Image Sharpness of Summicron-C 40mm

[sparrow6224]

PS for the short time I owned it I thought the Canonet GIII 17's 40mm f/1.7 had a similar feel to the Summicron C. Opinion of anyone who knows both would be interesting.

[Joe Brugger]

Originally Posted by sparrow6224

PS for the short time I owned it I thought the Canonet GIII 17's 40mm f/1.7 had a similar feel to the Summicron C. Opinion of anyone who knows both would be interesting.

My experience is that the Canon lens is a bit "edgier" with less contrast, but the 40 mm on Minolta's compact fixed-lens RF cameras came very close. The Olympus RC and SP series also had similar-performing lenses.

[BobYIL]

Both are enlarged to about 150cm.. both @f5.6.. one is the Summicron 35/2 Aspherical and the other one Summicron-C 40/2. I can't say one is sharper than the other one..

[Dirk]

Strange... the 40mm looks more contrasty than the 35/aspherical (assuming the 40mm is the one on the right).

[kutitta]

Hi all,

I am rather a newbie in the Leica world, and I am using Leica CL with Summicron-C 40/2. I have to confess that I am still struggling in assessing the "level" of sharpness in, what I think, sharp images. So I very much appreciate if you can share your informed opinion about the level of sharpness for the two photographs below taken with Summicron-C 40/2. I can then use your opinions as yardstick for my future photographs, or those taken by others. Also it would be good to know whether those shots reflect the capacity of this highly praised lens.

The first shot was taken wide open, and the second one was I think at f/8.

If it matters, I used Ilford XP2 Super 400 for both shots, and they were scanned at the lab not at the highest resolution possible I reckon.

Many thanks in advance.

[Sylvester]

For my M-Rokkor 40mm (Summicron-C later version), I think it performs the sweetest between f/4-5.6...
The picture of the kid is sharp for me, but don't expect any lens except the 3000$ summiluxes to perform super sharp at f/2...
Rangefinders are good for getting personnal with people, just like in your nice portrait. Leave architecture to SLRs...
If you want super sharp walls of brick you'll need to go to f/8, past that it will become less "sharp".
Anyway, sharpness never makes a good photo.

[Sylvester]

BTW, that is sharp for me. F/16.

Look par ChatSylvestre, sur Flickr

[kutitta]

Originally Posted by Sylvester

For my M-Rokkor 40mm (Summicron-C later version), I think it performs the sweetest between f/4-5.6...
The picture of the kid is sharp for me, but don't expect any lens except the 3000$ summiluxes to perform super sharp at f/2...
Rangefinders are good for getting personnal with people, just like in your nice portrait. Leave architecture to SLRs...
If you want super sharp walls of brick you'll need to go to f/8, past that it will become less "sharp".
Anyway, sharpness never makes a good photo.

Thanks for the insight Sylvester, much appreciated!

[gilpen123]

Does anyone have stiff focusing ring on their 40 cron?

[k__43]

Originally Posted by gilpen123

Does anyone have stiff focusing ring on their 40 cron?

yeah mine is a lot stiffer than with my other lenses .. still ok tho
I tried to drop in a tiny wee little (!) bit of oil since this always helped with gummed up russian lenses - not with the cron-C tho

[Palaeoboy]

Originally Posted by gilpen123

Does anyone have stiff focusing ring on their 40 cron?

Yes they are naturally firmer in their focus than most other compact Leica lenses but as long as its smooth then everything is fine. What's strange is that when Minolta redesigned their 40mm for the CLE they went the opposite and those 40mm's are very light in their focus.

[Palaeoboy]

Just to note for the record, the high priest of Wetzlar, king of the MTFs, Erwin Puts ranks the 90mm Elmar-C above the 40mm Summicron-C.

I disagree with that if thats the results he has printed. His tests on lenses other than Leicas newest are sometimes based on very old or well used samples. I remember once he criticised the build quality of a Voigtlander lens citing it had a screw missing only to reveal if you read closely the lens was a loaner from a journalist that has been using it extensively. It wasnt new at all or indicative of the lens when it was new. Also it should be noted Erwin had beef with the 40mm Summicron in that he is a strong advocate of you get what you pay for and thats why Leica lenses are so expensive and here was a little upstart that Leica built themselves proving they could make magnificent lenses for much less. I have the original tests from Popular photography who tested the lenses when new and with the same test process. Testing has changed over time so its not always possible to compare all tests over time however in this instance they were compared on the same bench at the same time and the Summicron C was the better lens. I dont seem to get that same sparkle with the Elmar that I get with the Summicron. The Elmar is good make no mistake but just not quite. I find that the Compact 90 TE does get closer even though it has a similar 4 element design but it flares more than the Elmar-C. The Elmar-C though is even more of a bargain than the Summicron C so for the money you cant go wrong.

PS for the short time I owned it I thought the Canonet GIII 17's 40mm f/1.7 had a similar feel to the Summicron C. Opinion of anyone who knows both would be interesting.

I collect 40mm lenses so have been comparing them for a site I have been meaning to put up for years (Never enough time!) The do have a similar feel at 5.6 to 8 but edge performance to f4 the Summicron always wins out. But for the cost of a GIII the lens performance in quite astonishing.

[gilpen123]

This is my 2nd Cron 40 and I can't excatly remember how stiff it is but in general it is smooth and aligns perfectly at infinity. The lens is almost unused according to the seller, maybe I need to exercise it more.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

wasn't the summi 40mm optimized for the CLE and not meant to be used on other Leica's?

[Palaeoboy]

Originally Posted by Ron (Netherlands)

wasn't the summi 40mm optimized for the CLE and not meant to be used on other Leica's?

It was said to be optimised for the CL and may or may not work on some M was the official line from Leica. However I have never seen any incompatibility issues with any M so I think it was more to try sway M users back to buying regular M lenses. The CLE and its lenses use a convention cam system the same an all M's however on their official notices as to lens compatibility Minolta list the steep sloped cammed Summicron C as being completely compatible so it does further suggest Leica was making it up. I have heard the odd user say they encountered this incompatibility issue but I have found over the years someone at least sometime has has a like issue with other Leica lenses and needed the lens to be matched to their particular camera body. I dont believe the 40mm can be singled out on this.

[C4D]

Lately I have been photographing a lot with a CL Summicron 40mm and a Canon QL17 and I can also definitely confirm as mentioned above that the Canon lens performs much like the Summicron but less contrasty and a bit softer wide open. Now the one lens I have been using also lately that I think really has a look and feel of the Summicron is the Konica Auto S2's 40mm 1.8 lens... I find that lens to be very sharp with excellent image character.

[k__43]

Originally Posted by Palaeoboy

It was said to be optimised for the CL and may or may not work on some M was the official line from Leica. However I have never seen any incompatibility issues with any M so I think it was more to try sway M users back to buying regular M lenses. The CLE and its lenses use a convention cam system the same an all M's however on their official notices as to lens compatibility Minolta list the steep sloped cammed Summicron C as being completely compatible so it does further suggest Leica was making it up. I have heard the odd user say they encountered this incompatibility issue but I have found over the years someone at least sometime has has a like issue with other Leica lenses and needed the lens to be matched to their particular camera body. I dont believe the 40mm can be singled out on this.

weird thing tho .. with my M2's RF the Cron-C doesn't hit infinity but it does so with the M6 of a friend. My other lenses do focus to infinity tho.

[marzipan]

If the Summicron-C works accurately with your M depends on how your rangefinder arm length (gain) is adjusted. If the roller is not placed in the exact center, the C lens with its sloping cam would be off. CLs and Ms are slightly differently constructed in this respect, and this I think is the reason for the warnings of incompatibility.