In the Leica-M Compendium, Jonathan Eastland seems to praise the performance of the Summarit, especially for color. Does anyone else think well of these early lenses? Would anyone like to comment on how they compare to an early Summilux? Eastland says the Summilux gives "a lovely mellow roundness to colour" whatever that means. The Summarit seems to go for a low price on the used market.And what about the Xenon?

Any comments?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@juno.com), November 04, 2000

Answers

I use the Summarit quite a bit, whenever I need something faster than the 50mm Summicron. (I also have the 50mm Cosina/Voigtlander for this purpose, but I find it too bulky and unwieldy.)

The Summarit is a bit soft, but I do like the color rendition, which is somewhat on the cool side. I don't have any experience with the early Summilux.

I've read that the Xenon is optically identical to the Summarit.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), November 04, 2000.

Bob,

My first Leica after lusting for so long was a nice M3 and a Summarit. I should have done my homework better, the Summarit is not on the short list of Leica great lenses. After I got a Summicron, I never used the Summarit again, and eventually sold it. The lens is soft wide open and flares if light hits it. After about f2.8 it is respectful, and by 5.6-11 really very good. But a couple of years after I sold it I was looking at some portraits I shot with it... wide open window light. There is a unique quality that I can't replicate with any of my modern lenses. Now I sometimes wish I still had it. It is flattering to someone who...er...uh... has a less than perfect face.

When I shot wide open with black and white, I under exposed the film and over developed the negatives. This built up the contrast, which on a normal lens might look bad, but on the Summarit, put it right where it should be.

Overall, it is a so-so lens with a overly optimistic promise of f1.5. In the mid range f-stops it is OK, but any vintage Summicron will beat it hands down for contrast and sharpness.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), November 04, 2000.

Sometimes we use a lens not for its outstanding sharpness and contrast.There is often a decided lack of these 2 important features.I once owned a 58mm Biotar on my 1st Pentax.That lens had flare wide open.Not the same type of flare as on my Nikons MF or my M3`s 50 Summicron.The latter is a early collapsible.The Biotar made these wonderful portraits esp if under exposed and overdeveloped.Also if stopped down and a light source in photo,would ALWAYS make star shapes. I sold it quite soon because of the flare.Later looking at early prints and negatives I missed the sucker.It sounds like the Summarit might be similar.Since then I keep bad lenses.My Tamron 300 f5.6 is one of them.It focuses to macro range.It has definite color fringing and makes little halos on all light sources in photo.You cannot duplicate effect with filters Saw photos done by a photographer who only used pre-war (WW2) Leicas for "special" features in available light.Hans Pahlen ALSO uses early screw mounts....see his site. Use the Summarit.See what happens.The results might be interesting.One thing about early lenses is due to lack of coating.Will not easily shoot thru glass windows .Big case of reflections !

-- jason gold (jason1155234@webtv.net), November 04, 2000.

Leica expert Bill Maxwell told me the main problem with the Summarit is that almost every single one of them has coating deterioration on the inner elements ("fogging") that affect the image quality a great deal. He got a hold of a nearly un-used lens recently, totally took it apart and cleaned it, and tested it. He told me the images were first rate and comparable to the modern Leica fast lenses. While I am at it, I want to give Bill a plug for his work on my M3. He went through my camera and has special tools for cleaning every single glass surface in the finder (there is about 18 of them). The finder and split quality now is not to be believed, and the winding and shutter release are even smoother than they were. Best money I ever spent on Leica. He also De-fogged a few of my lenses. He is reasonably priced and his work is done with a fanatical amount of precision. If you get a Summarit, send it to Bill and have it cleaned. he can be reached at 404-244-0095.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 04, 2000.

Bob,

One other thing... and this is just my opinion. I will never believe that the picture in the "Leica M Compendium" on page 47 was shot with the exposure setting quoted with the Summarit. My lens was mechanically perfect, the glass was flawless, and I would have been happy to get that degree of sharpness with my lens at f4.0... much less the quoted "wide-open". Using the size of normal human to determine some of the dimensions in the cafe', the depth of field is too great for f1.5 IMHO.

The direct comparison between the Summarit and Summicron on page 100 (un-numbered) with the two row boats is believable to me. At mid apertures at mid distances, they are fairly close.

In the new "Leica M6 TTL Handbook" also by Eastland, he includes many more pictures with the Summarit. He either got the best one ever built, or he had his coated with modern coatings. I could match any of the shots of his with the lens stopped down, but I question that wide open shot... especially with lights in the frame. The halos would have encroached into the subject.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), November 04, 2000.

Off the subject, but another inexpensive way to get an excellent fast lens is the Nikkor 50mm f:1.4. Mine is clearly equal to or better than my first generation Summilux.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 04, 2000.

To back up Bill's claims of the quality of the Nikkor 50mm f1.4, consider this.

World renound photojournalist David Douglas Duncan, while stationed in Japan between the end of WWII and the start Korean war was so impressed with the Nikon lenses in LTM (when "made in Japan" was an insult), that he abandoned his Leitz glass. He eventually when to Korea and covered the war. If you have the opportunity to see his book, "THIS IS WAR", please do. It was re-released in 1990 on the 40th anaversity of the war, so it might be in libraries.

Every shot but one was made with his screw mount Leica and 50mm Nikkor lenses, (the one other shot was a 135mm lens). There is not a boring picture in the whole book, and under the most miserable conditions, (film was breaking from the cold), the Leica body never let him down. Another testament to the lowly 50mm lens.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), November 04, 2000.

Thank you, all, for the helpful comments. I just might pick up a Summarit, not expecting it to compare well with my Summicron-M, but just to explore its properties. Apparently there's no such thing as a bad lens; it's just a matter of finding what each one does well. I've got a 50mm F: 1.4 Nikkor, but it's for my Nikon reflex. It's good, but I think the above comments were about the rangefinder version with Leica screw-mount.

Again, thanks for all the help.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@juno.com), November 05, 2000.

I have used a Summarit since 1957, first with an M3 and now with an M6 TTL. I have run literally hundreds of negs over a light table and find it to be excellent. I had occasion to take identical shots with a Summicron. For want of a better term, the Summarit had a more "three dimensional look." Much about results from a lens is subjective. The only way to develop (and deserve to have)an opinion is to take 5 or 6 rolls of film, put them on the light table, and look at them with a 10X loupe.

-- Robert L. Braun (bobb5@pacbell.net), April 18, 2001.