50mm dilemma: Summarit f/2.5 vs Planar f/2

[Steven Seven]

Just wanted to share my experience shooting both, because when I was trying to decide I couldn't find much information about how these two would compare.

First, some background: I have been primarily a Canon shooter for many years, but having grown tired of all the weight and bulk, I moved to Fuji APS-C and have been loving it, except none of Fujinon lenses offer a real mechanical manual focus. From there, I discovered M-to-X adapter and the wonderful world of M lenses and how incredibly tiny they are, compared to their SLR counterparts. Naturally, I started to think that an M-system would give me the benefits of full frame and the compactness of APS-C, which is (mostly) true, that's how I ended up with my first M. I am telling you this because compactness is the primary reason I became interested in rangefinders to begin with.

My first M-lens was the Voightlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4 II MC which I cannot recommend highly enough. It's compact, well-made, well-priced and the image quality is satisfying. I've been growing more and more comfortable with the system using a single lens for quite some time. Now, as I made a decision to make it a permanent thing (and not a "phase" as I do sometimes with this hobby) I am moving on to getting a nicer 50mm lens. This focal length has always been my favorite (35mm on Fuji).

When looking at the "50mm landscape" in the M-world, I quickly realized that the following lenses will not work for me:

1. Brand new Summicron and Summilux are way over my budget.
2. Voightlander 50mm, while attractive on paper, did not appeal to me aesthetically and ergonomically. That focus ring is not for me.
3. Zeiss Sonnar is just too much for me to handle. I am having issues with rangefinder focus as-is, without adding focus-shift compensation. Maybe I'll revisit this later as I become more proficient, but I really wanted a lens with easy focusing.

This left me with three options:

• Used Leica Summicron
• New Leica Summarit
• Zeiss Planar

First, I compared used Summicrons to new Planar and quickly realized that a brand-new Planar is just much better value. Thank you, dpreview forum members, for letting me play with your lenses to make that decision. I found Summicron/Planar rendering to be very similar. Fuji also offers a 50mm f/2 for their APS-C system with similar rendering. Finding a good used Summicron is great shape for $1,100 (Zeiss price) is quite hard, however, so I've decided that Planar would be a better choice for me.

My next candidate to evaluate was Leica Summarit f/2.4. I initially was going to buy a slightly used one but someone offered me to take a look at a previous version, which is slightly slower at f/2.5.

And I was blown away, that's exactly the lens I was thinking about as a "perfect 50" for the M. It's delightfully tiny, almost half the size of a Zeiss, and extremely similar optically which is to say "excellent". Maybe a tad softer wide-open, but again - my RF focusing skills are not good enough to reliably shoot at anything wider than f/4. And I cannot stress this enough, how natural this tiny lens looks and feels on my Leica. It's exactly the same size as my Voightlander Nokton f/1.4 35mm MC II and I just can't accept anything bigger than this.

No samples of brick walls here, sorry. All of these lenses are optically perfect, so there's no point of posting useless, identically-looking, hopelessly perfect images. Do not underestimate the tiny Summarit, what a gem of a lens!

Another side note: I've seen a ton of reviews of these lenses, and many of them state something akin to "The build quality of Zeiss is not as great as Leica, and Voightlanders are almost as good as Zeiss". I found that to be not true. Between Voightlander Color Skopar 21mm f/4, Voightlander 35mm Nokton Classic f/1.4 II MC, Zeiss Planar f/2, Leica Summicron f/2 and Summarit f/2.5 I found the build quality to be IDENTICAL. All of those lenses have perfectly smooth focusing rings, none of them rattle, and all are solid metal. I think some people confuse focus stiffness with build quality. I've tried a brand new Summilux in a Leica store and it was annoyingly heavy, with annoyingly stiff focus. That's not the same as build quality.

Anyway, sorry for the ramblings. Just wanted to share in case someone (now or in the future) is doing similar research. Summarit is the king of 50mm if you value compactness and ergonomics as much as I do. It won over Zeiss for being almost half the size, while being identical optically.

 

[David Kieltyka]

The two modern 50mm Summarits are optically identical despite the different maximum apertures Leica claims for them. Both are f/2.4 lenses. The 50mm is the only Summarit I don't have, but that's just 'cuz I've got nearly 40 years of accumulating various 50s behind me. I have used an "f/2.5." It's a great lens, the only potential drawback being a minimum focus distance of 80cm rather than the modern standard 70. The 35mm shares this bit of silly "product line differentiation."

-Dave-

 

[bs1946]

When looking at the "50mm landscape" in the M-world, I quickly realized that the following lenses will not work for me:

1. Brand new Summicron and Summilux are way over my budget.

I know how you feel, any brand new and most used Leica M-mount lenses are way over my budget. I keep thinking about a screw-mount 50mm f3.5 just to have one Leica lens.

1. Voightlander 50mm, while attractive on paper, did not appeal to me aesthetically and ergonomically. That focus ring is not for me.

