Kodak 47/2, Cooke Amotal, and Leitz Summar visit the Museum of the Marine Corp

[boojum]

My mother's side of the family is from Rochester and followed Kodak closely. Grandpa had the Ektar camera from pre-war when it first came out. The camera and that 47mm lens were great. Kodak was a great product. Then the guys in Marketing took over. I was offered the old Ektar and should have taken the offer. But we all know what we should have done.

 

[dexdog]

All true!

My only problem is testing lenses I do not own because then I want to buy my own copies.

Brian, I have a really lovely copy of the Fujinon 50/2 in LTM that I would be happy to tempt you with. A beautiful lens, and currently a lot cheaper than an Amotal or Ektar in good condition😁

 

[brusby]

I did a screen shot of the first image of each set so I could compare them directly. IMO the Amotal and Ektar are so similar in almost every way -- including color rendition, skin tones, contrast, vignetting and even apparent focal length -- that they are quite difficult to tell apart. It almost looks like the same image was uploaded twice by mistake. I would have bet against this result, thinking that some of these characteristics would be different between the two lenses. On close examination there are differences, but they are surprisingly slight.

The Summar seems to be the odd person out. It has different color rendition, enhanced contrast (at least in some parts of the image), increased vignetting and apparently longer focal length. The impression of increased contrast might be the result of the increased vignetting making some dark areas toward the corners darker than the other lenses -- check out the darker logs and wall in the upper right quadrant. But the light sand is a bit darker, suggesting either lower contrast here or the effect of vignetting again. And this result of apparently increased contrast is exactly opposite of what I would have guessed in such an old uncoated optic.

I'll post the screen shots below for easy comparison. Brian if you prefer I not repost in this form, I'd be happy to delete. Just thought it might make comparisons easier.

Here's the order:
#1 Summar
#2 Amotal
#3 Ektar

 

[wlewisiii]

I keep thinking that a Summar, if I can find one that is decent condition and fits my budget (or can part one together like you describe) would be a lovely addition to my selection of 50mm lenses. This thread didn't help that much 🙂

 

[boojum]

I did a screen shot of the first image of each set so I could compare them directly. IMO the Amotal and Ektar are so similar in almost every way -- including color rendition, skin tones, contrast, vignetting and even apparent focal length -- that they are quite difficult to tell apart. It almost looks like the same image was uploaded twice by mistake. I would have bet against this result, thinking that some of these characteristics would be different between the two lenses. On close examination there are differences, but they are surprisingly slight.

The Summar seems to be the odd person out. It has different color rendition, enhanced contrast (at least in some parts of the image), increased vignetting and apparently longer focal length. The impression of increased contrast might be the result of the increased vignetting making some dark areas toward the corners darker than the other lenses -- check out the darker logs and wall in the upper right quadrant. But the light sand is a bit darker, suggesting either lower contrast here or the effect of vignetting again. And this result of apparently increased contrast is exactly opposite of what I would have guessed in such an old uncoated optic.

I'll post the screen shots below for easy comparison. Brian if you prefer I not repost in this form, I'd be happy to delete. Just thought it might make comparisons easier.

Here's the order:
#1 Summar
#2 Amotal
#3 EktarView attachment 4844619View attachment 4844620View attachment 4844621

This is an interesting presentation and test. The only problem I see is that you have compared screen shots that we now look at on our screens. So we have your software for screen captures and then how the image is again presented on our screens at home. This has to affect the images in some way. To have the actual images from the camera would be more interesting and valid, I would think.

 

[brusby]

This is an interesting presentation and test. The only problem I see is that you have compared screen shots that we now look at on our screens. So we have your software for screen captures and then how the image is again presented on our screens at home. This has to affect the images in some way. To have the actual images from the camera would be more interesting and valid, I would think.

True. It's just a very quick, informal test. If you perceive the tones or colors to be significantly different from Brian's original post, perhaps you could persuade him to repost these three images together so it would be easy to switch between the originals.

