I think i want a summitar...which one?

[jett]

OK so what I want is a collapsible 50mm to use on a Leica LTM.

I'm torn between the Summitar and the Summicron. I'm edging for the Summitar because I think it is more suitable for my application, portraits.

Ideally, I would like to use E39 filters and a compact lens hood but after reading the "The Ultimate thread on Summitar hood alternatives" it looks like there are plenty of aftermarket solutions for using hoods/filters. So the question is, which version is "best"? or more appropriately, how do they differ?

 

[Bingley]

I can't directly answer your question b/c I've never owned a collapsible 'chron. One thing to point about the Summitar, though, is that early Summitars were uncoated, whereas the post-war versions (at least as of the late 1940s) were coated. Summitars, as you may know from your research, are prone to flare, so you need to use a hood or shade, although if your main use will be portraiture that may not be a deal breaker. I don't know whether the collapsible 'chron is any less prone to flare than the Summitar. I've read recently that finding a collapsible 'chron in good condition is getting more difficult. Summitars in good condition are still out there. My impression is that a clean Summitar costs much less than a clean collapsible 'chron.

 

[Dez]

There is also the fact that a decent Summicron will easily cost twice as much as a Summitar. People have a lot of passion about these lenses, but personally, I don't thing there is much difference between them.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[jett]

I'm sorry, I was totally unclear. What I meant was, which summitar version should I pursue? There seems to have been 10-bladed and 6-bladed ones.

 

[Frontman]

I have had the Summitar and a couple of LTM Summicrons. There are two types of LTM Summicrons, the earlier version has a gold-colored lanthenum front element.

My Summitar made quite interesting swirly bokeh when shot at large apertures. My example was coated, and was in good condition. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it was very prone to flaring. I used a Canon S-42 hood, which fit properly, and was small enough not to block much of the finder.

My favorite was the lanthenum Summicron. It was quite sharp, and had good contrast, quite a bit more than the Summitar. The bokeh was better as well.

 

[HuubL]

The (relatively) low contrast of the Summitar is part of its charme. The pre ww2 uncoated ones are even lower contrast than the coated post ww2 lenses. The older lenses, uncoated and early coated exemples have 10-bladed diaphragms, the late coated ones are six-bladed. They all have swirly bokeh wide open, but in the six-bladed lenses it's less pretty (in sofar you like this type of effect). Steve (Bingley) has some wonderful landscape photos shot with the uncoated Summitar. Check those out!

Here's a photo of the three types. Note the difference in color of the coatings.

 

[V-12]

I have a coated ten bladed Summitar, and reading you want one for portraits I wonder if you have researched the bokeh of the lens?

The bokeh is very swirly and confused, and even though low contrast it can impose itself, and while I like it some people may find it intrusive. Other than that the low contrast of the Summitar is very good for portraits, and there is an inherent 'glow' even with the coating.

 

[shiro_kuro]

Here is a portrait I did using a 50 Summitar with the 10 bladed aperture .
Great little lens ... prices are a bit on the high side if you are looking for one in excellent condition ...... anyway loved mine while I had it.

Leica M4 ,Tri-X , Minolta 5400

 

[philipus]

I have a post-war (1950) coated (blue) Summitar with 10-blade diaphragm. I like it a lot, compact and with nice rendering.

The bokeh is special but it isn't always swirly - it depends a lot on the situation.

Reading at 20:05, The Hague | Flickr

I don't use a hood with mine (though I have a mint SOOPD) and while it can flare a bit it is actually quite well-behaved, imho. The below is obviously an extreme situation but even that was handled pretty ok.

Flaring tractor | Flickr

My 2ct is to go for a coated 10-blade if you can find them because of the softer out of focus highlights.

The collapsible Summicron is usually at least 500€ for used copies, with good ones costing much more, whereas Summitars in good condition can be found for about 150-200€. If you are in Europe there are plenty of places that have Summitars.

 

[raid]

My copy may have six blades.

 

[rodt16s]

I have 2 Summitar's (both 10 bladed, 1950 & 51) don't recall suffering with swirly bokeh. But have seen swirly with a Summicron DR.
A lot has to do with the background and the circumstances.
I have many 5cm and 50mm lenses, the Summitar is my most used.

 

[Bingley]

Thanks, Huub! My current Summitar is a pristine uncoated sample from 1939, which I got from Huub. Here are landscape and portrait samples from this lens; the portrait is taken wide open:

Putah Creek by bingley0522, on Flickr


E., April 7, 2012 by bingley0522, on Flickr

Other Summitar photos are on my flickr here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/47441613@N00/tags/leicasummitar50mmf20ltm/

The older photos are taken with a coated sample from 1949, which I've since sold.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

My current one is 1946 vintage and 10 bladed and coated. The coating is purple or golden depending on the angle you look at it.

Regards, David

 

[HuubL]

Here's that beauty again. I 've seen this one posted here about two years ago, I guess. Again, a wonderful shot, Raid!

My copy may have six blades.

 

[ferider]

I got a near mint, radioactive collapsible Summicron a couple of weeks ago on ebay for US 335. If you are patient, might as well go for the Summicron .....

The Summitar is very much a love/hate lens. Even the typically cheaper Canon 50/1.8 has a nicer signature to my eyes. It's also difficult to filter the Summitar unless you pay extra for an adapter.

Just saying.

Roland.

 

[Larry H-L]

I prefer the OOF areas of the Coll. Cron. The Summitar looks busier in the background.

Some report that the Summitar has better 3-D feel, Raid's photo gives hints at that.

Agree with Ferider that for the money, a 50mm f1.8 Canon / Serenar is hard to beat.

 

[HuubL]

.... Even the typically cheaper Canon 50/1.8 has a nicer signature to my eyes. It's also difficult to filter the Summitar unless you pay extra for an adapter.

Just saying.

Roland.

... I assume this is a typical "For your eyes only" Roland 🙄. I love the look of Summitar images.
BTW, filters are plenty to find on eBay and for low prices too and there's also plenty cheap copies of the SNHOO filter adapter to mount 39mm filters.

 

[ferider]

... I assume this is a typical "For your eyes only" Roland 🙄. I love the look of Summitar images.
BTW, filters are plenty to find on eBay and for low prices too and there's also plenty cheap copies of the SNHOO filter adapter to mount 39mm filters.

No it's a typical some like it and some prefer the Summicron. 🙄 I'm in the second camp, as is poster #11. And because some like the Summitar, it's not necessarily cheaper than the Summicron.

Then again, the OP can make his mind himself. Lot's of example photos here:

Summitar:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/86731438@N00/pool/tags/LeicaSummitar50mmf2.0LTM

coll. Summicron:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/86731438@N00/pool/tags/LeicaSummicron50mmf2.0collapsibleLTM

Roland.

 

[raid]

I have both lenses. End of worry.

 

[raid]

Here's that beauty again. I 've seen this one posted here about two years ago, I guess. Again, a wonderful shot, Raid!

Thanks! I like it too.