AnthonyM
Established
Gentlemen, I have had numerous Leica 50mm lenses in the past. One lens that I have not had the pleasure of using is the Summar. In the past, I did Hollywood glamour photography using an old Verito lens. I saw results with the Summar that reminded me of a soft focus lens. Looking over the Summars offered on Ebay, I note that the vast majority of them have haze or are clouded. Is this something that can be fixed or cleaned, or is it a permanent conditon?
Last edited:
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Haze can generally be cleaned. Best to let an expert do it, as Summar glass is soft.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
I think the internal haze is the result of volatile components of the original lubricant evaporating from the lube and condensing on the relatively cold glass of the lens elements. (At least that's my theory...)
At any rate, the haze should be able to be removed with a CLA by a good repairman.
The things that are not so easy to deal with are scratches and cleaning-marks...
Many of the Summars that I have seen on eBay have badly scratched elements.
Check with Sherry Krauter at Golden Touch Camera; she is a factory-trained Leica technician with an excellent reputation; a forum member recently contacted her about Summars, and she had several freshly-serviced Summars for sale...
Good luck,
Luddite Frank
At any rate, the haze should be able to be removed with a CLA by a good repairman.
The things that are not so easy to deal with are scratches and cleaning-marks...
Many of the Summars that I have seen on eBay have badly scratched elements.
Check with Sherry Krauter at Golden Touch Camera; she is a factory-trained Leica technician with an excellent reputation; a forum member recently contacted her about Summars, and she had several freshly-serviced Summars for sale...
Good luck,
Luddite Frank
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If the lens is not scratched, yes, it can be cleaned up perfectly (by a professional -- I use Optical Instruments (Balham), www.optil.co.uk -- and a clean, unscratched Summar is an astonishingly good lens.
They can also repolish and coat/recoat, should you wish. A friend had a pre-war Sonnar coated some 20 years ago and was well impressed.
Cheers,
R.
They can also repolish and coat/recoat, should you wish. A friend had a pre-war Sonnar coated some 20 years ago and was well impressed.
Cheers,
R.
rlouzan
Well-known
"the special glasses with high refractive index which were used, where unfortunately prone to corrosive damage due to the glass components absorption of moisture..."
Mr. Horst Braun, Manager of the Leica repair department
(C) Cameraquest
http://www.cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm
(Fogging)
Mr. Horst Braun, Manager of the Leica repair department
(C) Cameraquest
http://www.cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm
(Fogging)
Luddite Frank
Well-known
rlouzan said:
Ouch. That's a pretty grim commentary on Leitz glass...
So when (if ever) did Leitz address this issue ?
LF
Roger Hicks
Veteran
As soon as better glass was available. Which was not long. We're talking about 75 years ago for Summars, after all. Later 5cm f/2 (and faster) lenses were nothing like as tender.Luddite Frank said:
If you think that's bad, read up on fluorite elements as used by leading Japanese manufacturers 20-30 years later.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
John Shriver
Well-known
The Summar doesn't use any exotic glasses, it predates them I'd have to say. Just crown and flint glass. The front element, like the Summitar, is flint glass, which is a very soft glass, since it's just lead crystal. The inner elements that need cleaning are crown glass, and aren't so soft.
Other maintenance often includes repainting the edges of the inner elements.
Really best left to a pro. While it's not too hard to remove the front elements, the rear elements are nasty to get out -- very tight fit. Also, if the lens is coated, only a pro has a chance of cleaning it without removing the coating. No Summars were made coated, but a reasonable number were sent back to Leica for their (unfortunately) very soft coating.
Other maintenance often includes repainting the edges of the inner elements.
Really best left to a pro. While it's not too hard to remove the front elements, the rear elements are nasty to get out -- very tight fit. Also, if the lens is coated, only a pro has a chance of cleaning it without removing the coating. No Summars were made coated, but a reasonable number were sent back to Leica for their (unfortunately) very soft coating.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
John Shriver said:
One of my Summars was indeed sent back for coating (presumably to Leitz); sadly, the glass is pretty heavily marked... judging from the wear to the plating on the barrel, someone used that lens a lot.
As for "fixing that Leica glow"... I would ask: is the "glow" a product of the original lens design, or the result of gradual hazing/ scratching of the lens, not unlike furniture developing "patina"?
Maybe we don't want to clean those Summars up and make them "as good as new" ?
?
LF
rlouzan
Well-known
Haze in Leica lenses
By the late-1960s at approximately SN 2 200 000 (50mm f2 DR Summicron-M w/ new and improved Multi-Coating
)
By the late-1960s at approximately SN 2 200 000 (50mm f2 DR Summicron-M w/ new and improved Multi-Coating
)Luddite Frank said:
Jim Clinefelter
Newbie
503-452-3907. They cleaned up my 1937 Summar last week and did a great job.
peterm1
Veteran
Just a thought as to options.
I have a Summitar and while its a more advanced lens than a Summar, it does have some of the same characteristics. Mine is a post war coated one. Especially if you were to get a prewar uncoated one I believe you would have a lens that is close to the Summar look without the Summar disadvantages. Particularly shot wide open. The later ones seem to suffer less in the haze department than the Summars too. (It may be an age thing.)
With the slightly silly prices that Summars are sometimes attracting right now you may find this preferable in any event form a cost perspective.
I have a Summitar and while its a more advanced lens than a Summar, it does have some of the same characteristics. Mine is a post war coated one. Especially if you were to get a prewar uncoated one I believe you would have a lens that is close to the Summar look without the Summar disadvantages. Particularly shot wide open. The later ones seem to suffer less in the haze department than the Summars too. (It may be an age thing.)
With the slightly silly prices that Summars are sometimes attracting right now you may find this preferable in any event form a cost perspective.
Last edited:
AnthonyM
Established
I bought a Summar that Sherry Krauter just cleaned. She made the glass look like new. She also told me that the Summar and Summitar are completely different lenses, each with it own look. For that reason, I chose to buy both. I will conduct a test to see the similarities and differences, especially, wide open.