mmehres
Newbie
I am seeking some advice on a 35mm lens for M9. I have a 50mm Summilux ASPH which is technically an incredible lens and invaluable in low light and professional settings, but is also heavy and bulky.
So I am looking for a smaller, lighter 35mm as a walkabout lens for architecture mostly (I'd use a 50 or 90 for portraits/bokeh and don't do much street photography). I've boiled down my choices to the classic Summaron 35/2.8 and the Summarit-M 35 mm. I would welcome any thoughts, esp anyone with experience with these lenses on the M8/9. Thx very much in advance.
So I am looking for a smaller, lighter 35mm as a walkabout lens for architecture mostly (I'd use a 50 or 90 for portraits/bokeh and don't do much street photography). I've boiled down my choices to the classic Summaron 35/2.8 and the Summarit-M 35 mm. I would welcome any thoughts, esp anyone with experience with these lenses on the M8/9. Thx very much in advance.
Ronald M
Mentor
The image type of the new Summarit is closer to the other new lenses plus I was never thrilled with my 2.8 Summaron.
palec
Well-known
If you need the lens for architecture, you might consider distortion as a decision factor, although it's quite easy to correct it when using digital workflow. According to specs Summarit has distortion close to 2 %, while Summaron with it's symmetrical design should have close to zero (like other pre-asph Leica 35mm lenses).
Turtle
Mentor
New summarit, no question at all. I own both.
You will get punchier colours and better contrast but still not wild contrast. The summarit is nice and mellow. You will get better resolution wide open (I know Ken R reported better results with his Summaron wide open, but my summarit is better than my summaron wide open, which should hardly be surprising considering the 50years between them in design terms).
Summarit has better flare resistance too. Summaron is a very good lens, but you can tell it is not modern and the signature of the Summarit will be a better match.
You will get punchier colours and better contrast but still not wild contrast. The summarit is nice and mellow. You will get better resolution wide open (I know Ken R reported better results with his Summaron wide open, but my summarit is better than my summaron wide open, which should hardly be surprising considering the 50years between them in design terms).
Summarit has better flare resistance too. Summaron is a very good lens, but you can tell it is not modern and the signature of the Summarit will be a better match.
Ben Z
Mentor
Two additional considerations are, if you decide on the Summaron be sure to check inside with a bright flashlight (torch, if you're outside the USA) to check for haze. If so be prepared to pay for a professional stripdown and cleaning, because the haze will further lower the contrast and further raise the flare. And another, the Summaron you will need to set the M9 manually (or hand-code the lens) whereas the Summarit will be 6-bitted. With an M8 some people think you can do without the coding on a 35mm lens, but a few I know who have traded up to M9's say it's necessary now.
Last edited:
Oh Two
Established
A manual lens on an M9?
A manual lens on an M9?
Hmmm. My only interest in buying an M9 is to make use of my collection of old Leitz glass. So far what I have seen, that combination is impressive.
If I wanted to look 'modern' and digital, I'd stick with my Canon 40D, but I don't. I don't like contrast that leads nothing in the shadows, garish colors, or does not 'draw' the image, but instead carves it. Older is definitely not better in my world.
I bought my Summaron new in 1966, and I still consider it one of my best lenses, old or new and of any make.
I'm sorry I'm not of any more help.
A manual lens on an M9?
Hmmm. My only interest in buying an M9 is to make use of my collection of old Leitz glass. So far what I have seen, that combination is impressive.
If I wanted to look 'modern' and digital, I'd stick with my Canon 40D, but I don't. I don't like contrast that leads nothing in the shadows, garish colors, or does not 'draw' the image, but instead carves it. Older is definitely not better in my world.
I bought my Summaron new in 1966, and I still consider it one of my best lenses, old or new and of any make.
I'm sorry I'm not of any more help.
hiromu
Established
Color Skopar PKII is also a good choice for very small portion of money.
helen.HH
A smile & a wink…
The Summaron ROCKS in terms of Detail & Sharpness
edge to edge LOVELY...
old leica glass rules
Best- H
edge to edge LOVELY...
old leica glass rules
Best- H
kermaier
Well-known
I really like my Summaron 35/2.8, though I haven't used the Summarit-M. To my eyes, it stands up well in the company of a 35/2 UC-Hexanon and 35/2.5 Skopar Classic, especially for b&w, but I don't pixel-peep much.
If you need to 6-bit code a Summaron, you could get the screw mount version and use a coded LTM-M adapter.
::Ari
If you need to 6-bit code a Summaron, you could get the screw mount version and use a coded LTM-M adapter.
::Ari
MCTuomey
Mentor
if you will be shooting architecture and distortion is a factor in your decision, you might want to consider the zeiss biogon 35/2. very low distortion and flare. zeiss colors. a fine lens and not too expensive. i use one on an M8 and like it very much. would only give it up for the c-biogon 35/2.8, an under-appreciated lens imho.
thompsonks
Well-known
If your main interest is architecture than you should consider 28?
Kirk
Kirk
Chromacomaphoto
Well-known
Love the old Summaron 2.8 personally...
Love the old Summaron 2.8 personally...
...but I am hugely biased as I own one and also, as a disclaimer, I have never used mine digitally. It's got that old high res, low contrast kind of vibe but it is VERY, sharp, no distortion and handles flare extremely well, which might be relevant to you if you are gonna point skywards.
It would certainly handle the job you are proposing it for...and pretty well IMHO
Last time I used mine a lot was here:
http://www.chromacomaphoto.com/#/esiamsquaredparti/
Oh, wait a minute...how old is this thread again? hahahaha
Love the old Summaron 2.8 personally...
...but I am hugely biased as I own one and also, as a disclaimer, I have never used mine digitally. It's got that old high res, low contrast kind of vibe but it is VERY, sharp, no distortion and handles flare extremely well, which might be relevant to you if you are gonna point skywards.
It would certainly handle the job you are proposing it for...and pretty well IMHO
Last time I used mine a lot was here:
http://www.chromacomaphoto.com/#/esiamsquaredparti/
Oh, wait a minute...how old is this thread again? hahahaha