From my newly acquired Summicron-M

[Justin Low]

Hi!

I just received a Summicron-M (the current version, in chrome).

While it's a heavy sucker, it's very very smooth. I'm not sure, but I think the chrome lenses (current versions) are smoother than the black. Could this be because of the choice of material? Brass vs. some alloy (can't remember)? What do you think?

Anyway, here are some pictures.














The lens flares more than the M-Hexanon 50/2, as many have noted.

 

[jja]

It's a great lens, I would have kept my chrome Summicron if it was not quite so heavy. I did some lens tests, and the Summicron edged out my M-Hexanon in contrast, but just barely. If you got yours from enochroot, then it's the same lens I had. A real beauty, and a great performer!

Btw, what film are you using? It has the subdued look of one of the fujis (not velvia or superia, of course!).
Edit: oops, I see that's an RD-1 your using!

 

[payasam]

First two pictures a little under-exposed. Something wrong in the fourth -- look at the row of street lights on the left.

 

[David Murphy]

Justin your pics look acceptable to me, perhaps 1/2 stop down on the day shots. There is some normal flare and perhaps some normal coma (were you working wide open?) evident on the night shots. In fact I'm impressed by the image quality - Summicrons always impress me though.

Singapore looks like a spiffed up version of Hong Kong (a favorite place of mine) - nice work!

 

[Justin Low]

Thanks for looking!

jja—I didn't buy this from enochroot, but it's a beauty, like you say. Comparing it to my M-Hexanon, they both weigh about the same (subjectively), and are about the same size. The Hex's focusing ring is more heavily damped, while the 'Cron has less resistance. Both are very smooth throughout the range though, and none of that 'dry' feeling that I've encountered on the newer CV lenses (35/2.5 PII and 40/1.4 come to mind).

I thought the color resembled Astia, and a friend thinks it looks like Provia, albeit expired (I guess it's the low saturation).

Payasam—yes, I agree, somewhat underexposed.Let me see if I can massage the RAW file further. These were just a quick conversion.

I'm not sure why there are so many secondary reflections in the fourth picture; I did not use a filter. I would expect the typical flare to resemble that in the third picture, or the slight coma flare in the last one.

David—thanks, I was working at around f/5.6 for the day shots, and either at f/2 or 2.8 for the night ones.

 

[Nugard]

What did you do with photos?.. They look not very cool... #3,4,5 they have some "digital noise"(I don't know how to say it in English, but it's clearly seen on the street lamps and woman in orange on #5)... Is that how performs RD-1?.. If so, then I wouldn't buy it no way🙂

 

[EtoileFinder]

they have some "digital noise"(I don't know how to say it in English, but it's clearly seen on the street lamps and woman in orange on #5)... Is that how performs RD-1?.. If so, then I wouldn't buy it no way🙂

Hummm..., maybe I'm blind but if there is digital noise I don't see it or it is digital noise which don't look like usual digital noise and it is a small matter.

 

[desire]

The pictures have potential, so I believe they would look snappier when you have massaged the RAW files a bit more.

And I agree with EtoileFinder that the digital noise is quite acceptable to me and is a small matter.

Maybe you can show us some revised pictures after "a bit more massage"?

 

[Nugard]

#5 photo. Women to the right, in orange. Her face is pretty noisy, as for me... IMHO

 

[cjm]

Nugard, what digital camera to you shoot with? A Nikon D3 or D700? 🙂 Maybe it's my eyes (probably is) but those pictures don't look noisy at all to me.

Justin, the Summicron looks very sharp as expected. However, I agreed with others that the pictures could use some more "massaging." Also, the white balance looks a little off.

 

[Nugard]

I don't shoot digital cameras... But some times I use E-510... But... I see some things, that kind of irritates me... I just see it 😉

 

[tomasis]

nugard, noise has nothing to do with lens perfomance 🙂 Though I got curious how far E510 exposes at iso 3200 with 4:3 tiny sensor.

 

[Nugard]

That's why I don't use it regularly...
Cron performance is great...

 

[Justin Low]

Just updated the images after some subtle 'massaging'. Haha!

 

[awilder]

The flare pointed out with the street lights is typical of the current Summicron as mine did exactly the same thing under similar circumstances. I suspect it's partially due to the type of lens coating but I think it's mainly due to the symmetrical double gauss design where the concave lens surfaces on either side of the diaphragm act as a light collector bouncing and reflecting back light to the film or digital sensor. Wlen I compared my Summicron to the C-Sonnar, the latter performed much better, practically free of the nasty secondary reflections. The C-Sonnar with it's T* coating and concave-conxex lens surface on either side of the diaphragm nicely avoids this problem.

 

[Justin Low]

Thanks Alan. Sounds like I'll need to pick up the C-Sonnar. 🙂

 

[awilder]

You'll be very happy with it if you want far superior flare suppression but don't expect the same razor sharp imaging at f/2 as the Summicron until at least f/2.8. That's the big trade off. Also, minimum focus is slightly less at 0.9 m with the C-Sonnar.