Serenar 1.9 vs Summitar 2.0 - comparison
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #1
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,811
Serenar 1.9 vs Summitar 2.0 - comparison

I've had a summitar for a while, aver clean and clear one. The other day got the lowly Canon Serenar 50/1.9. Looking at it, I could see the resemblance to the Leica collapsible. I decided to shoot a side by side with the two. See if you can tell which.







  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #2
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,584
I currently have a 50/2.0 Summicron collapsible and did own a Canon 50/1.9 collapsible at one time.

As for your pics, my guess, the first pic in each series is the Leica, the second is the Canon.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #3
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
 
davidnewtonguitars's Avatar
 
davidnewtonguitars is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Beaumont, TX
Posts: 1,392
How close can 2 lenses be?
I will guess the same as Mack, the Summitar can be very sharp, mine is, and the Serenar can be cloudy, or so I understand.
__________________
Leica M2 / 7artisans 35-f2 / Leitz Summitar
http://davidnewtonguitars.squarespace.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #4
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,811
Sorry, the first picture is the Canon, each set. I also was surprised, the Canon blows away the Summitar.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #5
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,584
No kidding. My memory of the Serenar was that it was soft wide-open (spherical aberration) but sharpened up nicely at F2.8. I'm surprised that the Summitar lacks contrast. Maybe that's why it was replaced by the Summicron.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #6
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,392
Both are bw film era lenses, if I'm not mistaken.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #7
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,775
I have a 35mm Serenar f3.5 that I use on my LTM cameras it has a haze problem that I have conquered. It is sharp wide open and works well with any film I use.

I also only use my heritage lenses on my ff digital camera. I wonder if there is a great deal of difference between the old SLR lenses and modern DSLR lens or it it just hype.

Here is my 35mm Serenar f3.5 wide open on my IIIf:

Neopan Acros 100 expired by John Carter, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #8
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,021
I have not tried the canon, but I have a 50mm f2 Summitar. It is tack sharp in the center wide open and becomes so in the corners after stopping down. It is lower contrast than modern lenses but for BW work that is not necessarily a bad thing, though I can see why you'd prefer the Canon for color. One of the best BW lenses I have ever used is the uncoated 75mm Zeiss Tessar on my ancient pre-war Rolleiflex Automat. Very sharp, low contrast, beautiful BW tonality.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #9
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,811
I'm mostly a Canon LTM guy. I've always been impressed by their lenses. But the 50/1.9 seems to be a sleeper, nobody really tries for one, they move to the 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, or 1.8 50mm Canons. So I wanted to try it. And I was impressed to say the least. I bought a IIIF just to get the 1.9 that was on it. Even in the "old days" some liked Canon or Nikon better than Leica glass.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #10
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
 
davidnewtonguitars's Avatar
 
davidnewtonguitars is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Beaumont, TX
Posts: 1,392
Summit's wrong with your Summitar, here's mine.


__________________
Leica M2 / 7artisans 35-f2 / Leitz Summitar
http://davidnewtonguitars.squarespace.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #11
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,811
Or it may need a hood worse than the Canon, because of their different quality of coatings. Didn't use a hood on either in the test.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #12
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,811
I shot the Canon 1.9 with Delta 100:

  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:56.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.