have been going through a large number of negatives which I have

taken with my faithful Leica III and using my f3.5 Elmar and my f2

Summar. 80% of the images have been taken with an aperture of F4.5,

f6.3 or f9 and all at 1/500th sec. I can't tell any difference in

sharpness or definition between the lenses. Would there be any

improvement at those aperturess if I used a screw Summicron? At those

apertures the main advantage of the Summar is that I don't have to

remove any filters to fiddle around with the aperture ring.

[kajabbi]

At those settings, depth of field would be more easilt recogniziable. Flare could be a factor but all else being equal, definition would not show itself unless highly magnified on very fine grain film.

At 3.5(Elmar) and 2/2.8(Summar) the Summicron would be miles ahead.

[ronald_moravec1]

If either lens is coated, it will be much closer to the Summicron. A few Summars were coated after the war and later production elmars came coated from the factory. The coated glass will have a blue color to it. The old coatings are easily damaged by poor cleaning technique and that is the reason front elements are full of scratches.

 

A poor condition Summicron will be almost no improvement at all, so count on spending $500 for a decent one. 99 of 100 you find for sale will need repair work of some kind.

 

Early ones were made with Thorium component glass and have now developed a yellow brown tinge tint to the glass which will ruin color pictures. Some have reported exposure to UV light makes it go away.

 

Screw mount Summicrons are prices as collectables and they have the added benefit of being used on M cameras with the proper adapter.

 

I would consider a different brand in screw mount.

[ronald_moravec1]

http://www.kevincameras.com/

 

Here are a couple 50 2.0 Summicrons that are decent. Look at page five of the Leica SM lens section. They are in the $300 range.

 

There is a mint Summar too for $600 so you can see what a good one is supposed to look like.

 

Click on the picture and you will get a larger and different views of a particular lens.

 

I prefer the look of a 2.8 Elmar to the collapsable Summicron.

[ben z]

"using my f3.5 Elmar and my f2 Summar80% of the images have been taken with an aperture of F4.5, f6.3 or f9 and all at 1/500th sec. I can't tell any difference in sharpness or definition between the lenses. Would there be any improvement at those aperturess if I used a screw Summicron?"

 

Anthony, I've got the Elmar and a collapsible Cron. At those apertures I can't tell any difference either. I'm not hung up on scrutinizing my photos for lens differences, it's not why I shoot. If If my main thrust in using a camera was lens performance I would buy one of the Voitlander screwmount lenses, any of which have been tested out to exceed the specs of any of the screwmount Leica lenses.

[dan flanders]

I have both the Summicron and the RS Elmar. I mount the 'cron only when speed is important, otherwise I most always use the Elmar. If there is any difference it isn't enough to negate the compactness of the collapsed Elmar.

[gabrielma]

<i>There is a mint Summar too for $600</i><BR>

Wow. Leica-Shop (Vienna, Austria) had another one mint for 250 Euros a few months ago. My CLA was, I guess, the best $85 spent (my not-so mint Summar cost me $90).

[tan_tien_yun]

Erm, the difference I think is not very apparent with those aperture numbers. Open them up wide and take pictures, I believe that's when one can tell 1 lens from the other.