Leica LTM Sanders' Summitar: Yech! Gross! Stinko!

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
S

Sanders McNew

Rolleiflex User
Local time
5:44 PM
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
514
Location
Deepest Appalachia
View My Gallery
You may recall, fearless travelers, that I
had been looking to expand my lens options
-- something more modern than my Summar,
something more compact than my 50/1.4
Nippon Kogaku Sonnar.

I was thinking "Collapsible Summicron" but
Sherry Krauter said, "Oh no silly boy, what
you really want is a Summitar." And a quick
review of the posts here suggested that the
lens is highly regarded.

Why?

I shot a roll with my daughter in Virginia
and all I got for my troubles was hexagonal
highlights and wiry bokeh. I offer Exhibit A:

99338469.jpg


The lens is a very late model, SN 939xxx, in
pristine condition. I love the size but otherwise
am struggling to see the charm in it.

Splain, please?

Sanders
 
If you wouldn`t have mentioned "Summitar" I would have asked, if the lens was a Summitar 😉 A little "swirly" out-of-focus rendering is what I also get often with this lens, especially with an inhomogenous back ground (trees, leaves).

Beautiful portrait, though !
 
Try it indoors, close, and wide open. I found it has a unique way of drawing. Leaves and backlighting obviously bring out challenges for 50 year old optics...

She is pretty sharp so you must have a nice copy. My lens had more challenges.

It looks like Marc-A had a similar effect with the lens in these conditions.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marc-a/1817362857/

...but managed well in this situation, stopped down?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marc-a/541027101/

They have a nice way of drawing people. Here by Chris-m
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrismiddleton/415038660/

and by Fernando Gomes Semedo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fgsemedo/1314291024/

I have sold all my old lenses for newer ones with less of an antique signature.
 
I wouldn't see it as a great all-rounder, but the Summitar has a character I like, in color and in b/w. It can have pretty obtrusive bokeh in situations like the one you shot, but in others it can also have very pleasing OOF areas. Sometimes there is a fair amount of "Leica glow" (a.k.a. flare), but again, the same characteristic can produce a nice softness to the image. All depends on what you are looking for, I guess, and what circumstances you are using it in.

p775315135-4.jpg


p1017056419-4.jpg


There are more images taken with a Summitar and an Epson R-D1s at the Tsukiji market in Tokyo here:

http://nobleworks.zenfolio.com/p118465241/
 
Last edited:
Use it for its vintage signature, and do not compare it to modern lenses (btw I like it better than the col summicron). Below, shot with Z2 in France last summer. The Summitar is from 1940, uncoated.
SCAN0032.JPG
 
Last edited:
Well, you did pick a challenging background there, Sanders.

BTW, your Summitar must have the hexagonal aperture that is much rarer than the more typical one with more blades.

I always thought that the lens that comes closest in signature to the Summitar is the Noctilux (!).

Always a fan of your work, Sanders ...

Best,

Roland.
 
Hi Sanders,
You will take good photos with any lens, so keep on trying other lenses out and show us the results.

I like vintage lenses, so I have the Summitar, but I use it less often than the rigid Summicron. I have a feeling that you would likethe results from a Canon 50/1.4 or even 50mm/1.8. For a special look,try the Serenar 50/1.9.


Cheers,
 
Weird. My '46 coated Summitar has 10 blades in the aperture and renders specular highlights as perfect circles. I didn't know they'd built any with less. Mine still does the 'swirly' thing wide open however, but like people say, that's just part of the character of the beast.

 
Last edited:
ferider said:
BTW, your Summitar must have the hexagonal aperture that is much rarer than the more typical one with more blades.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I didn't think they were all that rare. My coated 1951 Summitar has the hexagonal aperture and I vaguely remember that in previous discussions about the lens a fair few others said they had the same version.

I happen to like 'swirly' bokeh in general but I agree that the OOF ares of the shot you (Sanders) posted are kind of ugly.

Here's the only bokeh-heavy shot I have online from my Summitar. Perhaps it's an acquired taste, but I don't think it's bad at all in this case:





Matthew
 
Last edited:
I personally love the Summitar, but if you want similar lens, with slightly superior sharpness and very smooth bokeh, try a Summicron. It is fairly common and reasonably priced in LTM collapsible version (rare and expensive in LTM rigid).
 
Last edited:
First, your daughter takes after her mother...!
Second, that's quite a difficult background indeed and I agree it does degrade the portrait a little. However, I do think it's still an excellent portrait!!
 
I just remembered I actually own a Summitar, screwed on the adapter, and popped it on the M8.
This is my son and his dog, 5 minutes ago.
f 2,0, built in 1950, aperture has six blades, I just noticed...
l1002063us0.jpg

just a b/w conversion & a tad of sharpening...
Cheers,
Johan
 
Last edited:
You Bought the Wrong Summitar

You Bought the Wrong Summitar

The Summitars with the 'crappy' bokeh are the '50's models that use the left over Summar iris stock. Be sure to check you serial numbers you want to a pre 1950 lens that is coated. That's the better of the Summitars. Of course if you prefer the sea sick look go for after a later model. HOWEVER, quality control post war was not good on all of them. Many have bubbles in the glass and other defects that were just passed on to the consumer. There just aren't that many really good ones left out there.

My 1949 Summitar is by far my favorite 50 when I want to look arty (and that's 90% of the time), and my '65 Summicron is favored for lower light shots or when top quality is a must. A primo condition Summitar is one of the best catches of all for a Leica freak and I prize it above everything except my 2.8 Summaron.
 
David Murphy said:
I personally love the Summitar, but if you want similar lens, with slightly superior sharpness and very smooth bokeh, try a Summicron. It is fairly common and reasonably priced in LTM collapsible version (rare and expensive in LTM rigid).
Click to expand...


I dont think I would be so fast to compare the col cron I have with the few summitars I have, I find them very very different looking lenses, the cron is tremendously low contrast in comparison. I would suggest that the old summarit is like the "fixed" version of the summitar (even though there's nothing wrong with the summitar really), they have much more of a similar look than the summitar does with the cron. Of course I base this just on the samples of each that I use in my work, so YMMV. One thing to note, there are big differences between the round and hex iris summitars. I have three summitars and have kept all three because they look so different.
 
I love the Summitar.......

emillyflappercolor.jpeg


This was shot on Fuji color 100ASA @ 500/sec f2.0 *wide open* using a uncoated "wartime" 1940 Summitar on a 1945 Leica IIIC K

I`ve since sold this lens, but I have two other one`s now...... one`s a 1941 "uncoated" version (on my Grey IIICK) and the other is a 1942 "coated" one (postwar issued in 1945) both mint lenses with wonderful shooting glass

I`ve always used pre 1950 Summitar`s just because that`s what I always find/ buy, I don`t know how much truth there is to the Summar/Deadstock story, (if that`s true) - that will explain why the Summicron and Summar have so many simliarites and maybe that would also explain why the early Summicron`s also performed so poorly because of those hex blades?
Many of the images I`ve seen taken with them are not so outstanding, sort of dull/flat -I personaly don`t like the looks shot with the 1953/54 Cron`s *I guess it`s not for everybody* - though I could always sell those serial number under 1 million Radioactive Summicron`s to collectors for really good $$$$$

I think it`s all how you work the Bokeh out and aline your subject to the background when the glass is "wide open" that`s what counts

Some lenses work well for this, some don`t, it`s all in what works and looks better for you 😉

Tom
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom