Kodak 47/2, Cooke Amotal, and Leitz Summar visit the Museum of the Marine Corp

Sonnar Brian

Sonnar Brian

Product of the Fifties
Staff member
Local time
3:23 PM
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
19,779
View My Gallery
My favorite Museum to visit. The subject stay still and the lighting is controlled. Plus on the Iwo Jima display I can tell them that the number of B-29 crewman saved by the Marines taking the island counts my Dad 11 times.

I took the three lenses out on the M9. Still my favorite camera. The Ektar and Amotol are on loan from RFF members, Thank You. The Summar is mine- and one that is made of two Summars bought cheap. The front element is from a lens that was missing the aperture blades, transplanted to my Summar that had the usual scratches. I also took the Summar apart and repainted the sides of the internal elements- which greatly reduced flare.

A caution on the Amotol: the barrel has two sets of threads, an inner set for Series V accessories. THE PROBLEM: place a Series 5 filter and screw it down with a retainer or hood, the glass of the filter hits the protruding front element. I'll make a spacer for this one. No permanent damage done- but it hits. It did not pass the "cleaning fluid" test that I use to test for using filters.

All three lenses are F2 "normal" range lenses, 1-2-2-1 classic configuration. All three have about the same diameter front optics. The Ektar and Amotal are coated, but the Summar has a beautiful bloom.
Amotal_Ektar_Summar.jpg
 
The Summar is up first, being the oldest.

First four, ISO 160, F2 and F4 pairs.
L1028061.jpgL1028062.jpgL1028063.jpgL1028064.jpg

Lower light, ISO 1250. F2.
L1028072.jpg

ISO 2500, wide-open.
L1028077.jpgL1028078.jpg

L1028079.jpgL1028082.jpgL1028083.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Amotal is up Second, being British.

Low ISO 160, F2 and F4 pairs.
L1028017.jpgL1028018.jpgL1028020.jpgL1028021.jpg

ISO 1250
L1028026.jpg

ISO 2500 at F2.
L1028043.jpgL1028046.jpgL1028047.jpgL1028048.jpgL1028050.jpg
 
Last edited:
So Conclusions???

It's always dangerous when I test borrowed lenses. I'll be on the look-out. This example of the Ektar- focus is good, but Jason warns in his book that the focus on the Ektar is subject to binding up. The Amotal- another very uncommon lens. Very few people have used these two lenses, and I suspect not many example photos of the two lenses side-by-side.

The Summar- really surprised me. I did not use it much originally due to the front element scratches. Then- replaced it, and the flare made it almost unusable. I should have used it more after taking it apart and fixing the anti-reflection paint on the inner elements. I've always kept the Walz hood on it. The results speak for themselves. Doubt I'll be lucky enough to find another pair for $75, but once in a lifetime worked for me.
 
Brian, it looks like you have assembled a very good Summar! I agree that the performance of the Summar is surprising. I had one for a while because it appeared on a camera I wanted. Quickly sold it off because I did not care for it/ thought it was a poor lens, although I have to admit I do not remember the condition of the copy that I briefly owned. I don't think I could distinguish photos made with the Ektar vs the Amotal, rendering is very close and color rendition is pretty close too (amotal a bit warmer?), at least on my monitor. I have both Ektar and Amotal, but have never used the two side by side. Thanks for the test.
 
Sonnar B, what is the difference of the production dates of the various lenses? I am guessing that the Amotal and Ektar are probably 1947 or 1948, have no idea about the Summar.
 
Mine was made in 1938. Summar production is started to have run from 1933~1939. The early ones had a nickel finish.
The years have not been kind to the front element of most Summars, much like the F2 Sonnar 5cm F2. Add the flare problems introduced by the anti-reflective paint on the inner elements separating from the glass- the lens has a reputation for poor performance.
 
Is the Ektar yellowed due to the rare earth thorium element?
All of my Ektar motion picture lenses have some amount of yellowing due to the radioactive glass.
Excellent comparison! I had a Summar for a short while but it had a highly scratched, almost frosted, front element. "Dreamy" to say the least!
Phil
 
I do not think this Ektar used radioactive glass, I see no yellowing in this one or the one on my Retina II.
I have a pair of early Summicron Collapsibles with Thorium glass. I bleached one out using a UV lamp, same as with my 50/1.4 Super-Taks.
 
I just noticed that you have a vintage Walz hood on the Summar in the first post, very cool. I have used classic Walz and Kenko Series VI hoods and filters for the Amotal with appropriate 34mm step-up adapters. The Kenko hood with UV filter lives on the Amotal
 
Last edited:
boojum said:
That's a through testing. I have conclusions on the testing but will not share them because of my bias.
Click to expand...
Share the opinions, Bias and all!

After all, we're not talking about Sonnars.

My opinion- Leica went all-out to preserve flatness of field, and the side-effect is increase in astigmatism. Makes for football like Bokeh that can be disturbing. The Amotal and Ektar- add a little field curvature, smoother Bokeh. No Bias, I read it in Neblette.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
Share the opinions, Bias and all!

After all, we're not talking about Sonnars.

My opinion- Leica went all-out to preserve flatness of field, and the side-effect is increase in astigmatism. Makes for football like Bokeh that can be disturbing. The Amotal and Ektar- add a little field curvature, smoother Bokeh. No Bias, I read it in Neblette.
Click to expand...

It may just be my accustomizaton to the Amotal. While I see minimal differences and have not the technical appreciation of lenses that you have when I flipped back through the images I was able to pick the Amotal right away. This is why I suspect that accustomization may be at play. My appraisal was that the Amotal gave a more "real" impression of what was before it than the other two. Color seemed more accurate without being a bit showy as the SBS is. Maybe I had the visual memory from when I paged through the images the first time. And I may not be free of bias.

An A-B or A-B-C test would be what I would need to be sure of my opinion. All this may seem trivial but it is not to me. And I am very fond of the Amotal and how it handles light, especially in low light situations but also in full sunshine. It is hard for me to be objective. So triple blind is the only way I could trust myself. I am very lucky to have some lovely retro lenses counting the SBS as retro. The SBS, Amotal and the CZJ sn272. And then the lovely '57 KMZ J8.

If I can get off my dead ass I can do a CZJ, SBS, Amotal, J8 comparison on some nice, colorful something here in town. When and if done I will post a link. And so that you know it is honest, I'll do it on the M9 so you have a baseline you are familiar with. I know you have a 240 but I also know it is the M9 that lives in your heart.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
All true!

My only problem is testing lenses I do not own because then I want to buy my own copies.
Click to expand...

The curse of knowledge is when you get some you want more.

Keep shooting with the Amotal as long as you would like. Here is a link to what I have in an album on Flickr of Amotal stuff. A few good shots but a lot of junk but you can get an idea of how it works in Astoria.

www.flickr.com

New Amotal

test album
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
dexdog said:
You can't go too wrong buying good copies of the Amotal or the Ektar. The problem is finding good copies that have not been brutalized in the intervening 70 years
Click to expand...

The guy in HK has a lot of them but they all looked ratty. I found mine with a fellow in the Midwest IIRC. He described it as clean, glass and mechanism and he was right. Shopping for a particular lens can be an education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom