Early Summitar - uncoated?

[Hatchetman]

It is hard to say. I have an uncoated Summitar that gives much sharper images than what you show, but I suspect the difference is in the scanning. Here is an example:

Kalahikiola Congregational Church by Rob F, on Flickr

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

Hi Rob, as I mentioned, I didnt developed those and the lab probably used bad developer, the negatives are not sharp also and the scanning is bad too.

Sent from my m2 note using Tapatalk

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

Any more ideas?? Peter?

Sent from my m2 note using Tapatalk

 

[newst]

Well let's see...

"... the lab probably used bad developer, the negatives are not sharp also and the scanning is bad too..."

All that and yet some of the photographs are quite good, the 'flare' in the first shot isn't repeated so it is likely a result of the lighting and not the lens. I don't see anything in the limited samples that stands out and says "this lens has x problem". If it were mine I would continue using it, and find a more reliable lab.

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

Hi Newst, thanks for your reply. The flare might be due to lens or the camera because I have another shot from the same spot 1 sec apart and it doesnt have the flare. Most probably from the camera.

I will test the lens again on a reliable camera when I return home and develop the film myself.

Sent from my m2 note using Tapatalk