Multicoated Summar?

[lonemantis]

Found this on the auction site, the seller is from Japan. Feedback rating seems good though, but how would a lens like this even perform? I would have bought it for myself to find out, but I couldn't quite swallow the price!

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/160864718967?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649#ht_500wt_952

So, anyone care to speculate?

 

[Livesteamer]

Very Pretty. In his books, Ivor Mantanle claims the Summar can be respectable when coated. After the war some were and continue to be, coated. I'd like to try one but that's not likely to happen on my budget. Joe

 

[denizg7]

the latest summar was single coated.. Summar is a soft glowy lens and even a modern multi coating won't make it sharper or make it more clinical in anyway.

if i was you , i would buy a uncoated or a single coated summar and use a b+w filter

 

[funkydog]

That lens pictured in the auction listing could be a nickel summar, which I've heard is more expensive. Or was that just the lighting causing the warm tint? I guess a real nickel summar in good condition could fetch some serious dinero.

 

[Dez]

Looks pretty, but the price is ludicrous.

It is likely that the properties of the Summar that appeal to their fans have a lot to do with their generally low contrast and tendency to flare. It may be couterproductive to correct these faults, especially at four times the price of a decent Summitar.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[funkydog]

Apparently reviving a tired old lens is not a trivial expense. I've seen someone else's auction where they showed the bill from Focal Point in CO for polishing and recoating a lens. $425. Obviously, the owner wanted to recoup the expense on top of whatever he valued the lens at.

Summars have never been $50 lenses ever since people started talking them up in photo.net about ten years ago.

 

[lonemantis]

That's true that recoating an old lens is quite an expense, especially if you're doing every element. However, from what I've heard it seems like it's not a cost one tends to recoup if you re-sell it. Anyway, I'm not really surprised nobody took it at this price. If it went for even $200 less I'd seriously consider it.

 

[johnamazement]

If you want to see some of the work involved in polishing and coating a Summar look here.

 

[xayraa33]

A Summar lens in 1969 from Olden's used lens section in NYC use to cost 19.75 dollars which is around 116 dollars today when adjusted for inflation.

 

[charjohncarter]

Looks pretty, but the price is ludicrous.

It is likely that the properties of the Summar that appeal to their fans have a lot to do with their generally low contrast and tendency to flare. It may be couterproductive to correct these faults, especially at four times the price of a decent Summitar.

Cheers,
Dez

I hope you are right, I sold my IIIc with a Summar for $50. Of course that was 1964. But the way I am I'd still have it if I didn't want a IIIf (and no funds even for food then).

If someone sees a thrashed Summar for 1/8 the price of that one; let me know. I like them uncoated with a few scratches.

 

[Brian Legge]

A clean one for $100 would be an exceptionally lucky find. Ugly condition Summars at KEH are in that range though. 🙂

 

[Simon Bruxelles]

The Summar lacks contrast not sharpness. When I look at scanned negatives the difference between photographs taken with the 5cm Elmar and the 5cm Summar is immediately apparent, but it only requires a gentle tweak to correct that. When my Summars were new they cost almost twice as much as the Elmar - £17 14s compared to £8 14s. According to the Historic Inflation Calculator in 1936 the Summar cost the equivalent of £1,000 today. At that price differential I doubt purchasers would have been very impressed if they found they had bought an inferior lens. The key reason the Summar has this unfair reputation is of course that photographers wore ties even at the beach and if the lens was dirty it would be given a quick wipe. Do that several hundred times and any lens would end up looking like the bottom of a well used beer glass. Some people like the glow. Personally I think the Summar has enough special character not to need it so my advice is to get a good one then pay for a sevice - it will still be cheaper than buying a bad one and having it re-polished.
As proof here is a picture taken at a friend's wedding last weekend using a Summar and a Leica III. The lens was wide open at F2 and the exposure was either 1/20th or 1/8th (I can't recall which) using FP4 (ISO125). I think it's sharp enough.





alshri1 by debrux2010, on Flickr

 

[Erik van Straten]

The serial number of the Summar in the eBay ad is 299455. I have an identical coated Summar, serial 299372. That is too close to be a coincidence. Is there a batch? Is there anyone with a coated Summar with a serial number that is close?

The color of the coating of both lenses is identical. I do however not believe it is a multi-coating. The lens nevertheless performs superb, much better than an uncoated Summar.



Erik.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I do however not believe it is a multi-coating. . . .

Dear Erik,

You are almost certainly right. I talked to Balham Optics about this a few years ago and they said that multicoating is too difficult to calculate for lenses that were not coated to begin with, and in any case too expensive to do for one-offs.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Erik van Straten]

in any case too expensive to do for one-offs

One-off conversions are of course more expensive than the manufacture of a small series of new lenses made from old parts. I think that after the war a small series of new lenses was made (with serial numbers beginning with "299") to exchange to lenses of people who wanted their pre-war lenses coated. Leitz simply returned a new, coated lens when an old lens was send in for conversion. This must have been a cheaper way of upgrading the lenses.

Are there any other Summars around with serial numbers beginning with "299"?

Erik.

 

[Simon Bruxelles]

I don't think coating a lens was considered particularly expensive or difficult in the 1950s / 60s. A local camera repairer who shut up shop a few years ago started in the business when he left the navy after the war and they used to do everything including re-chroming. Two things finished it off - Japanese cameras were cheap and cheerful and health and safety. Then the equipment got old and broke, they couldn't get materials and by then demand had dried up anyway. Macolm Taylor recoated some of my Leitz lenses including a summaron and a summicron but it was so expensive it was only worth having the external elements redone.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I don't think coating a lens was considered particularly expensive or difficult in the 1950s / 60s.

In the fifties Leitz had a line especially for upgrading pre-war cameras and lenses. There was a great demand for cameras in those years. Their conversions were pretty expensive. It was of course cheaper to make one new batch of hundred lenses from old parts than to convert 100 lenses individually.

Erik.

 

[traveler_101]

I don't think coating a lens was considered particularly expensive or difficult in the 1950s / 60s. A local camera repairer who shut up shop a few years ago started in the business when he left the navy after the war and they used to do everything including re-chroming. Two things finished it off - Japanese cameras were cheap and cheerful and health and safety. Then the equipment got old and broke, they couldn't get materials and by then demand had dried up anyway. Macolm Taylor recoated some of my Leitz lenses including a summaron and a summicron but it was so expensive it was only worth having the external elements redone.

This story is paradigmatic; it recalls what has happened to handicraft and repair shops, not to speak of manufacturers, from the 1960s on when Asian firms began flooding western markets with inexpensive wares. 🙁

 

[Roger Hicks]

One-off conversions are of course more expensive than the manufacture of a small series of new lenses made from old parts. I think that after the war there was a small series of new lenses made (with serial numbers beginning with "299") to exchange to lenses of people who wanted their pre-war lenses coated. Leitz simply returned a new, coated lens when an old lens was send in for conversion. This must have been a cheaper way of upgrading the lenses.

Are there any other Summars around with serial numbers beginning with "299"?

Erik.

Dear Erik,

You may well be right. But even so, they'd not have been multi-coated. The first commercially available multi-coated lens, I am reasonably sure, was the original 35/1.4 Summilux, though Zeiss experimented with multi-coating during WW2.

My real point, though perhaps I didn't make it clear, was that re-coating a repolished lens has never, as far as I know, involved multi-coating. I assume this could be done if a current lens were factory repolished and then recoated, but once again, a new element would be cheaper and easier.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Erik van Straten]

My real point, though perhaps I didn't make it clear, was that re-coating a repolished lens has never, as far as I know, involved multi-coating.

Yes, Roger, that was clear to me, but I wanted to make the point - maybe a bit off-topic - that there could be more Summars around that were coated by the factory when they were new. That is important because these lenses are really very fine users and they could be a nice item to collect. That is why I am interested in other Summars with serial numbers beginning with "299".

Erik.