1951 Summitar - M240 - first photos

brusby said:
Nice pics Raid. Very sharp and 3d feel in the pier photo.

I think for bokeholics, the 10 blade would probably be a good bet. But, as much as I used to love nice bokeh, it seems so overdone these days, often devolving into just a blurry mess, that I'm wanting to go in the opposite direction and have more things in focus -- hence the look of the photos posted above.
Click to expand...

Thank you Brusby.
If you shoot with the Summitar wide open, it will not make any difference whether the lens has 10 blades or six. Right? I think that it is interesting to collect and use very old lenses. I have several Rolleiflex TLR cameras, but I "missed" getting a 2.8C with extra blades, so I finally bought a 2.8C.
 
raid said:
Thank you Brusby.
If you shoot with the Summitar wide open, it will not make any difference whether the lens has 10 blades or six. Right? I think that it is interesting to collect and use very old lenses. I have several Rolleiflex TLR cameras, but I "missed" getting a 2.8C with extra blades, so I finally bought a 2.8C.
Click to expand...

Yes, 'should be absolutely zero difference in images taken with the 6 and 10 blade versions wide open. And this lens is very capable of making really sharp, beautiful images that way at f2.

Even stopped down -- as almost all of my images in this thread are, 'cause I wanted to test the real world effects of the 6 bladed aperture -- as you can see, the differences would be either non existent or very minimal.

It's only if/when there are large highlights in the background that you'd have more obvious hexagonal shapes. It's such a minor concern to me, 'cause so many other things are way more important in making a good photo, but I may be in the minority here.
 
1950 Summitar coated 10 blades

48931029301_3bba807de0_b.jpg


48969528396_5f2c3801da_b.jpg


48969527051_c09e9c85e4_b.jpg



48931212637_882875a400_b.jpg


Shawn
 
this thread makes me want to get an adapter for my summar. It's not a summitar but those old lenses have such a pastel rendering that it's unmistakable.
 
I had Summar and Summitar years ago. my impression from them was lot less contrast SOOL "strait out of lens", as what am seeing in op.
 
jarski said:
I had Summar and Summitar years ago. my impression from them was lot less contrast SOOL "strait out of lens", as what am seeing in op.
Click to expand...

None of my images in this thread are straight out of the lens or camera. They almost never are. I usually have an idea about how I want things to look before I take the shot and then do whatever is necessary in post to get as close to that as I am able.

It's pretty much the same routine I've been doing since my all film days in the 60's -- First set global contrast (then with developing times and/or printing paper choice, now with curves), then do local dodging and burning to preserve shadow detail and prevent highlights from blowing out.

Frankly, I wouldn't know what lens to recommend to someone who wants sooc results because every scene has different contrast and the chances of lens contrast being perfect for any particular scene are pretty slim. But, a slightly lower contrast lens would probably give the greatest flexibility and result in the highest number of satisfactory prints, because irrecoverable blown highlights or missing shadow detail would more often occur with higher contrast lenses.
 
I also used to view old lenses are very low contrast lenses with little usefulness to me until we got advanced PP software and then also got digital cameras that work well with such software. We can increase the contrast and add saturation levels to make images look as if they were taken with modern lenses. We can also keep such post processing to a minimum and maintain the vintage characteristics of such lenses in place. I find that using a Summar is more challenging than using a Summitar or Summicron.
 
A fine print and image, Erik.
The Summar is a fine lens, but it can be challenging to use it and get good results.
 
Thank you, Raid. Yes it is important to use a good shade on it, but not the SOOMP, a waste of money.

A fine shade is the FOOKH/12505 with the inscription Summaron - Elmar 35mm f/3.5.

Strange enough the FLQOO, with the inscription Elmar 35mm f/3.5, vignettes on the Summar. (it is a bit longer than the FOOKH)

This one is with the Summar too:

Erik.

50625507363_662808f498_b.jpg
 
I have a SOOMP. It is too bulky. Cost seems to be similar to cost of a FOOKH/12505. I use what I happen to own.
 
Hi,


This was a test shot taken years ago; Summitar lens, model II or IIIa, cheapo supermarket film and supermarket's one hour lab...


Photo%2002-XL.jpg


No post processing done and this file was from the supermarket's CD of small ones I use to catalogue the negatives.


If you can track back to the photo there's about 8 or 9 test shots there.


Regards, David
 
I've seen FLQOO shades (black) sell for EUR 275 on eBay. The FOOKH in black is usually cheaper. These shades are handy because the metal Leica M lens caps from the fifties (with a felt liner in them) fit on them. They give good lens protection and look nice.

gelatine silver print (summar) leica III

Erik.

50335576432_c01cc5b13a_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
W-Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 LTM close focus
Replies
5
Views
521
das
das
B
50mm Summilux ASPH - first short walk in the park to test
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
5K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
B
Leica Super-Elmar-M 21 f/3.4 ASPH
Replies
2
Views
772
Brick33308
B
B
Summar
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
6K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
B
Tiny Travel Lens Choices
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
8K
38Deardorff
38Deardorff
Back
Top Bottom