35mm lens Summilux vs. Summicron vs. Summarit ?

[francesco_bertelli2]

<p>I'm going to buy my very first Leica...I'd like a classic film M6, to save some money over the M7, and I want just one lens, the 35mm. But i cant undestrand the difference between those name...beside the apreture...i think between is only one stop so is not a biggie for me to shoot street photography i can push stop during deelopment..<br>

any suggestion?</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>On film they are all fantastic at each stop (other than the older 35/1.4 non-asph, which is lovely, but not exactly sharp at 1.4). You should choose primarily based on your desire for speed, the cost, and compactness. The 35/2's are reasonably fast, good at every aperture and very small. The 35/1.4 asph is great because the extra stop gives you both more speed, and the ability to isolate the background more if you choose to do so. The 35/2.5 summarit is as essentially as good as the summicron or summilux, only slower. I have the summilux asph and the summarit, and cannot really tell a difference between them unless I shoot them on the same subject matter and look at 100%. The Summilux ASPH is a little sharper, and has a bit less color fringing, but other than that they are equal. If you are considering digital in the future, the slower lenses do not have much problem with focus shift, which can be an issue with the 35mm summilux ASPH (not the newest floating lens element version, however). <br>

If you only intend to get a single lens, and speed is not that important to you, I doubt you will be disappointed with the summicron -- it's small, sharp and great as a general purpose lens. </p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Can I cut through a lot of explanations and say that the Summicron 35/2 Aspherical and the non-asptherical lens are great. If you can afford one of these get it. They are not super cheap. Figure about spending somewhere between $1000 to $1500 + for a used one.</p>

<p>Now if you are hard put for cash and aren't worried about speed, get the Summaron 35/2.8. A brilliant lens that can be had for around $500-$600. This is an older lens, 1950s-60s vintage. Do be careful about the condition.</p>

<p>The Summarit 35/2.5 is new and expensive. But it is good.</p>

<p>I am sure others will offer more advice.</p>

[pc_b]

<p>A decade or so ago I started doing street photography with an Ai'd 2/35 and a battered FM2. All together 280USD. And am hard pushed to see sharpness differences on less-than-10x enlargements. Changing developer and film choices are much more obvious!<br>

Still got that combo and use it, as relaxed just-throw-it-into-the-bag alternative to the 5000+ dollar combo of 2/35asph+M7+motor. And no, I obviously wasn't ever beaten to death for making SLR camera noises.</p>

<p>Bottom line: save up on recent aspherical Leica glass if you want to see a real quality difference - while shooting wider apertures.</p>

<p>Eventually you will want to continue shooting into the evening which is when you will start hating your 2.5/2.8 lens.</p>

[john_boyle3]

<p>Alex has a good point concerning the 35/2.8 Summaron. It's an excellent lens and in most instances the prints will look as good as those made with the Summicron or Summilux. If you don't need the extra stop or two and can find one in good condition the Summaron would be a wise choice.</p>

[francesco_bertelli2]

<p>i think I'd go for the summicron 35...btu now i'm reading about the difference between type 1,2,3 and 4... for chrit's sake...there is really difference? i saw on ebay the type 4 pre-asph cost basically like the asph.. how come???</p>

<p>i'm not interested in speed, i can use the tmax 400 instead of 100...2 stops dont make difference on my street photography... the main concern is just <strong>money+lightweight+sharpness+resolution</strong>. </p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>They are all good. If absolute sharpness and resolution is the main concern, get the ASPH, otherwise just get the cheapest good copy of the 35/2 that you can find. The differences are fairly subtle between them all (including between the asph and non-asph...it is certainly there, but it will not make or break any photo). </p>

[francesco_bertelli2]

<p>also, i never use the full aperture, i'm always to 5.6 /8 to reach the maximum DOF+sharpness</p>

<p>so I shoudl chec the table specs reviewsbased on that apertures.. any links?</p>

[vahe_sahakian]

<p>If you are primarily interested in 5.6 / 8 you should really consider 2.8 Summaron, it is one of the sharpest 35mm lenses at this F ratios.</p>

[tim_barker1]

<p>The problem with the V.4 of the pre-asph summicron is that someone once proclaimed it the "bokeh king," a title that stuck and prompted a significant rise in the price.<br>

It's why I prefer, and use, the earlier V. 3. It can generally be had for several hundred dollars less. Some say the build quality is better than that of the V.4. And it is every bit as good as the V.4 in terms of the images it creates.</p>

 

[andrew_fishkin]

<p>I own the 35mm f/2.5 Summarit and the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH FLE. Both are outstanding, with neither being significantly "better" than the other. What the Summilux is, is faster, not to mention a lot heavier and more expensive. If I'm going out for just the day or with just my M Monochrom with its 10,000 ISO ceiling, I usually just take the Summarit. For longer trips or when I expect to shoot a lot indoors or at night its the Summilux. Sometimes both, with the slower lens on the M Monochrom and the faster one on the M-E.</p>

<p>With the exception of unanticipated available darkness, I've never wished I'd brought the other lens with me.</p>