50mm Summitar impressions

M

merciful

Guest
My 1939 (or so) Summitar has arrived, and I've run a roll with it (but not developed it yet.)

Focusing is beautifully smooth and precise, though the tab is foreign to me, and I've settled for gripping the barrel, which is not quite the way it was supposed to be used, and thus slightly irritating. I'll adjust in time.

The f-stops aren't the ones I'm used to, they're: 2, 2.2, 3.2, 4.5..., and that requires some extra adaptation. The aperture ring is also stepless, and quite light in action: good and bad; I can fiddle it jut to where I want, but it's so light I thought I was focusing when turning it at one moment.

Shot the whole roll wide-open. Of course.
 
I'd like to see the results, too. I must say I'm pleased with mine - I've also got a Summitar, but the 50ies vintage :)
Takes nice shots, though.
 
Oh, that's very nice: just how I would have done it myself, except for all that colour. Very nice colour, nonetheless: nicely soft and muted.

I wonder how the results from the uncoated '39 model will compare?
 
I owned a pre-war Summitar for a short time several years ago. I think I tracked the SN back to late 39 or early 40. It was uncoated of course and produced very nice pictures. The lack of coating was noticeable in contrasty light situations.The photos didn't have that crisp snap that we are used to in modern lenses. In the shade it was hard to tell the difference.

I've noticed the same distinction between Retina lenses that are coated and not coated.

This one is with a coated Summitar (circa 1954). The uncoated lens wouldn't have had the clear separation evident between the roof tiles. They would still be sharp, but the lack of contrast would make them look smoother.

-Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom