Leica LTM Sanders' Summitar: Yech! Gross! Stinko!

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Yes, I've seen similar effects at wide apertures. It's not a lens I choose to use wide open often. Not a lens I'd put an ND filter on. Mine is late wartime coated, with a round iris, so there's no hexagon problems thrown in.

What I find lovely with it is B&W at normal working apertures with ISO 400 film. Great tone.
 
I love, love, love, love my Summitar!!!!!! Mine is from 1946 - has 10-blade aperture, perfect glass but the chrome isn't that nice. I see that Sirius linked to a photo of my little cousin Madelena. I liked the way the photo turned out but it also illustrates one of the difficulties I have with this lens - flare. At least most of the time it is veiling flare, which I find is easier to deal with. I rarely use this lens without a hood. I have the correct barn-door style hood that works really well but its ugly. I use the 12585H hood for the Summicron most of the time - its just a tad loose but I never had it fall off. The uncommon filter thread is also a nuisance but luckily a nice set of original Leitz filters came with my lens. I wish that I could get a clear UV filter for it. The original Leitz one has a light-yellow colour.
 
After trying many different Leica lenses - old and new - Summitar is the only lens I currently own. I like it's unique signature - at time strange, swirly background - mostly when you have leaves there. But otherwise - very nice lens with it's own personality.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
Last edited:
I kept thinking about this thread, so I went into the garden with my M8 & 1950 six blade Summitar. Sorry, no IR filter...

l1002111kleinsb7.jpg


l1002077kleinzg6.jpg


l1002073kleinie3.jpg


As you see, I managed to replicate the swirly bokeh, but hey, I like it!
 
Yeah, Leica should make an IR filter for the Summitar. Making them only for the current filter mounts is a bit snobby on their part.

(If they didn't want people to use old lenses, they should have changed the mount!)
 
Nisen-bokeh (double line bokeh) resulting from overcorrected spherical aberration, along with cats eye effect resulting from optical vignetting.

NO, I'm not an expert, I just found this well researched website:
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

BTW I think the harsh bokeh, subjectively, seems to mirror the girl's expression, or mood.

Also, I've seen the nisen-bokeh (but not the swirlyness) with a Summilux v2, a much pricier lens. I think it's mostly due to the situation, wide open, close up, OOFHLs at a certain range, etc.
 
Last edited:
I was looking through a new addition to my library, when I came across the attached photo. It looks like even the great HCB had to contend with nauseous bokeh at times!

Portrait of Paul Leautaud, writer, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France, 1952, by Henri Cartier-Bresson.
 

Attachments

  • _IGP0277.jpg
    _IGP0277.jpg
    96.3 KB · Views: 1
Forgive me for not responding after my
initial post. I unexpectedly left the city
for a visit with family and am just now
returning to the online world.

So, last week, I shot more with the new
Summitar and also with my Summar. I
avoided foliage with the Summitar. 🙂
But I shot both lenses under trying
conditions. The Summitar did okay:

2649080659_850d3dcff3_o.jpg

Jim Adams, Photographer.

But the Summar held its own:

2633540398_752b9e653e_o.jpg

Pablo Kolodny, Photographer.

I know the comparison is apples to oranges,
but I'm still loving the Summar, and still
fishing for a reason to love the Summitar.

Sanders
 
Last edited:
Honus said:
Sanders,

Your eye, a Rigid Summicron @ f2.0, Fomapan and Rodinal are a match made in heaven.

Just my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

Robert, your opinion goes miles with
me. And I already have Fomapan and
Rodinal in my arsenal ....

Is a rigid Summicron that much
different from the collapsible version?

All other things equal, I would prefer
the more compact design of the
collapsible lens. But all other things
are rarely equal, are they?

Sanders
 
Last edited:
Dektol Dan said:
The Summitars with the 'crappy' bokeh are the '50's models that use the left over Summar iris stock. Be sure to check you serial numbers you want to a pre 1950 lens that is coated. That's the better of the Summitars. Of course if you prefer the sea sick look go for after a later model. HOWEVER, quality control post war was not good on all of them. Many have bubbles in the glass and other defects that were just passed on to the consumer. There just aren't that many really good ones left out there.

My 1949 Summitar is by far my favorite 50 when I want to look arty (and that's 90% of the time), and my '65 Summicron is favored for lower light shots or when top quality is a must. A primo condition Summitar is one of the best catches of all for a Leica freak and I prize it above everything except my 2.8 Summaron.
Click to expand...

Now you tell me. 😛

How do you see the differences between
the pre-1950 Summitar and the Summicron?
(And is it a collapsible or a rigid Summicron?)

Sanders
 
The rigid Summicron is a better lens overall when compared to the collapsible Summicron. I have both lenses.
 
Last edited:
Sanders,

While I have nothing bad to say about the Summitar, your Summar photo of Pablo Kolodny is simply outstanding. Tonality in s_p_a_d_e_s.

The Rigid/DR Summicron is, in my opinion, the best f2.0 50mm Leica optic. Smooth as butter wide open, with just the right amount of center sharpness. The collapsible Summicrons are quite nice as well, but with a bit more veiling flare.

If you want to try a collapsible, give me a PM. My version has the typical cleaning marks on the front element, but otherwise is clean. I would be glad to let you use it if you wish.
 
Last edited:
Of all the glass I have, expecially my Leitz glass, I love the Summitar the most (I must admit, I do not have a Summar). I just recently discovered its 'qualities' for color pics:

Kopie%20van%202008_0630_1932_1.jpg


Kopie%20van%202008_0630_1931.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom