Leica 35mm Summaron f2.8 vs Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 Skopar?

[carrotblog__miffy_]

Well after a lot of humming and haa-ing, I've decided on my short list for a 35mm LTM lens. The Konica 35mm

Hexanon is just out of my price range so I'm not going to bother with it.

 

Any comments on the Summaron f2.8 vs Skopar f2.5?

 

There's a few user reports stating that the Skopar f2.5 is sharper/better edge resolution than the Summaron f2.8

- maybe that's to be expected given it's old design. Does this really matter? Has anyone who has used either

get decent 20" or 30" enlargements from theirs using very fine grain film, or do prints from either lens just

look mushy and soft?

 

Apart from the price difference (the Summaron f2.8 is about 3x more expensive than the Skopar), I like the size

of both. The forums seem to be one of the best resources for asking about subjective things like 'bokeh': some

say the Nokton f1.7 has a 'better' bokeh than the Skopar f2.5; I wonder if anyone has any examples to show, or if

there is that rare user out there who has compared both Summaron f2.8 vs Skopar f2.5, which bokeh do you prefer?

 

Thanks for any future input.

 

xo

 

Miffy

[ronald_moravec1]

I did not like my Summaron 2.8. My specimine did not sharpen fully until 5.6, which to me is unacceptable. I bought a 2.0 Version 1 Summicron and it is far better lens.

 

Mine may have been a dog as most report better results.

 

At 5.6 it made a very sharp image as a projected slide.

[SCL]

I can't speak for the Skopar. I did use a Summaron 2.8 (not LTM but M mount) for around 20 years. I rarely used it wide open, usually from f4-f8. It did a really good job on portraits and general purpose usage...slides were just great. Centrally sharp moving to slight softness as one approached the edges. I still have a great 16x20 in B&W from 1971 hanging on my wall. If you want crisp across the field, IMHO the Summaron isn't the right lens. But it did a good job of Mediterranean landscapes for me for a long time.

[wgpinc]

Why don't you give the Skopar a try. At $229 for the screw mount or $319 for the M mount if I didn't have my 35mm Summicron I'd be tempted. Let us know how good it is.

[kurt_evers]

Summaron should not be 3x the price of Skopar -- that's high.

 

I love the Summaron. Mine's a f 3.5 version. I prefer lenses that have personality than lenses that are perfect.

[denton_hoyer]

The skopar is a fantastic lens. Unfortunately, I have not used the Summaron.

 

Denton

[paul_neuthaler]

Kurt, I love my 3.5 Summaron as well. I love the look -- maybe that's the "Leica glow" they talk about.

[mohir_ali]

I've had the 2.8 and 3.5. The 2.8 is far better, look, color, flare...

[john_boyle3]

I've never used the Skopar but have had the M-mount 2.8 Summaron for 40 years. It's an excellent lens and if you can find one in good condition you won't be disappointed.

[aplumpton]

Mike Johnson in Black and White Photography a year or so ago spoke very highly of the classic VC 35mm f2,5, at leat for B&W

photography (the magazine's theme). He is usually quite dependable. There is at least 30 years of lens design evolution between the two,

and a new VC will not require CLA.

 

It doesn't appear to me to be a contest.

[carrotblog__miffy_]

I really don't know anymore.

 

If I buy a Summaron f2.8, it will probably be at the inflated cost that dealers charge and I would only ever see a fraction of the cost in return if I didn't like it.

 

What worries me is that if I want it for sharp corner to corner work, it may not even achieve that. The 35mm Skopar seems like a low cost option. I wonder if it is any better than other Voigtlander vintage Skopar lenses which I've used on Vito Bs and similar cameras.

 

What is the 'Leica glow'? How come I am not getting any from my Summicron f2 50mm? Does it only happen with certain lenses?

[aplumpton]

"I wonder if it is any better than other Voigtlander vintage Skopar lenses"

 

Miffy, that is almost a certainty, as the Vito Bs, while great for their period, have old technology lenses.

 

What is all this fascination with Leica glow? I am sure that several other image rendition factors are much more important

than that.

[vincenzo_maielli]

I own a Summaron 35/2.8 and CV Ultron 35/1.7. I prefer mutch more the classic rendition of the Summaron, in therms of sharpness and, above all, bokeh, sensibly better than my CV.

 

Ciao.

[aplumpton]

May I suggest that you check out Erwin Putt's very complete compendium on Leica lenses (sorry I haven't got a link on

that one, but I believe it can be downloaded). In virtually every case he has shown how the lenses of the 1960s and

70s are less perfect than the more recent ones. The differences are measurable in the recent lenses (say, 10 to 15

years old) and those made in the 1980s. He also has more recently tested some C-V lenses and compared them to some Leica lenses

(Google Erwin Putts).

 

The full range of contemporary Leica M lenses were tested last year by a well-known French photo magazine (in fact,

two of these magazines, at different times). One older lens, the Walter Mandler designed 35mm Summicron of the late 70s early 80s, was

compared to the more modern 35mm Leica lenses and found less perfect. The older Summicron (f2,0) is a great lens, especially for its out

of focus rendition (Bokeh), but this probable superiority doesn't negate other lens performance parameters, especially

across the field resolution and contrast at wider apertures. Good bokeh is something found in only a few of each

company's lenses and this elusive property is not necessary in most image-making activity.

[carrotblog__miffy_]

Thanks Arthur.

 

Sometimes I think I'm starting to split hairs over which 35mm lens to get.

 

I'm starting to think I should just abandon this silver bullet chase and go back to shooting medium format, esp. since medium format lenses are cheaper than the Summaron 35mm f2.8...

[aplumpton]

I too prefer MF, for the extra size neg and the consequent less demanding lens choice. My 35 mm gets used mainly when

extreme portability is necessary or very wide apertures. I don't work for V-C, but at about 225$ for their LTM version, the

35 f2,5 (assuming you have the LTM to M adapters) is a very reasonable buy.

[carrotblog__miffy_]

$225 is a lot of money! It could buy a Konica S3 with a 38mm f1.8 which is much brighter!

 

There seems to be two versions of the Skopar f2.5 - a classic and a pancake version. The pancake version looks more like a lens I could use but it's more expensive.

[aplumpton]

Everything's relative, and as you say "the Summaron f2.8 is about 3x more expensive than the Skopar". I see little

advantage with the "pancake" version of the same thing, as the classic measures only 7/8ths of an inch (22 mm).

[jtk]

Canon 35/2.

[graham_line]

The Voigtlander 35/2.5 is highly competent and very versatile. The classic and pancake are the same lens formula in different barrels.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/voigtlandercolorskopar35mmf25/

[astral]

Just for the handling issues (and, to a degree, 'looks') I prefer to use the 35mm Skopar Pancake (first or second version) on a Bessa or M camera and the Classic on a Barnack (etc).

 

Image-wise, I prefer the more 'classic' Summaron feel, but the Skopar gives a rather more modern "technical" rendition, well suited to modern/technical subjects like architecture. AC

[graham_line]

This one (not one of my photos) tells you what the Skopar is about: nice crisp, clean rendition with good tonality -- to me it doesn't get in the way of the photo. People looking for 'glow' or a distinctive signature should shop elsewhere, but the 35/2.5 Skopars draw very well.

[fred_c1]

>$225 is a lot of money! It could buy a Konica S3 with a 38mm f1.8 which is much brighter!

 

You'd prefer to lose manual exposure as well?

 

And how much did you pay for your M camera(s) and lens(es)?

[pensacolaphoto]

I compared many 35mm lenses recently, and I included the Summaron 2.8 and several CV 35mm 2.5 lenses. The CV images have a more modern look to them as compared with the classic Summaron look. Many people were surprised at how well the Summaron did in comparison to the other 25 lenses or so. Its market value has increased quite a lot recently. The CV 35mm 2.5 also did very well. It is a matter of prefernce.

 

I chose today a Canon 35mm/1.5.

 

This is a lens that is viewed by many as a bad user lens. I don't agree.

[carrotblog__miffy_]

I think I like the pancake version better than the classic version too. There doesn't seem to be very much of it (the classic) to focus with, so it needs a little leg to turn to turn it.

 

Thanks Josef for the image. What size aperture was the shot done on?

 

I'm still not sure about a 35mm lens. The image looks like it could have been done on a 50mm too. Maybe I'm just trying to eat too many carrots: I should settle for just having my 50mm lens only and stop reading too much about everyone else's wonderful 35mm lenses no?

 

Fred - I wouldn't lose manual exposure - I'd still have it with my Leica M ;)

 

How much did I pay for my Leica M & Summicron? Enough to have to worry about spending US$225 I might not use :(

 

xo

 

Miffy