I shot with film cameras for more than 55 years and finally switched to digital about six years ago. Back in the day, the standard kit lens was usually a medium fast 50mm Along the way I stopped using the 50mm and went to 35mm and wider lenses. When I bought my M9 last year, I decided that I wanted to go back to using a 50mm lens again and picked the m-mount Nokton 50mm f1.5 was my first lens. I actually had a screw mount Nokton 50mm f1.5, that I occasionally used on my Fujis. But, the focus ring on the screw mount was not like the one on the m-mount Nokton I got for the M9. I just couldn't get used to that focus ring and also didn't like the layout of the distance/DOF scales which are in a v-groove and difficult to read. But optically, it's a great lens. So, I sold the Nokton and bought a used like-new Zeiss Planar 2.0/50mm. I have always liked Zeiss lenses and also have three Biogons.

1. Zeiss Sonnar is just too much for me to handle. I am having issues with rangefinder focus as-is, without adding focus-shift compensation. Maybe I'll revisit this later as I become more proficient, but I really wanted a lens with easy focusing.

I have been seriously been thinking of getting a Sonnar to go with my Planar. I'm pretty sure I can manage the focus shift issue, which I'm told is only an issue when shooting at f2 or faster, and from the results I've seen, using it is like stepping back into the 1930s. While my Planar is a modern design that is meant to be used with digital cameras and is razor sharp.

Right now I have five Zeiss lenses and had a sixth until I sold it. I bought all of my Zeiss lenses on Ebay in like-new condition from Map Camera and a couple of other Japanese used camera dealers. They offer prices that are similar to what private sellers are asking, along with similar return and warrantee policies that you get from US Retailers. Every one of the lenses I've gotten, was listed as like-new and arrived in the original box, with all of the accessories and paperwork, in Japanese of course, and looked absolutely brand new. Whichever lens you decide on, I would recommend checking out the MAP Camera website. They have high quality m-mount lenses from Zeiss, Leica, and Voigtlander.

 

[Steven Seven]

+1 on Japanese dealers. That's how I got my mint M6 TTL. I was originally planning to get a used Summicron from them, but I am a sucker for compactness. Summarit's petite size blows my mind, I can't believe it's a full-frame lens.

BTW, if you're OK with Planar dimensions I wouldn't bother with anything else. Optically it's sublime. I don't understand people who complain about "clinical" rendering. It's **your** job to make an interesting photo, a good lens is about not getting in a way with weird limitations, and Planar is amazing at it.

 

[bs1946]

+1 on Japanese dealers. That's how I got my mint M6 TTL. I was originally planning to get a used Summicron from them, but I am a sucker for compactness. Summarit's petite size blows my mind, I can't believe it's a full-frame lens.

I prefer smaller lenses also. My favorite Zeiss lens is my C-Biogon 2.8/35mm. Absolute tiny and optically it's better than the Biogon 2.0/35. Another interesting point about Sonnar it is actually the C-Sonnar 1.5/50, also a compact lens. It takes the same 43mm filter that the Planar and both 35mms do but its shorter than the Planar.

 

[Foskito]

There are 2 Voigtlanders, the f1.5 and the newer f1.2 which is superlative, 2-stops faster and half the price of the Summarit. (But bigger due to the aperture).

 

[Steven Seven]

There are 2 Voigtlanders, the f1.5 and the newer f1.2 which is superlative, 2-stops faster and half the price of the Summarit. (But bigger due to the aperture).

Yes. I excluded that one right away due to its weight and my inability to accurately focus at f/2 and above. But weight is the primary factor: 350g is too much, especially on a Leica body which is also on a heavy side.

 

[Foskito]

There are 2 Voigtlanders, the f1.5 and the newer f1.2 which is superlative, 2-stops faster and half the price of the Summarit. (But bigger due to the aperture).

Yes. I excluded that one right away due to its weight and my inability to accurately focus at f/2 and above. But weight is the primary factor: 350g is too much, especially on a Leica body which is also on a heavy side.

I think you can’t go wrong with the Zeiss Planar, a solid performer, I have the 35mm F2 Biogon and it is excellent.

 

[wosim]

If you like, have a look to my collection of links to all lens reviews, I have found so far: Lens reviews 40mm - 50mm - 60mm

Maybe the collection is helpful for identifying the “best” lens.

 

[bs1946]

BTW, if you're OK with Planar dimensions I wouldn't bother with anything else. Optically it's sublime. I don't understand people who complain about "clinical" rendering. It's **your** job to make an interesting photo, a good lens is about not getting in a way with weird limitations, and Planar is amazing at it.

Too late now. I was checking out eBay late last night and I found a C-Zeiss Sonnar 1.5/50mm from a private seller in like-new condition at a very good price and I bought it. So now I have the Planar 2.0/50mm and the Sonnar 1.5/50mm. I was mostly looking at Leica 50mm/2.5 Summarits but even the screw mount models are going for almost double or more than I paid for the Sonnar.

I decided the other day that I was only going to use my 50mm on the M9 and my 35mm on the M8 with the expectation of getting back to using a single focal length. So before I was on eBay, I boxed up my Biogon 2.8/28mm and my Voigtlander Color Heliar 2.5/75mm screw mount. Already have my Biogon 2.8/25mm boxed up since I listed it for sale on a couple of sites.