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

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
I've got the Canon 50/1.8, too, and, yes, it has a beautiful signature (it's (still) a very underrated lens IMO). To my eyes, however, it has a different signature than the Summitar, w/ more contrast and punch. IMO, the Canon 50/1.8 makes a better all-round 50 than the Summitar, but the OP asked about Summitars particularly with portrait photography in mind, so I"m thinking he knows about and is interested in more of a "vintage" look, which the Summitar will surely give. I like my uncoated Summitar precisely b/c it is a little softer wide open and less contrasty than more "modern" 50s. Horses for courses...🙂
 
If you go for the pre-war old style look, I would definitely choose the Summitar (has the looks of a Summar but is much sharper)

med_U14545I1191711139.SEQ.0.jpg


med_U14545I1191711151.SEQ.0.jpg


med_U14545I1191711146.SEQ.0.jpg


The summicron is nice but has IMHO less character.
 
10 blades, coated. I love mine. And although it was supposed to be a temporary solution until I find a nice Summicron, I have decided to keep the Summitar. Just love its special traits. Not a "modern" lens at all, but one with character!

Portrait of my son, 1 1/2 years ago, with the Summitar:
tar_cs_bw.jpg
 
Let me elaborate on my needs/requirements.

My favorite cameras in 35mm are my Leica M3 and Retina IIIc; the Leica has the edge on ergonomics but the Retina has the edge on portability. I would like to combine features from both, so I feel that a Leica LTM + collapsible would be a good compromise or maybe just an M + collapsible (but I would want to get an LTM so that I have the option of trying both). I'm aware of the quirks with the LTM bodies but I decided that is something that I'm willing to try...

I have had an assortment of glass and I realized that they all take nice pictures. In 50mm, I currently have a Zeiss-Opton Sonnar, DR Summicron, and Nikkor 50mm f1.4 LTM but my favorite lens is actually the Xenon on my Retina. I want a collapsible so I figured that nobody knows which is best for me, so I better just try them out. I'm dismissing the Summar because not being coated seems to be more problematic and they are a bit too old and harder to find clean. If it were clean then I'd feel almost bad using one...

My thinking was this:
-Collapsible Summicron: Easier filter thread to deal with but more difficult to find clean and inexpensive.
-Collapsible Summitar: More difficult filter thread to deal with but easier to find clean and inexpensive.

As for character, I have no idea which I would prefer because I have tried neither and they both have a strong following. As for sharpness, I kind of figured that the cleaner one will be better.

Questions:
1. Which Summicron should I go after, if I pursue this one instead? Any difference with the radioactive ones? With the Summitar I would pursue the coated 10-bladed lens.
2. You mention the Canon 50mm f1.8 LTM. Well I had that lens, nothing at all wrong with it, but a collapsible would save me more space, right? This is the main reason why I want a collapsible, to reduce bulk.
3. I like the Xenon on my Retina, so that got me wondering? Is this design similar to the Xenon/Summarit that S-K designed for Leica? I want a collapsible but I'm wondering if I should also have this lens in mind when i do not want a collapsible...
 
I was just thinking of listing my 10 bladed coated Summitar (early aperture scale) for sale because I need money to invest into more living space. It will be priced at 350 EUR. I'm located in Austria, PM me if interested.
I find that it works to have an uncoated lens for some landscapes, where it works. But coated summitar has also plenty of character and it does not flare.

Upd: my lens is now in the classifieds.
 
I more or less agree with the comments posted the link below for the samples that I have owned. My Summicron (the early, radioactive version) was more evenly sharp across the frame, while the Summitar (uncoated, 10-blade) was somehow sharper than the 'Cron at the center while being softer towards the corners. I shot mostly black and white through both, but the Summicron rendered colours warmly with much more saturation; The Summitar was cold with lower saturation. Both of my samples had a slight haze; the 'Cron was clean up front while the Summitar was quite marred.

http://www.antiquecameras.net/leicalensreviews.html

The Summicron is slightly smaller than the Summitar when extended, especially if you end up getting an adapter for the Odd-ball Summitar thread (heavystar makes a nice one for not a lot of money). The adapter acts somewhat as a hood...somewhat.

Personally I'd recommend the 10-blade Summitar if your main goal is portraiture, especially for the aforementioned swirly OOF areas. Click stops are nice to have but not a necessity if you are the set-and-forget type like me or do not need to work quickly. Some have been coated since, so keep your eyes out for that. Good luck in your search; either lens is a winner in my book!
 
Re: the OP's last post above, question 2: The Canon 50/1.8 is quite compact for a 50. A Summitar on your M3 will, when collapsed, take up less space, but the Canon is smaller than the extended Summitar.
 
Personally, I have a few samples of each of these lenses.

The Summar, being uncoated is indeed the lowest contrast lens of them all and also offers the least comfortable ergonomics (odd filter thread).
Contrary to common statement, it is a sharp lens for portraits though - it is very, very difficult to find samples with clean glass.
The one I have, has a front element with slight cleaning marks but still performs fantastically for portraits.


portrait - white sunglasses by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

medium backlit scene:

portrait - two women - fashion by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

funky bokeh with bright highlights in background:

portrait - tourist and sculpture by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

very, very strong backlight:

portrait - couple in restaurant by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

typical Summar bokeh with bright foreground, dark foliage background:

portrait - grandfather and child by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

normal, flat lighting:

lost man reading map by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

very strong backlight robbing contrast in shadows:

two men on tricycles by teknopunk.com, on Flickr
 
Second there is the Summitar - filter size is easily taken care of with a readily available adapter from eBay.
The Summitar is larger, heavier than the Summitar and has the same step less aperture control.

much more tame bokeh and sharp, sharp, sharp wide open - more modern look than Summar, much better contrast (but still a rather low contrast lens) - tho copy is a mid 50's coated sample

portrait - young woman with glasses by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

same lens, same light - typical Summitar bokeh (the Summicron does not show the funky bokeh):

portrait - young couple by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

medium backlit scene - plenty of detail (these are sharp lenses, if properly adjusted):

portrait - parking assistant by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

I can't find extremely backlit shots online now :-(
 
And last the Summicron v1 collapsible (mine is a perfectly mint M mount version without cleaning marks):

much, much smoother bokeh without distracting patterns, higher contrast, more neutral, less "artistic" rendering:

portrait - man with kite closeup by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

strong backlight is a lot better controlled, but still lovely compared to the drop dead boring new ASPH rubber doll lenses:

drive by shots - woman on e-bike by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

I think, this is the only shot, I have online with the Summicron v1, where I possibly stopped down to ƒ2.8 or ƒ4:

construction site by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

The Summicron is my "safety net" 50 ƒ2 classic lens.
It has classic rendering for beautiful B&W contrasts, is a slightly bit softer wide open than the Summitar (in centre), but manages difficult light absolutely predictable and reliable.

I also like it's modern, stepped aperture control - much easier to set fast with a meter less body.
The Summicron protrudes the least, when collapsed.
The Summicron fits perfectly with the fantastic Leica conical lens hood for it, which I just love - it's the most perfect lens of the three in all accounts.

For me, this would be the lens of the three, if only one of them could be around.
The other two are more specialty lenses.

If you can find a nice Summicron, you could later pick up a scratched up Summitar/ Summar for special purposes (bokeh, low contrast, …)
 
Now you mentioned also the Summarit - this is wildest of them all. I treat mine as a lens, that is similar to the Summitar in character, but even more wild.
This is a very heavy and big lens, compared to other 50/1.4 lenses of the era.
It would not be my first choice as a second or even third "specialty lens" as of it's weight and size.
I personally prefer the Nikkor-S.C 50/1.4 as an alternative (which is curiously often also less costly, but in my opinion an overall much better lens with an entirely different character though).

Summarit:

famous craziest bokeh rendering of them all:

portrait - wild bokeh by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

pattern formation in bokeh:

portrait - mother and daughter by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

if no patterns show, backgrounds get rather smooth - here with backlight (this Summarit is coated and works well in harsh light):

portrait - Amelie by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

tones with bright subject, dark background (here stopped down to ~ ƒ2:

portrait - owner of open air repair workshop by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

centre is sharp, swirly bokeh with patterned background (this the lens is famous for):

cat and brickwall by teknopunk.com, on Flickr
 
Regarding LTM Schneider lenses...

If you think Leitz Lenses are pricey, Schneider lenses in LTM aren't far behind, and at least as far as e-Bay is concerned, often seem to exceed Leitz lenses in price.

That said, I've rarely (if ever) read a discouraging word about Schneider lenses.

One great advantage any LTM lens should have over a Retina counterpart is that the LTM lens would be a lot faster, due to the larger physical size of the lens mounts / glass, and also that the entire lens is contained in one optimized package, as opposed to the Retina being a "front-elements-only" swap, similar to the Zeiss Contaflex.

Back to the Summitar - regarding the history of that lens, I was under the impression that the earlier versions used the six-leaf diaphragm ( inherited from the Summar), and the later versions had the 10-leaf diaphragm, shared with the Summicfron ?

Check-out Raid's gallery - he's done much testing of LTM lenses; you can probably get a good idea of basic character of each type of LTM lens from his efforts...

I have Summars and one Collapsible Summicron (early 1950's). I would like to get a Summitar or two...

The rigid Summicrons seem to bring a few more $; not sure they're any better / different optically.
 
Menos -

Beautiful photos and comments on each lens !

Your pictures have qualities very reminiscent of photos I remember from Life and National Geographic magazines of the 1940's & '50's !


Regards,

Luddite Frank
 
Menos, thanks for the beautifully illustrated lecture on these different lenses. One hears many comments about the different renderings of the lenses but you have given me a thorough lesson in the subject of LTM 50s. Thanks for taking the time to do this! Only one thing: you left out the Elmar for some reason, probably because you don't have one (?).

I decided to supplement my Elmar with a Summar and I am getting my hands on it tomorrow--after a long wait. Hope I won't be too disppointed in its conditon, but if it is decent shape I think I made a good choice. I really like the portraits you took with your copy.
 
Thank you guys for the nice comments [blushing].

The Summitar, I used (a LTM version) is coated.
All shots above are digital shots from a M9 or M Mono.

I do have an Elmar and yes, it is used, far, far too little, I admit.
In my opinion, the Elmar is the very one and only lens, anybody should have and use to full extend.
It is soooo simple, yet so unbelievable good.

I know, I know, the call of all the nice other glass lures one into using those other lenses.

Here is one shot with the Elmar 5cm, I have online (I have a coated 1950's sample):


portrait - man with beard by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

This lens is surprisingly sharp wide open (this was shot at minimum focus distance wide open in glorious early morning light) - the detail and sharpness is not enhanced by photoshopping.
The beautiful background rendering of the Elmar got me by surprise here - I never used it as a portrait lens before. It turned out, that it is mighty usable as such!
 
Given the resolution of the Internet, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

With prints, it probably still doesn't matter. Good composition/content will still trump increased resolution/contrast, in most cases.

Note for the hard of thinking: This does NOT mean that low resolution, low contrast lenses are technically the equivalent of sharper, contrastier lenses. That's true only until you need more resolution and contrast.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom