Summitar advice needed

[amirko]

Hello All,

Recently I bought a postwar collapsible coated 50mm f/2 Summitar in LTM to accompany my Leica IIIF BD.
I know this is fine lens but finding a good specimen could be hard -- it is 50+ years old, the coating is prone to scratching, many have haze etc.
So I went with reputable store and ordered the one with no haze and highest the rating of 9+++.

Now this is the lens:



Cosmetically, it is fine.
Optically, it has no scratches on external surfaces of both front and back elements.
But, it has a lot of dust inside and couple of noticeable bubbles in the glass:



(see additional images with more dust and bubbles >here<)

Now I am debating with myself a "to be or not to be"-type question: either return it or keep it and send for CLA.

The goal is not to get myself a fine 50mm in LTM (the are few choices in ~$300 price tag I paid for this one) but rather fine 50mm f/2 collapsible Summitar lens.

So, looking at your experience with old LTM lenses of the period, especially Summitars, -- what would you do?
Continue the search? Stop it right there and send the lens for CLA?
Shoot it as it is? -- I know all of the dust and bubbles has little effect on the final image.
Your thought please...

Cheers!
Emir

 

[theotse]

Im not sure about Leica lenses but I have a Jupiter 8 which has similar issues. I've been using it for a year now and it still delivers great clear and crisp pictures. Dont worry too much! Smack it onto a body and start shooting! post some pictures after you finish.

PS, the dust and bubbles are in the inside, this wont affect picture quality that much unless it's a macro lens.

 

[muser53]

Emir, I have a similar vintage Summitar and while mine is pretty dust free it too has a couple of bubbles in the glass. It is capable of wonderful images and has become the everyday lens on my M6 unless I need more speed. Shot a couple of test rolls I'm sure you'll like it.

Paul

 

[chris7521]

I'd say keep it. Get it cleaned if you seem to think it is affecting the images. Personally I would get it cleaned only because I am picky and it may cause flaring. As far as the bubbles, all the old glass have them and it makes no difference in image quality. Scratches on the other hand do if they are big or numerous.
I don't think it would be too easy to do better...no scratches or fungus and all🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I doubt the artifacts shown will have any impact on the images.

The front section of the Summitar unscrews, making the surfaces on each side of the aperture available for cleaning. Just be careful of the aperture leaves, they are easy to knock out. This is an easy lens to clean. IF it needs it.

 

[jmcd]

Bubbles are a sign of excellent quality glass from the old days. The old Dagor lens literature explicitly pointed this out. Will they affect your images—only to the degree that you have excellent quality glass!

 

[amirko]

Thank you all for the encouragement, I will try the lens and keep it.

 

[Brian Legge]

Have you tried doing this test with a lens you shoot with? And with results you know?

I think most of my lenses look like this if not worse. I don't know if they are the clinically sharp lenses but so far it hasn't been much of an issue. A bit of dust on the front or back element would probably give you about as much dust as is shown in the shot.

Of course, the real answer is shoot a roll or three. 🙂

 

[colyn]

As others here have pointed out the bubbles are a non-issue since most old glass has them. Dust is a fact of life with lens and what you have should not affect image quality.

If it bothers you open the aperture then unscrew the front element and using canned air held back at a distance blow the loose dust out then gently clean with an anti-static soft brush. Don't use a cleaning tissue or rag since you will end up with scratches.

 

[chris7521]

Plenty of bubbles in this 1950 coated version🙂 Shot with tmax 100 around f4. You should be seeing something like this with the nice lens you have even with the dust. Not a great shot I know.. it was to test out an old Leica.

 

[amirko]

Have you tried doing this test with a lens you shoot with? And with results you know?

I have some dusty beasts, like 50mm 1.4 Nikkor on my Nikon S and this is excellent lens, dust is no issue. Here is one, shot with aperture wide open:


AR400-12-20pr2sm by emirco, on Flickr

Here is another, around f/8:

KET100-07-05pr1sm by emirco, on Flickr

So yes, I know that the internal dust is not that important, not like haze.

 

[amirko]

Plenty of bubbles in this 1950 coated version🙂 Shot with tmax 100 around f4. You should be seeing something like this with the nice lens you have even with the dust. Not a great shot I know.. it was to test out an old Leica.

Beautiful tonality Chris! And, I see no bubbles in the picture 😀

 

[greyelm]

I have a 1942 uncoated Summitar which I gently cleaned inside and now get great results. This is a shot with it attached to my Lumix G1. I tweaked the contrast a little in LR3.

 

[amirko]

I have a 1942 uncoated Summitar which I gently cleaned inside and now get great results. This is a shot with it attached to my Lumix G1. I tweaked the contrast a little in LR3.

So you have them in UK, too? They are everywhere! (I mean, birds)🙂

The image is sharp. For the lens that old, uncoated, it is very sharp. Can't wait to try mine. I have been toying the idea of finding cheap used micro 4/3 to test my LTM lenses and G1 is the obvious choice #1, no luck so far.

 

[David Hughes]

So you have them in UK, too? They are everywhere! (I mean, birds)🙂

The image is sharp. For the lens that old, uncoated, it is very sharp. Can't wait to try mine. I have been toying the idea of finding cheap used micro 4/3 to test my LTM lenses and G1 is the obvious choice #1, no luck so far.

They're foreign birds, aren't they? Canada Geese?

Anyway, I'd love to learn how to get a micro FourThirds for less than the cost of a film and processing...

Seriously, the lens* is first class, imo. You have to move to a Summicron to get a little better and you'll pay a lot more for it. As for the dust, most of us ignore it but if the camera ever gets serviced, then include the lens. Mine cost me about £20 (extra) when done this way.

Regards, David

* The rule was that you could get something scoring 97 out of a 100 reasonably cheaply. Score 97½ ex 100 and the price doubles and doubles again for 98 and so on.

 

[greyelm]

Yes, geese all over the place and other birds too. The following shot was taken at f/2 on the same lake. Both pictures were cropped for composition. I love this lens.

 

[barnwulf]

Keep it for sure. Try it and see how your shots look. A CLA might be in order. Jim

 

[Rob-F]

Bubbles are a sign of excellent quality glass from the old days. The old Dagor lens literature explicitly pointed this out. Will they affect your images—only to the degree that you have excellent quality glass!

There was a time when they didn't know how to make the lenses free of bubbles. The idea that bubbles were a sign of quality was a myth made up by the marketing departments. However, neither the bubbles nor the dust are likely to degrade image quality.

 

[amirko]

Yes, geese all over the place and other birds too. The following shot was taken at f/2 on the same lake. Both pictures were cropped for composition. I love this lens.

Thanks, I like how it renders the image at open aperture

 

[amirko]

There was a time when they didn't know how to make the lenses free of bubbles. The idea that bubbles were a sign of quality was a myth made up by the marketing departments. However, neither the bubbles nor the dust are likely to degrade image quality.

I remember the passage from the instruction manual for the first Zorki camera (still have the camera, but not the book) where it says in simple soviet-time style that the bubbles in the glass are not a production defect and the factory will not replace the lens