Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't know if I would say absolutely better. I prefer the Jupiter at f2.0 - 4.0. The Summitar can have some wild bokeh (and I never thought I was sensitve for bokeh). The Jupiter is smooth like a Zeiss Sonnar. If you run across one close, it won't cost you much to try. I see them going for 25 - 30 dollars at times. The Elmar is hard to beat. Its only real problem is difficult lighting situations causing flare. But if it doesn't flare, I like it at all stops. This one was wide-open. It only gets better. Daniel On 1/6/06, David Cochran <cochranpr@mac.com> wrote: > Interesting how grain is different on both shots. > > Jupiter better than Summitar? I ask because I have a Summitar and > wonder about the Jupiter. > > Peace > > david > > On Jan 6, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Daniel Ridings wrote: > > > These are just two shots I ran off to compare the Summitar and Elmar > > that I have for the IIIf. I already know that the Jupiter-8 is a > > top-class lens. I ran across a Summitar for a reasonable price (a tad > > over 100 USD) that was in near perfect condition, so I couldn't > > resist. > > > > Summitar > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/iiif/05v52_0001 > > > > Elmar > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/iiif/05v52_0002 > > > > Daniel > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >