Leica LTM summitar 50/2 opinions?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Michael I. said:
The seller sent me some pictures of the lens - the barell seems to be of a weird color - is it oxidation or brassing or what?
Click to expand...


It looks like the color balance is off. The seller photographed the lens with light/film etc., that was not balanced for each other.
 
While I would consider a lens with defects on front surface, I would not buy a lens with scratched rear element, other than for parts or if it costed pennies. The closer defect to film plane, the more impact it will have on resulting image. It's not that you'll see it on all shots, but it might e.g. flare badly when you least expect it.

You may discover later that resale value is not that high, too.
 
Since I am offered the lens for 75$(if good to mint ones go for 150-250$) I believe I would be able to resale it for at least the same amount,and if not - not such a great loss(I would always be able to tarde it for a j - 12 for example - a lens that I am curios about) besides I would like a fast,cheap collapsible lens. If I like it it stays and my excellent J-8 goes if I dont it goes and my J-8 stays.

Any lens that old flares like crazy - I will improvise a shade of some sort.
 
I know it is hard to tell from photos, but that Summitar looks like it has some issues with haze on the glass elements.
 
I got a lens for some time now.

It has no haze and no obvious cleaning marks. The barrel is brassed and there is a small scratch on the outer perimeter of the back element. I have some pics of it on my blog.

I shot two films with it and will scan them soon.I am excited.

It is an uncoated one,distance is in feet,appertures are old style(which annoys me - Israel is very sunny and f12.5 as the smallest apperture allows only 100 iso and faster films)
 
Last edited:
It's an excellent lens and I am sure you will be pleased. I've owned plenty of Russian glass and I own the Canon 50/1.8 too. The Canon is a shade sharper, however it's a newer design. I almost can't praise the Summitar enough. The Summitar convinced me that Leica was the real deal.
 
If I'm not mistaken, Michael, the Summitar was introduced in 1939. You therefore have one of the earliest. Leitz did not coat their lenses at that time, although lenses could be sent to the factory to be coated. Varjag is right about the danger posed by scratches close to the film plane: but you say the scratch is on the periphery of the rear element, and in any case you have to see your first results. The Summitar was a considerable improvement over the Summar, and it was Leica's fast normal until the arrival of the Summicron. Only three things to remember, really: first, that it has low contrast wide open but is nearly as good as its successor when stopped down; second, that it is very prone to flare; and third, that both glass and coating (on post-war lenses coated by Leitz) are soft. My own Summitar is evidence of the first two, and I have seen more than one example ruined by heavy-handed "cleaning".
[EDIT] Jim, is your picture of the young woman a small, or very small, portion of a frame?
 
Last edited:
Payasam,
I pulled up the original negative from which I cropped the picture, and found that the image I used is less than ten percent of the negative. I hope that answers your question.

Jim N.
 
Jim, it appears that my question should have been "small, very small or infinitesimal". The grain in the greys made it clear that there'd been much cropping: but the sharp borders between light and dark on the dress made it just as clear that that could not be attributed to a fast emulsion. Remarkable character the lens has, if you compare the dress with the hair: unless the head moved a little during the exposure.

M
 
M, I agree that the lens is impressive. I would like to have an LTM Summicron, but, except for wide open exposures, I would not expect much diffierence. I will attach another image that uses the full negative. I don't have the exposure recorded.
 

Attachments

  • Motor Glider 01.JPG
    Motor Glider 01.JPG
    153 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
OldNick said:
I would like to have an LTM Summicron
Click to expand...

I wouldnt mind having a canon P or a leica m of some kind but unless some philantropist turns up I doubt I will get anything better then my zorki 4. such is life :)
 
Jim, the reflections off the aircraft speak of artificial light of some sort, and the background is mostly dark, but the depth of field suggests that the aperture at which the picture was taken was not the largest. I don't think all that many screw mount Summicrons were made. Also, I recall reading that the first few (or many?) were Summitars with a star after the name. It's probably enough to keep in mind that, for about a decade, the Summitar was the fast normal for the Leica.

Thanks for the link, Blakley. Should serve as education.
[EDIT] Bob, at f/2 the Summitar does give distinctly ring-shaped out-of-focus highlights -- but then some of the other lenses you tested do that too, not including the Noctilux.

Michael, if your Zorki holds film flat, has the correct flange to film distance, no light leaks, and shutter speeds within the latitude of the film or films you use, there's no hurry to look at the other pasture. A good option is to make do with what you have, learning along the way. Many have done that with success, while damned few have dug up philanthropists who give people what they already have.
 
Last edited:
payasam said:
Michael, if your Zorki holds film flat, has the correct flange to film distance, no light leaks, and shutter speeds within the latitude of the film or films you use, there's no hurry to look at the other pasture. A good option is to make do with what you have, learning along the way. Many have done that with success, while damned few have dug up philanthropists who give people what they already have.
Click to expand...

I have a very successful zorki 4 but I hate it's viewfinder. I dont like the fact the framing isnt precise and that you dont see outside the frame(like with a canonet for example). I postred some j-8 photos in my blog yesterday - i wonder how it compares to a summitar.Nevertheless I prefer it to the canonet which I couldnt get friendly with(a great lens with hideous 5 blade diaphragm on a so so body)
 
Last edited:
what abot real world differences(flare,hood and filter availabilty-j 8 is no problem summitar is,performance wide open and stopped down)? my summitar is uncoated and I live in a very sunny place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom