Collapsible Summicron

N

Nick R.

Guest
Here's a couple of shots with my collapsible Summicron in M-mount. They were both shot a f2. There's a bit of haze on the lens and minor cleaning marks. I was wondering if this soft look is typical of this lens or just my sample:
 
Nick R. said:
Here's a couple of shots with my collapsible Summicron in M-mount. They were both shot a f2. There's a bit of haze on the lens and minor cleaning marks. I was wondering if this soft look is typical of this lens or just my sample:
Click to expand...

I would think it's not necessarily "soft" per se but more like the "classic" look that some folks prefer.

The softness that you're describing could come from the haze no? Mine doesn't have any haze but it does have the minor cleaning marks that are pretty much common to a 50 year old lens :D

Have you printed any of the shots off the roll yet Nick ?

Cheers
Dave
 
Some vintage lenses, especially the col Summicron have a creamy look that is highly regarded by some photographers for some applications (myself included) over the clinically sterile/sharp look of most modern lenses. Even on the computer monitor screen, I can see individual hairs on your subjects. A truely soft lens would not resolve these hairs. Great look to these photos IMO.
 
Perhaps, I might be calling soft what is more acurately called low contrast.

If you mean wet print, no. I don't have an enlarger. BTW, the film is HP5+ dev'd in Xtol 1:1.
 
Vintage lenses typically transfer less contrast onto film than their modern, multi-coated counter-parts. This can be an advantage in B+W photography by allowing the lens to dig into the shadows, rather than have them become pure black. It's also an advantage for scanning purposes, capturing more useable information that the scanner can access.
 
I'm going to concur with The Dark Lord on this one :D

Frank's correct wrt the contrast differences b/w the old and new crons.

I've got both the collapsible and the "newer" tabbed version - the tabbed one is uber contrasty while the collapsible is a lot less so.

Cheers
Dave
 
Thanks, Frank and Dave.
I have another roll of B&W ready to go. I wondering how this lens would do with some of the low-contrast color films meant for flash photography. It might really help hold the highlights. One of my problems with an on camera flash.
 
It's really quite useful to have both "tools" in the camera bag. Depending on the look you want, you can use the low contrast lens on sunny days, and the high contrast newer lens on overcast days.
 
I think your scanner resolution or technique can also affect the perception of sharpness. A comparison with another lens might be helpful.

-Paul
 
Here's two shots with same camera, same roll of film, different lens:
 
Hmm. The hair looks sharper but I'll have to go back and look at shots at other than f2 to see if it's a DOF issue.
 
My Summicron was very soft, and very very prone to flare. It had haze and cleaning marks. I had a cla done which eliminated the haze and the lens is now sharp as a tack and much less prone to flare. I see no difference between my rigid Summicron and the collapsible. Stu
 
I don't have any pics handy to post but some of my landscape shots had signinficant flare.
 
Its the haze, these old lenses always seem to have them after a long while. I experience the same with my collapsible until I had it cleaned. While it is sharp, it does produce the old style rounded images that are really nice for b+w.

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