Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Ouch.
Summicron Itch
- Thread starter Rikard
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 90
- Views 4K
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Because you really need to hold darkroom print from negative taken with particular lens. It is very obvious once you look at it.
Flatterness has nothing to do with age of optical formula, coatings or lack of it.
I had all three versions of Color Skopar 35 2.5 (they say same optical formula). All were flat on darkroom prints.
I got LTM Ultron 35 1.7 and it has this something which doesn't make prints looking flat.
After it I got Summarit-M 35 2.5 and at very first print, despite been just 5x7 it was obvious - one of the best lenses I have tried for bw darkroom prints. Despite distortions 🙂 .
Collapsible Cron was just as good. Rigid - very sharp, but flat on bw darkroom prints. V4 - same. V3 was fine on darkroom prints. Masochists' version of Cosina VM 50 1.5 ASPH was totally awesome on darkroom prints and digital bw.
Even price doesn't matter. I got this overrated Nikkor Fmount 50mm pancake, special version. Dirt cheap lens on darkroom prints. Printed from Helios-81N and it was not flat at all. It was really good.
Flat lens darkroom prints have something missing at the edges of objects.
Usually if someone asks just about lens, I always ask to specify which media. Film (bw or color) or digital.
Rikard
Established
I enjoyed shooting with the v3 today. Went for a long walk in the city and surroundings. The size/weight felt really balanced. The long focus throw did not bother me. I just eyeballed the distance and pre-focused the lens as I moved the camera to my eye were I adjusted focus more precisely.
I have developed the roll; tri-x in rodinal. Here are a few images from that roll. Ignore the questionable focus on the self-portrait
Jonathan R
Well-known
Thanks for expanding on this. I don't have a wide experience of different lenses, but I do shoot film and always darkroom print keepers to 16x12. I have the v5 Summicron, which I understand to be optically identical to the v4. What puzzles me is that I don't see anything resembling what you describe as 'flat', neither in the scene as a whole, nor specifically around the edges of objects. When I get things right, every detail is as sharp as the proverbial very sharp thing, and even to the naked eye the negatives are noticeably bitey.
A propensity to veiling flare is a reality with this lens. I wish it wasn't, because I like to shoot against the light - but given its other merits this isn't enough for me to switch ship. When Leica still had a service facility in the UK, I got them to matt paint some shiny internal surfaces towards the rear of the lens. I can't honestly say whether that helped or not: in extreme situations I get flare still, but quite often I get away with it. I use a screw-in lenshood all the time.
hellojamin
Member
I too have been tempted by the V4 but for the moment I am happy with the sharpness of my collapsible summicron. I like how compact it is in my camera bag or coat pocket too.
collapsible summicron, m4, hp5, legacy 110.
collapsible summicron, m4, hp5, legacy 110.
Saganich
Established
I've had 2 v4 Summicrons. The first one I sold to get a DR, but I still missed having a lighter 50 so I bought another which is comparatively OK (I suspect focus shift) and not like the previous one, which turns out was exceptional but I didn't understand that at the time. So I learned two things from this experience; results can vary within the same model and short time frame, and used Leica lenses are on the market usually not because they are stunning performers...I have a few stunners and they never will be sold.
raid
Dad Photographer
I just recalled that in addition to having a collapsible Summicron 50/2, I have two Rigid Crons and one DR that does not work on a digital M as I don't have its goggles that some people somehow modify to allow its use with a digital M. I live in the past ....... no new Crons.
Ororaro
Well-known
Shooting with a lens with hazy elements will actually give flat results.
The V4/V5 often develops haze on element number 2.
The Summicron V4, if deemed flat when it came out, it would have never had a run of almost 50 years on the market.
How would that even be possible? Keeping a bad lens in production for so long, against the tide?
And without hindering Leica’s image of optical dominance?
No way.
If your Summicron, any Summicron, gives you flat images, have it cleaned. Haze on elements is real.
The V4/V5 often develops haze on element number 2.
The Summicron V4, if deemed flat when it came out, it would have never had a run of almost 50 years on the market.
How would that even be possible? Keeping a bad lens in production for so long, against the tide?
And without hindering Leica’s image of optical dominance?
No way.
If your Summicron, any Summicron, gives you flat images, have it cleaned. Haze on elements is real.
chuckroast
Well-known
I would suggest that - while lens version and design certainly can affect contrast - you can do an awful lot to mitigate this by how you expose, develop the film, and print. Even with relatively low contrast lenses like legacy Leica optics, I have still gotten very good contrast out of them. Here are examples shot with a collapsible 50mm f/2 Summicron - scans of prints:
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
These discussions about "flat" rendition have their value, but there are a near-infinite number of factors that can lead to that problem (if it is indeed a problem). Some of those factors are baked in, but most are random, intermittent, and almost impossible to trace even with controlled testing. Photography happens in the real world, and it's a messy place. There is no perfect lens or perfect negative, so just go make pictures and embrace a certain degree of imperfection, whether with your Summicron or the nice plastic optics on a Holga.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Or a pinhole! 😁
chuckroast
Well-known
How dare you besmirch those super Holga optics? The International Society Of Applied Plastics will be very annoyed with you...
