How Good Can a Summar Get?

[johnamazement]

I love the low contrast of my uncoated Summar and rarely use any other lens on my M4-P. But I'm sometimes annoyed by the excessive "glow" on highlights and occasional lack of resolution. I have a hood which has helped a lot but doesn't entirely eliminate the problem.

I've tried the black Canon 50/1.8 ltm (lovely to use but too modern and high contrast for me) and the Jupiter 8 (better but still too contrasty) but keep coming back to the Summar.

Are there any other lenses I could try to obtain the low-contrast look with a bit more sharpness? Perhaps the Summitar (the Elmar would be too slow for me) or is it worth holding out for a better Summar? Mine is clean inside with no haze or fungus but it does have a few light "cleaning marks" on the front element. I know a mint one would be difficult to find but would a cleaner one show less of the glow and softness or will I have to learn to live with it?

 

[peterm1]

Try the Summitar - either an early uncoated or later coated version. Think of it as halfway between a Sumamr and a Summicron. I find its similar in some respects to its earllier cousin. The later version will naturally have a bit less glow. it si also sharper than the Summar.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

You could try a collapsible Summicron or a type 1 Rigid Summicron. Use them with a hood.

I end up using the uncoated Sonnar 5cm F1.5 on my cameras ore than any other lens. Sharper, and higher contrast that the Summar. The glass appears harder than both the Summar and F2 Sonnar, and can usually be found in very clean condition.





The trick is to make it work with a Leica- either use an Amedeo adapter, or convert it using a Jupiter-3 mount.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

My 1933 Summar, wide-open, on the M8.



And the uncoated Sonnar wide-open at F1.5 on the M8.

 

[Steve M.]

Your Summar probably has some haze in it. I had one that flared (glowed?) at every opportunity, lens hood or not, until I sent it in to John at Focal Point. Summars, if they're clean, are incredible lenses, and sharp as a tack at f5.6. Many of them need to be properly cleaned to get the maximum out of them though.

Here's a few from the lens before, and after the fix. There's some shutter issues on the first shots that I had fixed. No flare, even in bright New Mexico sun. My favorites are the accidental double exposures. If I could get a lens that was as sharp wide open as a Summicron, and as sharp and 3-D like stopped down as a Summar, I'd have the perfect 50mm lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41465667@N06/sets/72157625121631826/show/

 

[alistair.o]

The following is a picture taken with a collapsible Summicron. This was to 'trial' the lens straight off (as it were). So, taken indoors, low light coming through half open blinds. The film is Rollei Retro 100:-

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I have a Summar that is pretty much flawless--no haze, no scratches, nothing. Here's a pic that shows you the kind of "glow" it has--it remains quite sharp wide open, but contrast is still low. I quite love it.


Olin by mabel.sound, on Flickr

 

[retnull]

In defense of the Summar: I took this shot two days ago with my clean (but not perfect) 1937 Summar, probably at f4. At 100% zoom, it's possible to count eyelashes.

Agreed, at f2.0 the Summar is nowhere near as sharp as other Leica lenses. But I'm often surprised at how sharp my copy can be when stopped down a bit.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

The Summitar was the next step up after the Summar. It had some improvements, but at f/2 it will still be pretty much like the Summar.

No complaints about the sharpness of either stopped down beyond f/4.

Summar:

Summitar:

 

[hookonclassic]

Hi, I have a "rather clean" copy of Summar. Here are some shots on Kodak 400 Tmax pushed developed at 800 for higher contrast look...taken wide open...

 

[astro8]

Your Summar probably has some haze in it. I had one that flared (glowed?) at every opportunity, lens hood or not, until I sent it in to John at Focal Point. Summars, if they're clean, are incredible lenses, and sharp as a tack at f5.6. Many of them need to be properly cleaned to get the maximum out of them though.

Here's a few from the lens before, and after the fix. There's some shutter issues on the first shots that I had fixed. No flare, even in bright New Mexico sun. My favorites are the accidental double exposures. If I could get a lens that was as sharp wide open as a Summicron, and as sharp and 3-D like stopped down as a Summar, I'd have the perfect 50mm lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41465667@N06/sets/72157625121631826/show/

I knew I shouldn't have clicked that link...now I want one. 🙁

 

[johnamazement]

Thanks for all the informative examples. From all your pictures it seems a cleaner copy of the lens would make a big difference.

Looks like my hunt for a scratch-free Summar is on! Sigh... out with the wallet again!

 

[excellent]

Some great shots on flickr with a coated summar.

This one is from dogberryjr
Looks like a great lens. I have an uncoated version and love it.

 

[Brian Legge]

My Summar is pretty darn clean. Its from 1937, uncoated.

Wide open (with no where near enough dof for the shot, shot around 1/15th or so braced against my shoulder - ie even softer than it needed to be):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5369597444/

Around f/5.6 or so, obviously film grain limited:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5678725803/

For the Doctor Who fans, wait, I mean around f/4 or so:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5519435494/

Highlights do flare slightly, but those are ones right around the point where the shot goes white - rather extreme highlights. It hasn't been a problem for me in practice. Over all, the lens easily exceeded my expectations. It rapidly became my go-to lens which I hadn't expected at all. The Canon 50mm 1.8 is in the running though it is a much higher contrast lens over all. Each worse well for different shots.

 

[rogerzilla]

A good Summar, cleaned and serviced and with an unscratched front element, is a match for any lens at medium apertures except in one area: flare. At f/2 it is definitely soft, at f/2.8 it's pretty good. It gets bitingly sharp at about f/5.6 (the aperture ring is stepless). It does NOT like being pointed at the light, though.

There are a load of my fairly old Summar pics here:

http://www.peeble.com/baby.htm (mostly wide open or f/2.8)
http://www.peeble.com/summar.htm

I shot more ten days ago with the M3 body; I'll post an example when the film comes back. Most of last week's were on a tripod at f/12.5.

 

[helen.HH]

Summar Magic....

 

[helen.HH]

Summar dreamy glow

 

[helen.HH]

forgot to mention 1937 uncoated

 

[dogberryjr]

Some great shots on flickr with a coated summar.

This one is from dogberryjr
Looks like a great lens. I have an uncoated version and love it.

Thanks for the props!

 

[rgeorge911]

Summar

Summar

I have been looking for a nice uncoated Summar. Have yet to find one without tons of "cleaning marks" (scratches).

I find that my Summarit 50mm f1.5 has a great combination of sharpness and "glow" at wide apertures. Even though it's coated, it really does a nice job.


006_20_B&W copy by reed_flickr (www.creativeobjective.com), on Flickr

Regards,
Reed