Summar sharpness wide open; sharpness surprised me

[Brian Legge]

I was fortunate enough to pick up a beautiful Leica III and Summar here from Dan States.

This pair blew me away, particularly the Summar. I wasn't sure how the lens would behave. The first few shots with it have easily exceeded my expectations.

Here are the first few shots scanned, all taken at f/2-4. Yes, I took a bunch of shots of my friend Jenny taking photos with both a borrowed custom camera with an Aero Ektar and her Mamiya:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5367127875/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5367738626/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5369597444/

I really wasn't sure what to expect with the Summar wide open, between the swirly bokeh shots I've seen here and the questions about resolution. So far I'm incredibly impressed by this lens.

The III itself is in beautiful condition. A huge thank you to Dan for the pair.

[The Aero Ektar camera can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/espressobuzz/5337868224 Example shots with this 4x5 camera are http://www.flickr.com/photos/espressobuzz/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/espressobuzz/5365707208/]

 

[Brian Legge]

Yes, this thread title is horrible. Sorry, I re-edit my posts way too much given my lackadaisical proof reading.

 

[Ranchu]

Good pictures, I like them. Weird how everyone is taking pictures of the "Lady with the Big Camera". Like the camera tribe has a leader, perhaps a deity... some ceremony taking place. As well as the sharpness, the lens is rendering blacks in a very appealing way I haven't seen in modern lenses, it seems to me. Or maybe that's your doing!

 

[chris00nj]

Yeah, I like the middle picture a lot.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Good pictures. The Summar really is quite sharp if you get one that isn't too beat up. This is reminding me I should go shoot with mine, it's been a while.

 

[John Lawrence]

A good Summar is an excellent lens, but as others have said the trick is to get a good one.

Prices for them now seem to be a bit lower than a few years back when there was a bit of a Summar frenzy and good clean copies were selling for serious dosh.

John

 

[Luddite Frank]

Neat pics Brian... I'm curious - what film were you using, and what sort of light (Looks like a cloudy day / diffuse light ) ?

I have found shooting my unrestored ( read: hazy ) uncoated Elmar 35, that strong light tends to reduce contract / cause flare, even with a hood. That said, same camera / lens / film, in open shade, diffuse light, it can be fairly crisp & sharp.

Not to take away from your Summar... I have gotten some nice shots from my Summars...

Post some more pics from your !

 

[Mablo]

I previously had a very nice Summitar but I sold it b/c I felt it to be too 'normal'. Summar has been on my radar ever since. Finding a good one isn't too easy.

 

[NickTrop]

Great lens - you can see the infamous "3D" effect and this also clearly has the Leica glow (not in your samples so much, but some of the pics I took when I had one...) The sharpness wide open didn't surprise me as much as the contrast. Not questioning you - but were these tweaked to boost contrast? The contrast reduction with this lens was more an issue than sharpness.

 

[Brian Legge]

Thanks all!

@Ranchu, I've been focusing on shadow detail for a little while. This was over exposed half a stop, pulled slightly and developed with a slightly compensating approach (high dilution HC110 with less agitation) to help keep highlights there while bringing in shadows. I have some shots from an elmar on the same roll - I'll have to see if the shadows look different with it as I don't know how much is the lens and how much is the rest of it.

@Luddite Frank, yes, this was a cloudy, overcast Seattle day. Very soft lighting. I'm sure I would have had different results if strong light was hitting the lens directly as I didn't have a filter on it.

@NickTrop, yes, there was a very slight contrast bump. I also had a light orange filter on the lens - partly to protect the soft glass, partly because I wanted a bit more separation between skin, etc - which increased contrast too.

 

[Luddite Frank]

Thanks for the additional info !

 

[John Shriver]

Good ones are surprisingly good. Most are ruined due to the very soft flint (lead) front glass. There may also be issues with sample variation. Mine has a well worn barrel, but the glass is immaculate. I suspect it got well-worn because it was well-used, because it was a good one.

Mine is uncoated, and I have no complaints about contrast. As a double-Gauss design with only 4 groups, it doesn't need coating badly, just like the Elmar 50mm with 3 groups. On the other hand the Summitar and Summicron are at least 5 groups, coating gets more important there.

 

[Vics]

I don't know anything about this lens, but I sure love that first picture! The expression on the photographer's face is classic! The man on the right perfectly balances the camera and photographer. Great picture!

 

[raid]

 

[Melvin]

[/url]
lew by N7688, on Flickr[/IMG]

Summar close up at f2. Lucky shot. I had the same experience as you. I thought it would be kind of "soft focus" like an old movie, but it's pretty sharp. Having used mine for a few rolls now I suspect that it may have been optimized for closer distances, i.e. wide open landscape shots are not so sharp.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Very surprising to see a lack of flare on this summar.

 

[chris7521]

This is great.