| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:59 am Post subject: Leitz Summarit 50/1.5 (M39) vs Summicron 50/2 (Leica-R) |
 |
|
yadisl wrote:
I found them in local store at about the same price (the Summicron is just cheaper by EUR 20 modified to nikon-F mount while the Summarit comes with micro 4/3 adapter). As I have Sony NEX-5 I'm thinking of picking up one of those to be adapted to it.
Of course the Summarit would have lower contrast and bigger aperture while the Summicron would have better contrast (more modern coating). Apart from those obvious points, any other opinion? Image samples would be nice.
Thanks!
J.S. Lima
_________________
Tell me what you love, I will tell you who you are (Proust)
TLR yashica 635, 124
Canon canonet 1.9
Olympus E500
KM Dynax 7D
Sigma DP1
Rokkor MD 200/4, MD 50/1.4, MC PF 50/1.4, MD 135/3.5, Pentax SMC-M 50/4 macro, Takumar 105/2.8, Jena DDR 135/3.5, Porst 135/2.8, Prinzgalaxy 300/4, Mamiya ZE 300/4, Jena Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, CZJ Flektogon 4/20, Helios 58/2, Konica Hexar AR 50/1.4, Wollensak Velostigmat 90/4.5, Voigtlander Heliar 18 cm / 4.5, Heliar 15 cm / 4.5, APO Lanthar 15 cm / 4.5, Zeiss Tessar 105/3.5, Zeiss Opton 75/3.5, Mamiya 55/2.8, ZD 14-42, Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, Petri 35/3.5, Leica-R 35/2.8, Minolta 70-210/4, Minolta 35-70/4, Minolta 50/1.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 2441
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Esox lucius wrote:
I dislike both lenses for their bokeh, but I am aware of the Swirly Bokeh and Tunnel Vision fan clubs (which I am not a member of). Which is why I don't have any bokeh samples to show, because when I still had these lenses I avoided shooting them in settings where they swirled or created tunnel vision prone to give nausea
Here are a few which are not mine, but I found them with 10s of searching on Flickr
Summarit 50/1.5 better stopped down
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andretakeda/3352068131/
wide open flat "tunnel vision"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vanyuen/2566563968/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vanyuen/2763609145/
Summicron 50/2 bokeh highlights
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30682748@N06/4990329635/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/doctorsir/4655367022/
I have an idea how the NEX is going to change the look, but on full frame I always found Mr. Leitz products nicer in for example the 35mm or 90mm focal length.
_________________
Vilhelm
Nikon DSLR: D4, D800, Nikon D3, D70
Nikon SLR: Nikon F100, Nikon FM2n
Nikkor MF: 20/2.8 Ai-S, 24/2 Ai-S, 24/2.8 Ai-S, 28/2 Ai-S, 28/2.8 Ai-S, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 Ai-S, 45/2.8 GN, 50/1.2 Ai, 50/1.2 Ai-S, 50/1.4 Ai, 50/1.4 Ai-S, 50/1.8 AI-S "long", 50/1.8 AI-S "short", 55/1.2 Ai, 85/1.4 Ai-S, 85/1.8H, 105/2.5 Ai, 135/2.8Q, 135/3.5 Ai, 180/2.8 Ai-S ED
Nikkor AF/AF-S FX: 14-24/2.8G, 16/2.8D Fisheye, 16-35/4G VR, 17-35/2.8D, 24/1.4G, 24/3.5D PC-E, 24/2.8D, 24-70/2.8G, 28/1.4D, 28/1.8G, 35/1.4G, 35/2D, 50/1.4D, 50/1.4G, 50/1.8G, 60/2.8 Micro, 60/2.8G Micro, 70-200/2.8G VR, 70-200/2.8G VR II, 80-400/4.5-5.6D VR, 85/1.4G, 85/2.8D PC-E Micro, 105/2D DC, 105/2.8G VR Micro, 135/2D DC, 200/2G VR, 200-400/4G VR, 300/2.8G VR, 300/4D ED, 400/2.8G VR, 800/5.6E VR
Nikkor AF/AF-S DX: 10.5/2.8G Fisheye, 12-24/4G, 18-70/3.5-4.5G
Topcor: Auto-Topcor 58/1.4,
Voigtländer SL: 40/2 Ultron, 58/1.4 Nokton, 75/2.5 Color-Heliar, 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar, 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar, 180/4 APO-Lanthar
Zeiss ZF: Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF
M42 SLR: Voigtländer Bessaflex TM
M42: Flektogon 20/4, Flektogon 35/2.4, Tessar 50/2.8 T, Super-Takumar 55/1.8, Biotar 58/2 T, Pentacon 135/2.8, Sonnar 135/3.5
Medium format: several Zeiss Super Ikonta 532/16 Opton-Tessar 80mm f/2.8, Zeiss Ikonta 524/16 Opton-Tessar 75mm f/3.5
Leica: R7, M4, Super-Angulon-R 4/21, Elmarit-R 2.8/28, Summicron-R 2/35, Summicron-M 2/35, Summicron-M 2/50, Elmarit-R 2,8/180 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rolf
Joined: 02 May 2009
Posts: 4123
Location: NRW/Germany
Expire: 2015-12-26
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rolf wrote:
I own only the Summicron 2/50mm converted to Nikon mount. Here few samples
http://forum.mflenses.com/coal-mine-nachtigall-with-leica-summicron-2-50mm-t32899.html
I don´t know whether the "double conversion" (LeicaR > NikonF and then NikonF > Sony) is a good idea. Maybe one conversion too much.
At first I converted the lens with a cheap Chinese mount and got a heavy back focus (that was new for me with this cheap mounts), then I changed it with an expensive Leitax mount, now I have a smaller front focus.
It is a nice lens and well built - like Leica lenses. But together with a very expensive (in term of total costs of ownership) Leitax mount I believe it isn´t worth. My recently acquired Nikkor 1.8/50mm is not worse and costs only 10 % of the Leica lens.
_________________
Rolf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IAZA
Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 2587
Location: Indonesia
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
IAZA wrote:
I ever own Summarit 50/1,5, since I don't have m4/3 camera. I only can use it for macro. Here's the result
Since it's difficult to hold it without adapter I used flash
While Summicron 50/2, I have it now. modified to Nikon.
Here's the result
Summicron
Salam dr Indonesia Om Yadisl 
_________________
nex5, Olympus EPM1, yashica half 14, Canon eos 650 want to see samples of mine? please click My lenses
and My gallery
~Suat~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
Thanks for the responses guys!
I guess I belong to the tunnel-vision-bokeh-vertigo fan club for some reasons
 But I think a low saturation, bluish colored images from the Leitz 50/1.5 is not that interesting.
_________________
Tell me what you love, I will tell you who you are (Proust)
TLR yashica 635, 124
Canon canonet 1.9
Olympus E500
KM Dynax 7D
Sigma DP1
Rokkor MD 200/4, MD 50/1.4, MC PF 50/1.4, MD 135/3.5, Pentax SMC-M 50/4 macro, Takumar 105/2.8, Jena DDR 135/3.5, Porst 135/2.8, Prinzgalaxy 300/4, Mamiya ZE 300/4, Jena Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, CZJ Flektogon 4/20, Helios 58/2, Konica Hexar AR 50/1.4, Wollensak Velostigmat 90/4.5, Voigtlander Heliar 18 cm / 4.5, Heliar 15 cm / 4.5, APO Lanthar 15 cm / 4.5, Zeiss Tessar 105/3.5, Zeiss Opton 75/3.5, Mamiya 55/2.8, ZD 14-42, Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, Petri 35/3.5, Leica-R 35/2.8, Minolta 70-210/4, Minolta 35-70/4, Minolta 50/1.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Excuse me, but I think that the comparision was made among two lenses that aren't adecuate to this.
