Leica LTM How would you describe an old Summar?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Dralowid

Dralowid

Michael
Local time
12:39 AM
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,611
I'm in the process of slowly getting rid of equipment. Accurately describing ltm bodies is easy, describing the condition of Elmars is pretty straightforward and accessories present no problems.

When it comes to old Summars things get more difficult. Again cosmetics and mechanicals are easy to display but how on earth does one honestly describe the condition of an old lens's optics?

Scratched front element? Lightly fogged? A few bits and pieces floating around inside? Average for a Summar? Not bad for its age? Might have been coated once? Some nasties? Might be separation? Takes pictures?

The worst is probably 'would benefit from cleaning' which could mean just about anything...or nothing.

All these things mean different things to different people and I do not want to tarnish my 100% positive record. Any ideas or might the Summar be one of those things that any prospective buyer should only ever purchase after seeing it in the flesh?
 
Michael,

I don't think there is something of a template description set that will cover all conditions of all Summars, but if you would show us the specific lens we might be able to come up with the accurate description for this specific lens?

An old nickel Summar would be a nice asset to my little congregation of screw mount lenses, seeing shots of your lens might wet my appetite to go online and finally find me one
 
There are coated Summars, but unfortunately the coating is usually very soft. The oldest coating I have ever seen on a Summar was pink and it was soft as syrup. Try to find a Summar with a pristine blue coating. If the coating is good, the lens will be good too. Be very careful with the coating. A Summar in good condition is a jewel.

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2 coated) leica III

Erik.

51218971201_42ea07669d_b.jpg
 
It would be against the spirit of the forum to turn this into a sales ad so I'll take pics of more than one in order to make it non specific. My coated example is a subtle blue
 
I need to get out my old Summar. I don't recall seeing any coating, but it may be blue.
 
Here's a description one I own: Cosmetic condition: clearly went through a war or two. Optics: Some scratching on the front element but clean because it's easy to remove and clean. There is fogging somewhere in the rear element group that is definitely creating that magical glow everyone is so fussy about. Maybe you can clean that magic away but the set screw enabling the mount removal is stripped, so you really cat get it out to clean it anyway unless you drill it out, which I did, only to discover the fogging was between the cemented elements, so I decided to buy another one. Second Summar: Cosmetic condition: clearly went through a war but from dome distance. Optics: uncoated front group clean (its easy to clean those), Rear element fogging causing slight magic glow around highlights. Definitely could use a cleaning if you can get the rear lens group out. Flashlight test also shows a little crazing to the balsam (?) glue used to cement the rear elements. Don't know if that makes a difference unless of course you're photographing the sun.
 
If I was describing mine I'd say "scratch-free but manky". I spent ages trying to find one that didn't look like it had been scrubbed with a Brillo pad and succeeded, but years of gunk left untouched on the front element has left it looking a bit dubious, to say the least.

Getting it off the shelf to have a look has led me to notice the start of what might be fungus on the rear element, so maybe it's time I finally cave and have it professionally cleaned.
 
Kept in high humidity conditions and salt encrustation scrubbed off front element by Lt Werner using his old handkerchief.

If you don't know the movie this will mean nothing...
 
Farewell photo of the very nice clerk of the city council of Almelo where I wrote the minutes for years.

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica III

Erik.

51493988928_bf793f30ce_b.jpg
 
ptpdprinter said:
What are these photos supposed to show?
Click to expand...

I think if you look very closely at the glasses of the woman in the last one, you can see the reflection of the pristine front element of Erik's Summar.

You might need someone from CSI to shout "enhance" a few times first, though.
 
ptpdprinter said:
What are these photos supposed to show? Is there something about them that should have me running out to buy a Summar?
Click to expand...

There are many Summars, but you don't often see pictures made with them. If you have pictures made with a Summar, I would be happy to see them because I am interested in Summars.

Erik.
 
How would you describe an old Summar?

I say no two are alike, many have scratched front lens element, fogging is very common and so is fungus and stiff aperture ring. In the 1970s these were the cheapest used Leitz lenses to buy from NYC camera shops...17 to 28 dollars was not an uncommon price for these. I say buy the best condition one you can find but even ones with scratched lens elements can be amazing to shoot with. A few were coated and an even fewer bunch have developed a natural bloom that acts as a coating.
 
I have posted these before

This is typical contre-jour Summar picture

CNV00017 by dralowid, on Flickr

This is a good Summar behaving itself.

CNV00020 by dralowid, on Flickr

Yes, in my youth they were as cheap as chips and the results unfashionable. Nowadays (being a poor photographer) using a Summar heightens my sense of anticipation while I wait to find out how the images turned out!
 
Is this an photos from thread or OP is asking how to describe Summar for sale.
I prefer to answer how I understand, to me it was question about sale.


Summar issues are common. And it is common lens for sale.
Open eBay listings for this lens by filtering sold only.
Those are real examples how to describe to sell.
Be honest, if it is scratched, show it and mention it.
If it is fogged, the same. If it is affecting images, provide examples.

I had un-scratched one. But it was heavily fogged. Appears to be decades of residual of something like tobacco smoke.
Lens was easy to clean in and out and after it, it was sharp uncoated lens with earlier implementation of F2. Weak on close distances, fine on middle distances WO.

If someone is selling it without never trying it’s close up attachment, they are selling lens they don’t know.
 
Things to look for that will cause problems with a Summar: sctratched front element, Leica used soft glass for the front element. Maybe 1 in 10 Summars have a clean front element, usually those has filters on then. Anti-reflective paint coming off the internal glass: this will cause major problems with glare. I have a Summar with very clean glass, touched up the missing paint and was improved greatly.

My advice- take some pictures with the lens and post them with the sale. I also have a Summar with "typical" damage, still gives lovely pictures.

I describe a Summar as "Like shooting with original Kodachrome (K11) again".



I've not shot a roll of original Kodachrome since 1975.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom