Summar and Fikus

[Dralowid]

Is FIKUS OK with a Summar, pushed right back to be as short as possible (what I assume is the 35mm mark?)?

Second question...

Is it still OK with a clamp on filter?

I only ask because I can't find my SOOMP and I'm not going to spend all that money on another!

Michael

 

[Jerevan]

Judging from earlier answers (only theory, no practice, sorry...) the FIKUS hood should work. Clamp on filters I think would interfere with the FIKUS hood.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

The Clamp-On filter will definitely interfere with a hood. I've used a FIKUS at the shortest setting (35mm) with a 35mm Elmar and Yellow Filter and I've got loads of vignetting.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The FIKUS is a terrible thing, it keeps falling off, because it is top heavy.

The best shade for a Summar is the FLQOO, actually marked as a shade for the 35mm Elmar, but perfect for use on the Summar too. The early black ones are great. They are a bit longer than the later chrome ones.

On the FLQOO fits the very common Leica 42mm lens cap. Handy!

Erik.

 

[Dralowid]

Hi Erik,

A rubbish FIKUS I already have so I'll use it for now. FLQOO I stupidly sold a while back. Last week's film was taken with a dirty uncoated Summar. This week I am using a better coated nickel version. Blueish coating so I assume non Leitz, 257197.

Unfortunately the coating on the outside edges of the rear element has 'gone' a bit....

We'll see!

Michael

 

[Erik van Straten]

This week I am using a better coated nickel version. Blueish coating so I assume non Leitz, 257197.

Unfortunately the coating on the outside edges of the rear element has 'gone' a bit....

Hi Michael,

I am always in for a coated nickel Summar. Why do you think blueish coating is non Leitz?

Erik.

 

[Dralowid]

Hi Erik,

I don't know about the colour thing, Leitz first coating on Elmars etc was more purple-ish. (and Canons were brown!)

But I guess that it is little more than a self perpetuating myth...I don't know where I got it from but it goes back years. Maybe something to do with Russian lenses? Their coating was always quite blue...

As a student in the 60's I hated my Summar and depending on results I may still hate Summars. This is the first time I've used one in 30 years!

I've always liked Elmars, I use the 50 Elmar-M on my M more than the Summicron...and as for 90mm Elmarit-M and 135 Tele Elmar...is there really anything better?

Michael

 

[john neal]

Michael,

I have a 1934 Elmar with a slight blue coating - understood it was a Leitz retro "upgrade", probably done just post war (?). The coating is v thin and (I think) a single layer. Possibly your Summar had the same treatment?

If you really don't like it, you know where to send it 😉

 

[Erik van Straten]

As a student in the 60's I hated my Summar

Hi Michael,

An uncoated Summar is a disaster area, but coating works on Summars like a miracle.

True, the Elmars you name are great, but they don't fit my screwmounts.

I have a coated Summar that is as good as my Summicron rigid, believe it or not. Only the six-blade aperture creates sometimes a different effect.

Erik.

 

[Dralowid]

OK so negs back from the latest test. Summar + FIKUS + clamp on filter vignettes. No filter is OK.

Although I am no Summar lover an orange filter livens things up a bit!

(Actually it looks as if CV 21 f4 plus Leitz screw in fiter vignettes a bit too)

Pictures soon,

Michael

 

[Erik van Straten]

Leica II with coated Summar and FLQOO, SBOOI and SCNOO, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Michael,

I have a 1934 Elmar with a slight blue coating - understood it was a Leitz retro "upgrade", probably done just post war (?). The coating is v thin and (I think) a single layer. Possibly your Summar had the same treatment?

If you really don't like it, you know where to send it 😉

Dear John,

As far as I know, the first commercial multicoated lens was the 35/1.4 Summilux in the mid-to-late 50s, though Zeiss did experimental and military multi-coating during WW2. Pentax's claims to have been first (like several Pentax 'firsts') are, shall we say, exaggerated.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Erik van Straten]

As far as I know, the first commercial multicoated lens was the 35/1.4 Summilux in the mid-to-late 50s

Roger, the Summilux 35 was introduced in 1960.

Erik.

 

[john neal]

Dear John,

As far as I know, the first commercial multicoated lens was the 35/1.4 Summilux in the mid-to-late 50s, though Zeiss did experimental and military multi-coating during WW2. Pentax's claims to have been first (like several Pentax 'firsts') are, shall we say, exaggerated.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

Thanks for the info - I don't doubt that is correct, but understood that the Leitz factory started offering upgrades post war (i.e. early 50s) that included such things as the II to III Sync and having lenses coated? I have read that it was a way around getting what was essenially a "new" camera without having to pay the dread purchase tax, but would have been too young to know at the time.

Anyway, at some point my Elmar has gathered a thin blue (single layer?) coating, whether officially applied or not. I tried the lens on a NEX5 yesteday and was amazed at the detail & contrast - on a shot of a poster from 20+ft, I can enlarge it and read every word of the small text - no fringing or distortion at all that I can see. Amazing for a lens that is 80 years old!

 

[John Shriver]

FIKUS works fine for me on Summar at 3,5cm setting. There are (rare) FIKUS hoods out there with a "5 Summar" engraving at that mark. This makes for a handy 50/90/135 kit using the same FIKUS hood.

 

[MikeL]

I use a FIKUS on both my Summar and Hektor. Worked fine so far...

 

[kosta_g]

lets see some pics from the latest roll Michael 🙂

 

[Dralowid]

...they are coming, roll of out of date FP4 away for processing, 24650 plus coated nickel Summar, no filters and no hood.

Now that is really tempting fate, I'll look an idiot when the film comes back with nothing presentable on it!

Michael

 

[traveler_101]

I mainly shoot my IIIf with the 3.5 Elmar and have not been using a hood. I just bought a Summar for use as a specialty lens in dispersed light conditions, at least initially. Everyone says a hood is necessary with this lens, but the hoods discussed here, especially the FLQOO, cost a too much (by my standard). Anyone come up with a creative alternative--maybe fabricating some kind of hood for instance?

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

There was a thread a wile ago about a small 34mm screw in hood from "Jack the Hat" on ebay. It fitted the Summar nicely and the thread was in February. It cost under eight pounds, according to my credit card bill.

Did any one else get one and try it out?

Regards, David