A lack of apparent contrast in a print can be attributed to a number of things. While lens formulation does play a role - that's why I prefer Color-Skopars to legacy Leica LTM glass - there are many other things that can deliver lower final contrast. Among these, include:
- Interior lens haze
- Badly scratched optics and/or deteriorated coatings - both in the taking lens and enlarging lens
- Developing the film to too low a CI for the enlarging light source
- Printing on too low a contrast and/or failing to properly adjust local contrast
- Expired chemistry
- Fogged film (which CAN be made to print properly, but you have to work at it)
- Fogged paper
- Using a Holga instead of a Hasselblad
Last edited:
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
You are mixing overall contrast which is just a selection of contrast filter under enlarger and how lens renders microcontrast among objects edges.
chuckroast
Well-known
I split VC print everything. There is no "overall contrast"
Freakscene
Obscure member
Irrespective of how you print, the negative has a contrast index and local contrast. These can be measured. Printing methods help bring that out, but you can only manipulate what is there unless you use AI.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I did not do any scientific research ofcourse, but I came to this conclusion by studying pictures taken with these lenses. I know that Cartier-Bresson used a collapsible Summicron, he preferred it to the rigid Summicron. I did not know the number of his lens, so I tried one with a number started with "11". It was so bad that I could not believe it, even worse than a Summitar. I tried other collapsible Summicrons too. I often visited fairs where second-hand "photographica" were traded. These are the best places to quickly try out a lens. Every dealer allows this. Remember the number of the lens well. One day I tried a Collapsible Summicron in mint condition with a number started with "13" and when I had developed the film I was astonished, the results were so good. I had years of experience with a very good rigid Summicron. The rigid Summicrons can suffer from fog, but apart from a fogged or scratched one now and then I have never seen a bad one. However, this collapsible was at full aperture better than my rigid. I still have the lens and will not sell it.
This is a recent shot with the collapsible.
gelatin silver print (summicron 50mm f2 collapsible No. 13XXXXX at full aperture) leica lll
Frank B., 2024
Last edited:
Ororaro
Well-known
Exactly all the collapsible summicrons suffer from fog and they’re all bad performers.
Seventy years of encapsulation does this.
And once they are cleaned, they don’t suffer from fog anymore.
They also suddenly become great performers.
My sub-13 summicrons perform just as my sur-13 summicrons, that is: excellent.
Cleaning a collapsible summicron takes away a lot of crud! Just by looking at the front element of an summicron V1 it will appear as a mirror, which means its dirty. Once cleaned, the elements become crystal clear and transmit light through them instead of reflecting, abd refracting on the elements; a night and day difference.
Same for the summitars.
I could go on a round the workd trip with any if my collapsible summicrons, blindly picked, either sub or sur-13, they are just that good.
Seventy years of encapsulation does this.
And once they are cleaned, they don’t suffer from fog anymore.
They also suddenly become great performers.
My sub-13 summicrons perform just as my sur-13 summicrons, that is: excellent.
Cleaning a collapsible summicron takes away a lot of crud! Just by looking at the front element of an summicron V1 it will appear as a mirror, which means its dirty. Once cleaned, the elements become crystal clear and transmit light through them instead of reflecting, abd refracting on the elements; a night and day difference.
Same for the summitars.
I could go on a round the workd trip with any if my collapsible summicrons, blindly picked, either sub or sur-13, they are just that good.
Ororaro
Well-known
Who rightfully expects his brand New 2024 Summicron Apo Asph to perform at an excellent level in the year 2101, after having suffered so many season changes from freezing cold to killer warm days, and a few decades tucked away in a drawer? 😂
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Yeah, sorry @Erik van Straten - I'm with @Ororaro here. My guess is you were just looking at knackered and dirty lenses.
I just had my "post-13" collapsible Summicron deep-cleaned by Skyllaney and it made one hell of a difference. A more interesting example would be my Summar, though.
Here's one of a friend of mine back in 2017 when the Summar was absolutely full of built-up haze and crud:
And here's one of the same man in 2024 after the lens had been cleaned:
Both shots were taken on Fomapan, both were shot at f/2, and both taken with the same lens (which actually has a fingerprint permanently etched onto the front element).
Even a very slight film of barely-detectable haze can absolutely ruin a lens.
I just had my "post-13" collapsible Summicron deep-cleaned by Skyllaney and it made one hell of a difference. A more interesting example would be my Summar, though.
Here's one of a friend of mine back in 2017 when the Summar was absolutely full of built-up haze and crud:
And here's one of the same man in 2024 after the lens had been cleaned:
Both shots were taken on Fomapan, both were shot at f/2, and both taken with the same lens (which actually has a fingerprint permanently etched onto the front element).
Even a very slight film of barely-detectable haze can absolutely ruin a lens.
Ororaro
Well-known
From incel to Hunk in 7 short years…
Similar threads
