Low Contrast Leica 50mm lenses

I also saw that TV programme, and that comment about low-contrast lenses - did you see one of his modified lens hoods and the description of him fiddling with hoods until he got them perfect - just out of frame but allowing very little if any flare ? Black tape and card 🙂
 
Peter_Jones said:
I also saw that TV programme, and that comment about low-contrast lenses - did you see one of his modified lens hoods and the description of him fiddling with hoods until he got them perfect - just out of frame but allowing very little if any flare ? Black tape and card 🙂
Click to expand...

Yes I saw that, I thought it was pretty neat. Especially when they then showed a print of some sheep and the trees (looked like birch) and the sunlight flooding through.

Might have to do the same myself 😉
 
Uwe_Nds said:
You started using Photoshop at the age of 11?
Click to expand...

Yes... I was always a bit of a geek but a very cool one 😉 I think it was Photoshop version 2 on my Mac LCIII I had at the time and back then Photoshop whilst still the pig it is today didn't have layers so it was marginally easier to pick up. Anyway v3 is where I really cut my Photoshop teeth... After that amount of time using the app, it's nice to get away from it, though I can't deny that without it I wouldn't have the job I have which ultimately pays for the finer things in life like photography!
 
By the looks of it Ravilious was influenced by Atget, or maybe just reached the same self evident conclusions. In the Atget book I have there is a side by side comparison of two photos of the same house, one taken in 1901 and one in 1925-27.(The book is Atget edited by Szarkowski). The first picture is taken at mid day and the house and sky are evenly exposed. It looks pretty dull. The second one is taken at dawn with the light behind the house. The sky is completely blown out and the shadows are very deep: signature Atget. It is obviously not because he changed to a different lens, it is the choice of point of view, time of day, and exposure.
I think an uncoated lens will help get that look, but it's a small part of the equation.
 
Oh, BTW, I just bought an uncoated Elmar(thinking along the same lines, I guess). It is the version with the infinity lock at 11 o'clock, and it won't work on an M2 because the infinity lock won't clear the lens lock on the body.
 
FrankS said:
Melvin, you may get it to mount if you turn the focus to minimum distance, thereby extending the focus helix.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I had no trouble mounting it, and it actually works, I just can't focus it because it goes from 11 o'clock to 5' o'clock, so the infinity lock has to pass over the lens lock, which it can't. I bought it to use on my screw mount cameras anyway.
 
Last edited:
Elmar 3,5/50 (early version, uncoated)
Hektor 2,5/50 (uncoated)
Summar 2/50 (uncoated)
Summitar 2/50 (uncoated and coated)
Summicron 2/50 (coll., 1. version, coated, ltm and m)
Xenon 1,5/50 (uncoated)
Summarit 1,5/50 (coated, ltm and m)
 
With the Summarit it is not the lack of coating which results in nonstandard images. The optics seems to be the cause.
 
> low contrast with minimal flare

I've been using uncoated Sonnar's converted to LTM for this.

At F2, on the Canon P:
picture.php


More examples:

http://www.ziforums.com/album.php?albumid=20

The uncoated Summar gives a wonderful image, but it will flare more than the Sonnar.

This Summar has near-perfect glass, and it's at home on a Leica IIIa.

3061728343_765e7637d2.jpg


But it does flare more than the Sonnar.

3061728347_fefbf8002c.jpg


Both Summar shots wide-open.
 
Well, after a day looking, I have found a 50mm Summar f/2 in good condition (optically great, a little tarnished on the front but not badly so) and there doesn't appear to be any marks on the front element and if I can't see them then there seems to be little chance it'll affect the final result. It's £90 which seems like a pretty fair deal to me. (US $125)

Also affording some research, I have also seen that the lens takes 36mm clamp on filters. I've seen A36 and E36 bandied around, is there any difference?

I ask this as I have been offered a yellow and deep red A36 filters by someone else locally but need to know if they actually fit 🙂

Also, I'm deliberating a bit as I have managed to track down a SOOGZ adapter for 39mm thread but I'm just trying to tot up whether it's actually worth it. I'm inclined to think it is and whilst it seems enough money for an adapter, it doesn't seem to bad in that I can use my existing filters. What is the going rate on a SOOGZ filter from a dealer (as opposed to E-Bay)?

From what I can ascertain, I'm ready to pull the trigger on the Summar 5cm f/2 (which could give some interesting results in lower light too which the Elmar won't, I find f/2.5 with ISO 1600 a push sometimes in the places I tend to shoot, though granted I'll be mostly still using my Ultron which goes down to f/1.7 for these situations)

Vicky
 
I think I read somewhere that Ravelious used prewar Leica glass - Elmars and possibly Summars. Here is a site dedicated to him, incidentally. http://www.jamesravilious.com/biography.asp

Maybe it is here that I read about the lenses used - don't have time to check right now. I own both a Summitar and Summicron DR and used to own a Summarit. I would regard them all as relatively low contrast by today's lenses standard. Especially the Summarit. Have a look at the book "The Leica Compendium" it has some stuff in it about low contrast glass. Again I dot really have time to go looking at this moment.
 
Go for the Summar- that is a good price for one with clean glass. The 36 clamp on looks right. I do not know the difference between an A36 and E36. My slip-on filters for the Summar are barked with an o36, line through the "0". They are made by Rikenon.

The Summar also uses 34mm screw in filters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom