Early Summar on the M8

[Sonnar Brian]

I picked up an early "Nickel" Summar, glass almost perfect, have used it with film before. Picked up a Walz Hood this week, and put it on the M8.

At F2:

Neighborhood Cemetary dating back to the Civil War.



Tall grass, near Sunset. F2:

And at F4:

 

[back alley]

was it foggy out?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Another at F4:

 

[Sonnar Brian]

No Joe- not Foggy.

At F2:


At F2, close-up:



Another at F2:



and at F4:

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I've shot one roll of Kodachrome, ASA 10, Process K-11. The colors were muted, almost like watercolor. The colors with the Summar are muted, "some might describe as foggy". It is a low-contrast lens. On film, the contrast is generally enhanced during printing. On slide, "you get what you get". I'll shoot a few Kodachrome 64 shots with this lens, and the uncoated Sonnar.

What did surprise me is how much resolution the Summar has. "Pixel Peeping" showed the lens at F2 had enough resolution to introduce some artifacts due to aliasing.

Wide-Open,


Tight Crop:

 

[back alley]

just teasing ya brian...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I know- modern lenses are much higher contrast than the 1930s Leitz lenses. It is an "obsolete look". The Uncoated Sonnars are high-contrast by comparison. You look at these images, and think the lens must have internal haze. It does not.

 

[helen.HH]

I have a 1937 uncoated summar.... here is some Summar Glow...om my Barnack III">

 

[helen.HH]

another TRIX ...barnack /summar combo...THANK YOU Robert for turning me unto the Summar !!">

 

[gb hill]

I really like the (bokeh) out of focus area of this lens.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I have two of these- this one has near perfect glass, the second was not as clean. I will try it on the next outing.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Nice Helen, definitely a lens for b&w....

Brian, in my recollection there were pictures shown somewhere on rff that seem to provide better color rendition. However those pictures might have gotten some special color postprocessing. Would be interesting to see a comparison with the runnerup summitar; I think the oof is quite comparable but the summitar seems quite a bit sharper and more contrasty - also the colors are brighter (I sold mine - a very ex 1940 issue - so cannot be of any help here).

 

[MikeL]

Hey Brian,
I've put my Summar, 5cm Hektor, and 28mm Canon, all wide open, on a M8 I borrowed, and like you I was pretty impressed with the resolution. Same for my collapsible summicron. Digital capture seems to remove some of the steps that influence perceived resolution.

 

[helen.HH]

Thank YOU Ron

I too would like to see the 'FEEL' and differences
between the SUMMITAR & SUMMAR

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I do not have a Summitar currently, but have owned two coated samples. They were closer to the Summicron collapsible. The images shown are out of the camera JPEG's, with "standard settings".

THIS shot is with an uncoated 5cm F1.5 Sonnar (SN puts it ~1936) converted to LTM, wide-open on the M8. Same color settings on the M8 used as the Summar.

 

[helen.HH]

a summar or is the elmar on a III / triX">

 

[charjohncarter]

Kodachrome, Summar 50mm, Leica IIIc, 1964:

From the same roll:

 

[helen.HH]

and who says the Summar is Square...
playboy and a martini .hmmmmm

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Kodachrome, Summar 50mm, Leica IIIc, 1964:
From the same roll:

Beautiful fresh and sharp! This is indeed more how I recollect color images from the Summar...

and another beautiful b&w shot from Helen..... Helen would you reveal to us how you scan your images

 

[charjohncarter]

Beautiful fresh and sharp! This is indeed more how I recollect color images from the Summar...

and another beautiful b&w shot from Helen..... Helen would you reveal to us how you scan your images

Thanks Ron, nothing like a Kodachrome, too bad it's gone.