1934 Summar

[naturepix]

I finally got a roll back with some images taken with a 1934 Summar that came on a IIIb I purchased about a month ago. As expected it is soft (it is after all 72 years old!), but I like the look. I scanned the image and did a bit of processing in PS, but not much. Turned it into a duotone (which I much prefer over straight b&w). The picture is of my lovely daughter. Tri-X at 400, F5.6 at 1/100, using a IIIf RD ST. Love that camera. It really is a joy to use.

 

[Ronald M]

Lovely picture. Let someone try that with modern glass.

I do appreciate them both though. I have an uncoated 3.5 elmar, Summar, all the way to the newest 50 2.8 and 90 4.

So many lenses, so little time.

 

[aad]

Very nice. I wonder if our old soft lenses looked this way when they were new, or if they have changed over the years.

Love my IIIf RDST, too.

 

[wlewisiii]

I really wish people would stop posting pictures like this. I just lost another auction for a Summar... :bang: 😀

Very nice shot. It really does remind me of why I do want to get one though. Thank you for sharing it.

William

 

[jesse1dog]

Know the feeling about losing auctions for Summars and Summitars too!

It's a great picture with a tremendous nostalgic feel - it nearly could be the 1930s! I've got just a few of my grandfather's colour slides from the 1930s - Rollei not Leica. Their 'dottiness' is something to be seen to be believed! When was colour stock available in 35m and what was it like? The Summar was probably ahead of the colour fim stock then available.

 

[Ronald M]

My Summar is quite sharp stopped down. I have a family pic taken outside with it and printed on Cibachrome. Not sharp like a modern lens, but nice enough. My Summitars are sharper. I never warmed to my collapsible `cron, so I gave it to my son.

Pull processed E6 and and an uncoated lens gives a side that would make you puke if you saw it. It prints on Ciba beautifully and has been on display for 20 years still looking as new.

I went thru all this because the color neg at the time got very contrasty and looked terrible. Agfa came along with a nice color neg and that was the end of that process.

 

[naturepix]

Thanks for your comments. I bought the Summar (with the IIIb attached) from my local camera store in Grand Rapids, MI. They often have good stuff. I am trying to convince Greg there that he should sell me a Nikkor 3.5cm 2.5, which he let me borrow a couple of weeks ago. It is very nice. I also am hoping to find a reasonably priced Summitar. Would love to have one. One can never have enough Leicas or lenses.

 

[Skinny McGee]

I love my Summar

I love my Summar

I have a 1936 uncoated that I love .. Sometimes it takes very soft shots ans other times it gives very sharp images at the same F stop. I think maybe it has to do with light around effecting the uncoated glass. (angles and such)

 

[jkelly]

Love the Summar too

Love the Summar too

My most satisfying images, which is not the same as saying the most technically good, have come from my 1935 Summar. And it's true that not all Summar images are soft. It can produce very sharp images with sufficient light. But, they all have a unique quality.

 

[ffttklackdedeng]

Mine's from 1937, clean and almost free of cleaning marks, and the pictures are real sharp, so I guess that dreamy very nice 'dottiness' in naturepix's lovely picture might by a result of the lens condition?

I especially like the way it renders light sources, which 'extend' into their neighbourhood. And the out-of-focus areas are very nice, too.

 

[naturepix]

Hello JKelly,

I wish my Summar was as sharp as yours. It simply isn't... not much I can do about it. So, it will be my "soft" lens. I really do need a good 50, though.

I particularly like your horizontal river photo. It is wonderful.

 

[raid]

Here are some color photos taken with a Summar.

Raid

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=606483

 

[jkelly]

Raid,

Thank you for the compliment! I always enjoy seeing the shots of your lovely daughter. With as many lenses as you have, I'd say you pretty much have the spectrum covered.

Jack

 

[raid]

Jack:
Your posted photos are wonderful.I especially like the second one.

Yes, I think that I have covered the range of spectrum for vintage 50mm lenses that are available to me. I am sure that there are other 50mm that are great and that I have never used. I wish I could try out a super contrasty and sharp new 50mm lens to see if I even like it or whether it actually opens up a new type of photography for me.


Raid

 

[harry01562]

Lovely portrait... that's the very characteristic look of that lens. I own a 1935 Summar, and a 1948 Summitar that I never plan to sell. I doubt that I could afford to own another if I was so dumb. Many others like the soft, dare I say "glow" of these lenses, and what they do for portraits, especially.

The Canon 1.9 is almost as nice, and quite a bit cheaper, in most cases. It also has harder coating than the Summitar, and is equal in construction, IMHO.

Harry

 

[ffttklackdedeng]

Examples

Examples

Thought I might add some examples.. First one's real sharp (normal lighting conditions) while the second one was with strong backlighting ('king of uncontrolled flare'?) 🙂

 

[ray_g]

Just caught up on some scanning and found this thread. This was from a few months ago, when it was a little bit warmer. I like how the summar is soft wide open.

 

[charjohncarter]

I had an f2.0 Summar (prewar) in 1963-64, some of the best slides I have ever taken were with than lens on a IIIc. Wide open it made everthing look great, especially my girlfriend.

 

[naturepix]

Hello Ray_G,

Very nice portrait. Beautiful. Thanks for posting it.

Dave

 

[reagan]

I like how the summar is soft wide open.

Hate to disagree, ray, but it's obvious on this one that the softness is from the pretty model and not the lens. 😉 A great shot, worthy of a frame.