The summicron R 2/50 is far below the Summicron M 2/50 (any version, specialy the first, the 7 elements). And the "R" is newer than the 1,5, the summarit was remplaced by the summilux M at the end of the 50's.
The summilux M 1,4/50 had a beautifull bokeh (at least for me, of course) and was contemporary to the Summicron R 2/50.
I can't find the point of the comparision (you use the term "vs."). Perhaps if you help me, I can do that.
Rino
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
To shoot digital much better the Summicron-R (but avoid bokeh highlights)
But if you plan to do B&W film the Summarit has a unique look.
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yadisl
Joined: 03 Dec 2009
Posts: 180
Location: the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
yadisl wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
Excuse me, but I think that the comparision was made among two lenses that aren't adecuate to this.
The summicron R 2/50 is far below the Summicron M 2/50 (any version, specialy the first, the 7 elements). And the "R" is newer than the 1,5, the summarit was remplaced by the summilux M at the end of the 50's.
The summilux M 1,4/50 had a beautifull bokeh (at least for me, of course) and was contemporary to the Summicron R 2/50.
I can't find the point of the comparision (you use the term "vs."). Perhaps if you help me, I can do that.
Rino |
Yup, may be 'vs' is not the most accurate description of the inquiry. Please pardon the inaccuracy.
_________________
Tell me what you love, I will tell you who you are (Proust)
TLR yashica 635, 124
Canon canonet 1.9
Olympus E500
KM Dynax 7D
Sigma DP1
Rokkor MD 200/4, MD 50/1.4, MC PF 50/1.4, MD 135/3.5, Pentax SMC-M 50/4 macro, Takumar 105/2.8, Jena DDR 135/3.5, Porst 135/2.8, Prinzgalaxy 300/4, Mamiya ZE 300/4, Jena Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, CZJ Flektogon 4/20, Helios 58/2, Konica Hexar AR 50/1.4, Wollensak Velostigmat 90/4.5, Voigtlander Heliar 18 cm / 4.5, Heliar 15 cm / 4.5, APO Lanthar 15 cm / 4.5, Zeiss Tessar 105/3.5, Zeiss Opton 75/3.5, Mamiya 55/2.8, ZD 14-42, Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, Petri 35/3.5, Leica-R 35/2.8, Minolta 70-210/4, Minolta 35-70/4, Minolta 50/1.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
I had a Summarit at one time ... back when Kodachrome II was pretty new on the market. It seems to get a lot of bashing these days, but I still have some of the slides I made with it and they honestly aren't that bad ! If you read Erwin Puts' description of it, I'm fairly sure you might want to walk away and leave it, which might be a pity if you enjoy using older lenses. And it IS an "old lens" - designed originally in Britain in the 1920s at the Taylor Hobson works. I wish now I'd kept mine, but I think I sold it to buy a Summicron . . .
Oddly enough, I never noticed the "swirly bokeh" effect. I'll have to dig out my old slides and have a look when I get the time.
And ... we should be more careful with our abbreviations, perhaps, and use " cf. " instead of " vs. " when making comparisons. I just looked that up in my dictionary
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Hi Stephen
I have question the use of "vs" because I understood that the theme was about which lens was better. And in this way, it seemed to me that the comparison was not adecuate. Different lenses, different times, didn´t be just for the summarit.
I never want to corrected a member, only ask a question. 
With my special english I can't correct to anybody.
Regards, Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
Hi Stephen
I have question the use of "vs" because I understood that the theme was about which lens was better. And in this way, it seemed to me that the comparison was not adecuate. Different lenses, different times, didn´t be just for the summarit.
I never want to corrected a member, only ask a question.
With my special english I can't correct to anybody.
Regards, Rino. |
Hi Rino ! Oh please don't think I'm being difficult about language - but coincidentally the use of cf and vs had come up in my job only yesterday. I agree that this could indeed be a case where vs might be fine, it's just that I think that "vs" can so easily have a confrontational air about it and encourage people to let their partisan nature out  And your English is fine !
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
