Opinions on an uncoated Summitar 50/2?

[oscroft]

Hi folks. I've been thinking on and off about some day getting an old uncoated Leica lens to try out "the look", and I spotted this on eBay UK. Does anyone have any thoughts on the old Summitar, and on what might be a fair price for it?

(PS: If anyone else is thinking of bidding on it, please go ahead - I really don't know how interested I am yet)

 

[Krosya]

If it's in a good condition - its a great lens. Matter of fact Summitar is my only Leica lens currently. I have had several summicrons 50mm, TE fat 90 and sold them all in favor of Hexanons, but Summitar stays with me, just for that look it delivers.

 

[kully]

Hallo Alan,

I have a uncoated Summitar from '39. I don't use it that much because of it's tendency to flare like mad. It's difficult to see the aperture blades because of the reflections on the front element! 🙂 I have the barndoor hood, which I am using but it does make the whole camera/lens combination rather large.

However, as Kroysa, this is one lens I don't think I would sell. It has something about it which no other lens I own has.

Just one photo in my gallery with this lens:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=58730

I really like the way photos with this and high-saturation/contrast films come out.

 

[HuubL]

Krosya, that Xmas photo is absolutely gorgeous!

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

Excellent shot, dear Krosya. I own a coated Summitar 50/2 (1952) and i find that is a superd standard lens.
Ciao.
Vincenzo

 

[D.O'K.]

I'm very fond of mine (uncoated, 1941). It's impressively sharp at smaller than about f6.3, with moderate contrast which helps counteract the oversaturated colour (to my mind) of many modern films. It's splendid with B+W, particularly Delta 400.Contrary to many other users I haven't found flare to be a significant problem unless sunlight falls directly onto the lens.

As against this, resolution falls off significantly at wider than f6.3, and is notably worse at the edges. I don't find this produces a particularly "arty" or otherwise desirable look. Moreover the obsolete sequence of f-stops is for me a small handling irritation--I think the later (coated) summitars have the modern sequence.

However if I could only keep one LTM lens, this would be it--

Regards
D.O'K.
__________________

 

[john neal]

I have a coated one and would only swap it for a better example. Contrast and definition are great, plus the bokeh wide open is amazing!

I would say go for it 😉

 

[hans voralberg]

Thanks for the HU Oscroft 😀 I'll follow that lens, been looking for a decent summitar for 2 months 😀

 

[john neal]

Thanks for the HU Oscroft 😀 I'll follow that lens, been looking for a decent summitar for 2 months 😀

Oh, Hans - don't do that, I'm watching it too - I want an uncoated to go with my uncoated Summar 😀

 

[Nikon Bob]

I was looking for a 50 for my M and thought I would try my coated Summitar with an adapter first. Well, I quit looking for an M mount 50. A summitar in good condition is still a pretty good lens.

Bob

 

[HuubL]

I got a coated Summitar two months back, but haven't yet used it. It definitely first needs a CLA to remove the soot on the internal elements. Now that I read all these very positive comments, I'm starting thinking of selling my excellent F/3.5 Elmar. Should I?

 

[Krosya]

Thank you all for the comments on my photo. Here are a couple more from Summitar:

and here:

 

[FPjohn]

The Xmas shot is great!

Anyone in a position to compare the Summitar with the F2/2.8 Xenon on a Retina?

yours
Frank

 

[kully]

Kroysa, is your lens coated or uncoated? Are you using a filter or hood with it?

 

[Krosya]

Kroysa, is your lens coated or uncoated? Are you using a filter or hood with it?

It's uncoated and has some cleanning marks on it, but otherwise clean and clear. I use Leitz 12585 hood on it. It's really for Summicrons, but works just fine with a Summitar. Just have to be careful as it can get knocked off easier.

 

[oscroft]

Thanks for the answers (I haven't been able to access RFF for most of the last day). Interesting to see a couple of RFF folks are interested in it too (is that why nobody is saying anything about a suggested price 😀 ?)

Thanks for the photos too, they're very nice indeed (I'd probably only be wanting such a lens for b&w) - but in the last one, is that evidence of coma in the shapes of the oof lights?

Still don't know if I'll bid on it but if I do it'll only be if it stays cheap, as I don't have a lot of money to spend right now - if I don't get it, I hope it goes to an RFFer.

Thanks again, and good luck.

 

[HuubL]

119 views on this item and still two and a half days to go. I would have sweaty hands if I were cliffordpr 🙂

 

[kully]

Cheers Kroysa, I use the same setup (sometimes the barndoor instead of the IROOA hood). Looking at your photos I'm thinking it is my filter (also uncoated) which may be causing my horrendous flare.

 

[LeicaTom]

Uncoated Summitar`s are great, here`s a sample of one of my shots with my 1940 one

"Wartime" issue uncoated one`s are not easy to find and if they are in *minty* condition should be running in the $250 to $300 range - postwar coated versions are much more common and are $200 or less

Tom

 

[kully]

Hallo leicatom,

How about pre-wartime uncoated summitars (mine is from 1939) is the extra price for the history of being made during the war or because they are uncoated (or something else)?