Leica LTM Lenses with a vintage look?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
mr_phillip said:
I don't own one, but every time I see images that I think have that 'magical' vintage look to them, they inevitably came from a Summitar.
Click to expand...

Did I say I didn't own one? Well guess what just came in the mail 🙂

If I manage to get coax an image out of the Summitar that's halfway as good as those in this thread I'll be a very, very happy boy.
 
rover said:
Well, upstairs I the following lenses have that "look"
Canon 35/2.8
Canon 50/1.5
Nikkor 50/2
Jupiter 8
50/3.5 Elmar


Then of course the Zeiss Sonnars for Contax, and the Tessar
I think the collapsible and rigid Summicrons fit my definition of the classic look that I like. The 35 Ultron is close, perhaps a reason I like it as much as I do.

I have admired the Summitar and 35/2.8 Summaron, but so far have resisted temptation.
Click to expand...


I have a similar line-up on my mind [from my own limited set of lenses]

1. Canon 28mm/3.5 [great]
2. Canon 35mm/2.8 [great]
3. Nikkor 50mm/2 [excellent]
4. Jupiter 8 [and other FSU 50mm lenses] [excellent]
5. War-time or pre-war Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm/2 in LTM [historical]
6. Luxon 50mm/2 in Paxette mount, changed to LTM by Brian [unique]
7. Elmar 5cm/3.5 [truely vintage look]
8. Summitar [vintage]
9. Summarit[special look]
10. 35mm/3.5 Summaron [nice]

I would have added the Summar, but mine got stolen.


Raid
 
Following up on some discussion with raid I pulled a surprisingly clean 1938 Summar and a somewhat hazy 1957 M-Summarit.

Checked them out on the instant gratification machine (R-D1) and indeed they are less sharp and contrasty than my other lenses - in fact images even look "dreamier" than those from the Canon 50/0.95.

The R-D1 does not do them justice so I'm shooting a roll of APX 400 with the Summarit just now and waiting to finish a roll on another body to play with the Summar - think I may shoot some SHD 100 with that one to really "vintage" things up.

- John
 
Last edited:
Really love the Summitar - here with Ilford XP2 Super...

0799022r1e009vz7.jpg
 
The Summitar can be very sharp, but it also produces a soft "glow" in the right lighting conditions that I really like.

535363830_410f89c0dd.jpg


The Summar has a signature unlike any other lens.

374538918_dcdc493f0e.jpg
 
 
Last edited:
rover said:
I have admired the Summitar and 35/2.8 Summaron, but so far have resisted temptation.
Click to expand...
People seeking the vintage look should skip the Summaron 35/2.8. My copy from 1959 acts like a lens twenty years younger (e.g. Summicron 35 v3). Based on an earlier RFF posting, the Summaron 28/5.6 has vintage written all over it.
 
Ultimately a 50/3.5 tessar formula lens. Used right it will do wonders.

William
 
6068724-md.jpg


6068723-md.jpg

Hexar RF/1935 uncoated Summar+Soomp/Provia 100/Hoya digital UV filter (!)

Summar it up! More here (absolutely unedited 1 hr lab scan...yeah, no sharpening, curves etc.!)
 
Last edited:
Hey jkelly, stopped down, my Summar seems as sharp and flare resistant as yours...ugh, should have bought one with a lot of scratches 😉

Edit: what I meant to say is that I don't get it when people say that Summar is a special purpose lens...if you get a good one, its hell of an all purpose lens IMO (if you can stand its bokeh, that is 🙂).
 
Last edited:
skhan said:
Hey jkelly, stopped down, my Summar seems as sharp and flare resistant as yours...ugh, should have bought one with a lot of scratches 😉

Edit: what I meant to say is that I don't get it when people say that Summar is a special purpose lens...if you get a good one, its hell of an all purpose lens IMO (if you can stand its bokeh, that is 🙂).
Click to expand...
The same is true of the Summitar, Summarit, the 35mm Summarons, and the 50mm Elmars.

Haze (even a small amount) and flare seem to be the main culprits which lower contrast (causing a 'vintage' effect). Sometimes the haze is not even visible without shining a strong light through the lens.

The 'vintage look' seems to characterize old, faded, poorly printed newspaper and magazine photos. If you can find some National Geographic magazines in good condition from the late 1940s and 1950s, you will see lots of Leica rangefinder photos which do not have the 'vintage look,' although even some of these have faded a bit over the years.

Richard
 
Has anyone got any photos to post from a Rollei 35 with Triotar lens? I'm hoping that wide open, it will have at least some nice soft corners.
 
Hi Frank. Here's a shot I took a couple of years ago with my Rollei 35T at, as best I can recall, either f4 or f5.6. Sorry, but this is just the 1-hour photoshop low-res scan and I'm not sure it shows what you're looking for.

-Randy
 

Attachments

  • gar6966-R1-037-21.jpg
    gar6966-R1-037-21.jpg
    58.4 KB · Views: 0
Thank you, Randy! Your 35T has a tessar lens I believe, and I was asking about the simpler Triotar lens on the 35B. I just have to develop some darn film to find out for myself! Just getting over a busy time at work presently.
 
Frank: If you lived any closer, I would gladly try your camera out. 🙂

I will next try to go FSU style for a while. I just cleaned the I-61L and a I-50 rigid. I also will spend some time using the Summitar. It looks very clean optically, but my posted images with it were viewed as inferior looking optically. Maybe it was poor scan?


It is fun to try out the older lenses, isn't it.

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