Hacker
黑客
I'm seriously thinking of scratching my crystal clear optics black-rim Summar.
Softest, Flariest, Weirdest Old Lenses
- Thread starter v3cron
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 42
- Views 5K
I'm seriously thinking of scratching my crystal clear optics black-rim Summar.
colyn
ישו משיח
Instead of damaging a good lens why not buy one already scratched??
charjohncarter
Veteran
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65274
I've been 'exploring' this also. With digital everthing is so sharp it is without soul. Anyway the above thread I started shows my soft lens. I have an old cheap Instamatic coming to see if it is softer. Here is my first image with my lens:
I've been 'exploring' this also. With digital everthing is so sharp it is without soul. Anyway the above thread I started shows my soft lens. I have an old cheap Instamatic coming to see if it is softer. Here is my first image with my lens:
Last edited:
v3cron
Well-known
narrowing it down
narrowing it down
ok, so...
ignoring differences in lens speed or focal length for the moment, how you would one characterize the "look" of the 50mm LTM f1.5 Summarit vs 50mm f3.5 LTM nickel Elmar vs the 35mm f3.5 LTM Elmar? I know it's a tough and vague question, but I'd like some idea of the "look" without having to buy and return multiple lenses!
narrowing it down
ok, so...
ignoring differences in lens speed or focal length for the moment, how you would one characterize the "look" of the 50mm LTM f1.5 Summarit vs 50mm f3.5 LTM nickel Elmar vs the 35mm f3.5 LTM Elmar? I know it's a tough and vague question, but I'd like some idea of the "look" without having to buy and return multiple lenses!
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I have a couple of these lenses, deep gouges, scratched, "fungal" and hazed.
a/A free Summar. I was buying a IIIc and wanted a bodycap and the seller said no, but take this Summar instead!
b/A Nikkor 25f4 Rf lens that looked like it had been used as a skating rink for small hockey players. Great dreamy look, but sharp!
c/A Nikkor 35f2.5. It was given to me by a friend and it has all the attributes required for "dreamy" shots. In spite of cleaning - it persists in flaring at the mere thought of a light source nearby!
d/ A 1930 Hektor 50f2.5. Quite sharp, but with a nice "veil" obscuring the subject. Great portrait lens!
e/ A Hektor 135 f4.5. This is so early that it doesn't have a serial number and most of the paint has worn off - but you get a certain "glow" in bright light. Most of the later Hektor 135's are good, particularly if you mount them on a Visoflex for close up.
As For Delano, I have his book "Empire" and there is a certain "magic" to his look. Partly because he uses a 35f2.8 Summaron with a rather "ugly" front element and partly from his use of warm tone paper and toners. I also suspect that he uses diffusion under the enlarger lens to get the result. It looks very interesting in small portions. After having looked at all the pictures in the book, you feel ready for a trip to the optician for new glasses though!
I once needed that look for a shot and an old 50 Nikkor f1.4 in F-mount provided the base. Some light blasting with an airbrush and aluminum oxide gave the right effect!
a/A free Summar. I was buying a IIIc and wanted a bodycap and the seller said no, but take this Summar instead!
b/A Nikkor 25f4 Rf lens that looked like it had been used as a skating rink for small hockey players. Great dreamy look, but sharp!
c/A Nikkor 35f2.5. It was given to me by a friend and it has all the attributes required for "dreamy" shots. In spite of cleaning - it persists in flaring at the mere thought of a light source nearby!
d/ A 1930 Hektor 50f2.5. Quite sharp, but with a nice "veil" obscuring the subject. Great portrait lens!
e/ A Hektor 135 f4.5. This is so early that it doesn't have a serial number and most of the paint has worn off - but you get a certain "glow" in bright light. Most of the later Hektor 135's are good, particularly if you mount them on a Visoflex for close up.
As For Delano, I have his book "Empire" and there is a certain "magic" to his look. Partly because he uses a 35f2.8 Summaron with a rather "ugly" front element and partly from his use of warm tone paper and toners. I also suspect that he uses diffusion under the enlarger lens to get the result. It looks very interesting in small portions. After having looked at all the pictures in the book, you feel ready for a trip to the optician for new glasses though!
I once needed that look for a shot and an old 50 Nikkor f1.4 in F-mount provided the base. Some light blasting with an airbrush and aluminum oxide gave the right effect!
Hacker
黑客
Nah...just kidding. Is it common to find the Summar with crystal clear optics? I have one that is very clear, but the body is er.......take a look:
Last edited:
itf
itchy trigger finger
Plastic toy camera lens on a body cap. If it isn't sharp enough a bit of sandpaper or something should 'fix' it. Can also give it a bit of tilt'n'shift.
gohaj
Well-known
gohaj
Well-known
UV filter and some vaselline will do the job. no need to scratch the lens.
By the way, is there any way to ask some professional to re-paint the lens (any lens)?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Actually, he wanted money for the body cap and offered me the Summar for free! I took it, of course. A couple of evenings with a chamois cloth and some "ruby" lens grinding compund and a post polish with tooth paste got it surprisingly clean (and menthol smelling from the toothpaste). The gouges are still there and will give some interesting flare, but it is surprisngly sharp and the overall "veil" of haze is gone. Some time in the future I will take it apart and do the inside elments too as there is some stuff in there and I think it is growing too.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Very common more than 10%
Common between 1 and 10%
Uncommon 0.1 to 1 %
Rare 0.01 to 0.1%
The probability of common being down to 1 in 100 would seem to be a safe bet 😀
In fact if i add mine to yours we are at 100% of reported cases.
Just a few bubbles but clear and clean. More wear on the tube though. Where did I read that you should, s/h, buy the lenses with worn barrels as they were obviously well used and therefore a good copy ?
Attachments
Hacker
黑客
I could not find any bubbles, perhaps a lucky production fluke 😉, and it had a worn original filter on it, so I guess it had been on the lens from the first day.
I have to start using it soon.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
You should. I am just starting to explore the possibilities. These in the garden at f2 with hood.
The auto white balance on the M8 doesn't respond well though it was way off.
Attachments
v3cron
Well-known
Just bought a 50mm f1.5 Summarit from 1956. It's in really nice shape except for a few particles inside and some slight "cleaning marks". We'll see how it works.
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
I wasn't going to post a picture from the upiter-3 that I use, but other people have posted non-Leica lenses already...
The sun was peeking through the trees, and I shot right into it so I expected some flair... Apparently the serial number puts this J-3 in the 70's.
The sun was peeking through the trees, and I shot right into it so I expected some flair... Apparently the serial number puts this J-3 in the 70's.
edodo
Well-known
In LTM I would say jupiter 3 and jupiter 8! soft wide open and cheap too.
raid
Dad Photographer
Roeschlein-Kreuznach Luxon 50mm/2 for the Braun Paxette displays a weird looking bokeh wide open when shooting against the light.
Link for image at 2.0: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5762998
Link for image at 2.0: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5762998
edodo
Well-known
I love it! Could do wonders in B&W.
raid
Dad Photographer
It is really a nice lens that these days is very rarely offered on ebay. It was converted by Brian Sweeney to LTM by using a J-8 shell for the Luxon optics. When using this lens in open shade, it gives very nice results with B&W. When shooting into a light source, you get the swirl effect.