But I have a calibrated display so colors shouldn't be far from correct. And more importantly, whatever error or errors there may have been in the screen capture and subsequent display process would have been applied equally to all three samples. So, I believe judgments based on the differences among the three samples should still have a pretty high degree of relevance and accuracy. But I am open to knowing if you have a better way

 

[boojum]

True. It's just a very quick, informal test. If you perceive the tones or colors to be significantly different from Brian's original post, perhaps you could persuade him to repost these three images together so it would be easy to switch between the originals.

But I have a calibrated display so colors shouldn't be far from correct. And more importantly, whatever error or errors there may have been in the screen capture and subsequent display process would have been applied equally to all three samples. So, I believe judgments based on the differences among the three samples should still have a pretty high degree of relevance and accuracy. But I am open to knowing if you have a better way

All I can think is comparing the original files. And while you are no doubt using a calibrated monitor every time an image is manipulated there is the chance of degradation. If the images were posted on-line where we could compare them that would be better. In my opinion. I hope to do a Amotal, SBS, CZJ, J8 comparison with images posted to Flickr. But that will not be real soon.

But wait, I did this same thing on a wooden mask from Tocuaro, MCH, Mexico a while back. And on an M9 as explained in the file folder itself. It is not much of a test of color and light but it does show resolution. I will do better next time, I promise. Cheers Sonnar Lens Tests

Next time a fixed WB and a fixed ISO which would eliminate any drift in exposure. The ISO jumps around in this test, from 1000 to 1600. It will be on a tripod again so I can set it on a lower ISO for better resolution evaluation. And I will do an outdoor set, too. I expect the Nobel for this. ;o)

 

[Sonnar Brian]

@brusby - fine with me to compare the results.

In the Leica Manual by Morgan and Lester: the Summar was replaced by the Summitar due to vignetting with color. The Summitar has a much bigger front element to reduce vignetting.

The other lens I could have brought- the Canon 5cm F2, also a 1940s 1-2-2-1 lens.

 

[Coldkennels]

I did a screen shot of the first image of each set so I could compare them directly. IMO the Amotal and Ektar are so similar in almost every way -- including color rendition, skin tones, contrast, vignetting and even apparent focal length -- that they are quite difficult to tell apart. It almost looks like the same image was uploaded twice by mistake. I would have bet against this result, thinking that some of these characteristics would be different between the two lenses. On close examination there are differences, but they are surprisingly slight.

The Summar seems to be the odd person out. It has different color rendition, enhanced contrast (at least in some parts of the image), increased vignetting and apparently longer focal length. The impression of increased contrast might be the result of the increased vignetting making some dark areas toward the corners darker than the other lenses -- check out the darker logs and wall in the upper right quadrant. But the light sand is a bit darker, suggesting either lower contrast here or the effect of vignetting again. And this result of apparently increased contrast is exactly opposite of what I would have guessed in such an old uncoated optic.

I'll post the screen shots below for easy comparison. Brian if you prefer I not repost in this form, I'd be happy to delete. Just thought it might make comparisons easier.

Here's the order:
#1 Summar
#2 Amotal
#3 EktarView attachment 4844619View attachment 4844620View attachment 4844621

Thanks for doing this - I was thinking of doing the same for my own purposes. It's much easier to compare side-by-side like this, and this image really shows most of the characteristics of the lenses more than the others, in my opinion.

For me, all three lenses are fairly comparable, but the Summar just edges it. It looks a bit richer and has a bit more depth and feeling than the other two. Also it seems to render the out-of-focus foreground more pleasingly than the others (compare the gun and the post); that seems to be the biggest difference other than colour rendition and vignetting (which I don't mind).

I was expecting a bit more variation in the out-of-focus rendering in the background, but it's surprisingly similar between the two. I'd be interested to see if the Amotal (for instance) also produces the swirly backgrounds the Summar tends towards from time-to-time (a trait shared by the very similar Canon 50/1.9 Serenar).



The Summar is such a rich, characterful lens. It's just a shame so many of them are absolutely knackered!