Summilux vs. Summicron vs. Elmarit

[terence_hsu]

Hey, I'm wondering what's the difference in quality of these three types of lenses. besides

speed, are there any resolution differences that are important?

[glenn_owens1]

click on the archive threads on the right side of your screen- you will find hours of readings-

[michael j hoffman]

Well, if you are speaking of the 50/2.8 Elmar-M, I can attest that there is absolutely not discernable distortion all the way to the edges of the frame. I like the Elmar so much that I haven't bothered to try either of the other two you mention. If I find I need greater lens speed, I'll get a Noctilux. For now, the Elmar is my exclusive lens of choice. The quality really must be seen to be appreciated!

 

Michael J Hoffman

[scott_white]

Michael:

 

Could you post some samples... I'd love to see the results.

 

Thanks,

 

Scott

[Bill Blackwell Images]

Short answer: No.

 

Only different "footprints" (or character) stop-to-stop differentiate recent Leica Summilux, Summicron, and Elmarit lenses. On the whole, it comes down to affordability and need - not necessarily in that order.

 

See also:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/leicahome.html

[les_lammers]

Terence,

 

Bill summed it up nicely. The real difference is speed and you pay a lot for it. Stopped down, they are all excellent lenses. The older 50 2.8 Elmar is one of my favorite lenses.

 

Les

[michael j hoffman]

Here's one from my on-going Street Noir series...<div></div>

[terry_rory]

Slideshow of some Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8 pics.....

 

 

Slideshow of some of my old Summicron 50/2 pics....

 

 

but these are still only jpegs on a screen and won't show you anything much compared to a nice print.

 

Both are good lenses and you won't go wrong with either. If you really need an extra stop or two of speed get the Summicron or Summilux.

 

Resolution is not an issue unless you are shooting extremely fined grained film on a tripod with a cable release at least f/5.6 - f/8 and making big prints. If that is what you want to do then it may be best to get a Medium format set-up like a Hasselblad with 80mm Planar and have the negs drum scanned.

[dfeingold]

Here is my slanted take for what it's worth.....

 

1. The 'lux is too big a lens and doesn't focus as close in as the 'cron. Part of he allure of shooting Leica is the compactness of camera .....and lens! If you need f1.4, then get 'lux.

 

2. The Elmar is only very compact when collapsed in. That's akin to carrying a camera around in a never-ready case. Sure, when collapsed it offers a bit more room in the bag but when extended with the screw on shade probably even bigger than the collapsible shaded new version 50 Summicron. The Summicron is a superb lens.

 

3. The extra stop to f2 with the Summicron is really nice to have. I even enjoy pictures at f2 shot with my older and lower contrast collapsible Summicron because the "sofa" is so smooth. And that version has been improved repeatedly, unless you like lower contrast and an ultra creamy smooth out of focus background.

 

4. I hear (don't know for certain not having owned a collapsible Elmar), that it is a very contrasty lens.

 

I'd get the Summicron. It's a teriffic lens, small light and sharp.

 

df

[jerry_lehrer]

Forumites,-- Why are you guys bringing up the Elmar lenses? Terry specifically mentioned the Elmarit. Half of you guys are coming from out of left field.

[imran_ahmed]

Trevor,

 

I have been meaning to ask this for a long time. I would like to know how do you manage to post such high contrast pictures. (slideshow on this thread). I have never been able to do this. Do you have a special scanner which you would reccomend. Are the pictures touched up by photoshop ?. Please do share !

[terry_rory]

I have no scanner at all (yet) but intend to get a Nikon LS50 ED one day.

 

All my films are scanned onto CD at my local lab.

 

I use PS7 for basics like resizing and sharpening etc but I am not an expert like some here (Eric~ & Brad for instance) and do not spend a lot of time on it.

 

Those are the guys you need to ask about photoshop (or any photography actually) I am just a hobbyist.

[gadge]

Hey Trevor - I was really struck by the similarity of lighting with one of your Elmar photos in the slideshow and one that I have posted here. Made me look twice I can tell you. Mine was taken with a VC Ultron 35mm for information sake.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2793429

[terry_rory]

Yours looks red/orange filtered in the sky portion. I only had the UV on mine. But I have to agree they are very similar.

[michael j hoffman]

"Forumites,-- Why are you guys bringing up the Elmar lenses? Terry specifically mentioned the Elmarit. Half of you guys are coming from out of left field."

 

Well, because the OP mentioned three lenses (Summilux, Summicron, Elmarit) among which the only difference is speed. The only place in the current Leica M lens line-up that this occurs with these or similar names is in the 50mm focal length offerings. The current 50/2.8 Elmar is commonly but incorrectly referred to as an Elmarit, even though its listed that way on several vendors websites. I know because I have one, and nowhere on the box or in any of the support literature is the lens listed as an Elmarit. That is why I commented on the Elmar. So, this time, it seems the appropriate commentary was from those of us in left field.

 

Also, to comment on another response, the current Elmar is very (like, break out the 00 contrast filter, very) contrasty!

 

Michael J Hoffman

[35mmdelux]

Depends what you mean by "important."

 

They do have differing characteristics or why the huge difference in prices? Vast.

 

If it matters to you check out the MFT charts for objective data alongside the subjective data. Unless the foto was shot on a tripod controlled conditions, you'll only get very subjective observations.

[simonpg]

Terence, while you've had some good responses there is one very important element not fully addressed. These names refer to speed designations especially in the more modern use of the Leica nomenclature - Summicron being f2 etc.

What has not been covered is that the attributes of these "manes" do differ for obvious reasons - a 35mm format lens of say f4 fastest / widest aperture is comparatively easy to design and build to a high performance standard - not so difficult to address / correct / deal with the optical aberrations a lens designer faces. The faster lenses are harder to design and build so each can / does have differing performance attributes, which I try to outline here.

 

So my comments below should be read in terms of the generations of each group of lenses - compare like generations with like (eg 1960s to 1960s) since glasses, technologies etc applied much the same.

 

This goes some way to explain why a Tele-Elmar (first iteration) and Tele-Elmar-M (second which is optically the same) 135mm lens is superb at widest aperture of f4 and shows virtually no improvement as it is closed down until diffraction is caused. The same basically applies to the f3.5 Apo-Telyt-M 135mm still regarded as possibly the most outstanding optical performer ever built by Leica.

 

So the Elmarit lenses of f2.8 largest aperture are relatively easier for good designers to design and build to a wonderful performance standard today but not so easy as an f4 lens because 100% more light means the designers are trading off various aberration corrections to achieve a targeted spec for manufacturing economies etc and what marketing has set as some parameters too.

 

Hence the Elmarit-M 90mm is a superbly sharp and well corrected lens showing little "trade-off" in performance attributes and little trade off in correction of aberrations. And as Puts says in his reviews - closing down one stop (don't hold me 100% accurate here but you'll get the idea) to f4 sees the performance optimal and virtually unchanged as it closes down further; again until diffraction occurs.

 

Then as you move towards "quite" fast lenses of f2 the Summicron designs, selection of glass, lens element shapes and spacing etc become quite complex as they try to correct aberrations with minimal trade-off. Leica's current Summicrons are lauded because so much has been achieved to produce high resolution; sharpness, edge-to-edge performance; resistance of flare ........ So the current Summicron-m ASPH 35mm achieved great optical improvements (although some say the bokeh is not as pretty as the earlier version). The current Summicron-M 50mm is lauded as possibly the best ever 50mm (or at least until the new ASPH Summilux version was released recently). Generally their best performance is achieved around 2 stops down but wide open the performance is excellent and in normal shooting of little consequence.

 

BUT, when the designers move to a one stop faster design the very hard work begins - Summilux f1.4. This 100% increase in light transmission offers huge challenges which saw less modern designs achieve relatively low resolution and contrast and significant image change from axis to the edges, etc but a fair and necessary trade off in aberration corrections - necessary evils according to the parameters set for the designers. This is why the new current Summilux-M ASPH 35mm and 50mm are so well regarded. The 35mm version made enormous improvements because wider angle lenses offer even greater challenges. The new 50mm is considered by some as the best ever 50mm by any maker of any fastest aperture - as good as the current Summicron wide open and becomes possibly better from f2 / f 2.8 down!

 

So possibly until some of the current Summilux and Summicron lenses (50mm Lux; 75mm Cron, 90mm Cron) it was fair to say that most fast f1.4 lenses often never achieved the same overall optical performance as their f2 or f2.8 cousins of the same generation. For example until the new Summilux-M ASPH 50mm, the Lux 50mm never 100% matched the performance of the Summicron-M 50mm at any aperture.

 

So today the differing lens names are not the same in attributes nor performance, although all range from very good to superb; optical design is not an exact or perfect science and the parameters (cost and size etc) make that even harder. These difference are primarily driven by the challenges of the widest f stop and how that sets design limitations that impact all the way down the line to the smallest aperture. However they have one factor in common - Leica seems to push for optimal performance at the closest possible aperture to wide open.

 

A long story while doing my best to set the scene for a better context for your question to be answered. I hope it helps and when my way of explaining how these lens names and lenses actually differ, forgive me where I'm not perfectly accurate - but the points stand.

 

 

[simonpg]

Trevor, great slide shows! Thanks.