Summitar the star...

Weird Bokeh

Weird Bokeh

The strange Bokeh is from the 6 blade aperture model.
Check the background in this '49. The 6 blade is the 1950's model.
After the war Leica was using all the left over parts, so they used up the Summar irises at the end of the model run. The coated post war Summitar was more like the Summicron, and it's pretty hard to tell the images apart from them too.

Go for a 40's model if you can. Newer doesn't always mean better. I think I like my first wife better too.

2060621642_1019b85cd6_o.jpg
 
Summitar Contrast

Summitar Contrast

The Summitar doesn't have the contrast of a modern lens, but I prefer it in most cases. Contrast can be easily added but not so easily taken away.

Also, if shadow detail is important to you, as well as graduated skin tones, the Summitar is not easily surpassed.

2060620602_cd97fb4012_o.jpg
 
Has it been resolved here how to identify each of the different Summitar models and also which has which characteristics that the other versions do not have?

My lens has Number 8178xx with 6 blades.

Based on some website, it is a 1950 model.

810001** 820000 Summitar f= 5 cm 1:2 1950 10000
 
raid said:
Has it been resolved here how to identify each of the different Summitar models and also which has which characteristics that the other versions do not have?

My lens has Number 8178xx with 6 blades.

Based on some website, it is a 1950 model.

810001** 820000 Summitar f= 5 cm 1:2 1950 10000
Click to expand...


raid, mine is pretty close to yours (8179xx). Has the 6 blade diaphragm. According to Jim Lager's book (Vol 2, Lenses) the early Summitars starting in 1939 have the larger number of blades (exact number not specified) forming a more rounded iris.
According to Dennis Laney's book, the change to the later blades like we have occurred in 1951. Maybe the lenses we have are actually from '51, who knows…? I believe those lists of production dates are never quite exact.

In any case, It's my understanding the different diaphragm versions will alter the shapes - slightly - of OOF highlights. But the basic nature of the OOF rendering is not going to be all that different since the underlying lens design is the same. I suppose someone with both versions will have to test and provide the true answer!
And I think the image content for a comparison needs to be of the type like I posted above, i.e., very close focus on foreground subject with lots of small, bright highlights in the OOF area. Other image types with less extreme differences between FG and BG don't reveal the more swirly characteristic that these lenses are capable of, from what I've seen.
Of course, I could be wrong… 🙂
 
Hello Martin,
I don't know how I got suddenly GAS for another Summitar. Maybe it is the affordable cost to get a vintage Leica lens. If you use the Summitar wide open, the number of blades should not affect the OOF rendering. The coating may play a role.

GAS can be dangerous on the wallet.
 
Hi Luddite,
I am in the mood to buy such a lens online. I may not actually need it, but when do we need so many lenses!
 
raid said:
Hi Luddite,
I am in the mood to buy such a lens online. I may not actually need it, but when do we need so many lenses!
Click to expand...


🙂 Well, I've been hearing folks speak about what fine lens the Summitar is, so I have been keeping my eyes open for one.

I found a decent one while on holiday in Denmark, unfortunately, it was on a camera that I did not necessarily need... 😱

The same shop had another body that I did want, but had a scratchy Summar on it. 🙁

So, I wound-up buying two cameras & lenses to get the one of each that I did want... 🙄

As things evolved, after looking over the body that came with the Summitar (very clean II-c upgraded to III-f BD ST), I shot 7 rolls of film with it on the remainder of my trip, and will collect the first couple rolls from the lab tomorrow...

Good luck with your search ! 🙂

LF
 
raid said:
Hello Martin,
I don't know how I got suddenly GAS for another Summitar. Maybe it is the affordable cost to get a vintage Leica lens. If you use the Summitar wide open, the number of blades should not affect the OOF rendering. The coating may play a role.

GAS can be dangerous on the wallet.
Click to expand...

Indeed, my wallet has taken a beating lately. But I'm enjoying the resulting acquisitions, so there's that...

Well, as luck would have it, a friend has two of the early, 10-bladed Summitars and will bring one to me tomorrow so I can borrow it for a while. I'll do some identical shots, at various f stops, so as to compare the two versions. Should be interesting.
 
Helen,

An off-topic question: do you have a daily rotating avatar? Di you achieve that by some wonderous software trick, or are you suffering insomnia and using that as a means to occupy those wee small hours? :angel:
 
Hi,
I am newbie in old lens. If I want to get a Summitar, is it better to get a coated version? What is the main difference between coated/uncoated version?
 
lcp12345 said:
Hi,
I am newbie in old lens. If I want to get a Summitar, is it better to get a coated version? What is the main difference between coated/uncoated version?
Click to expand...

Hello, lcp12345 and welcome to the forum.
The later, coated lenses will have slightly greater contrast and perhaps better color representation than the uncoated versions. Determining which is better will depend on what you prefer. My Summitar is a post-WWII lens with coating. But I own several other, earlier lenses that are not coated and I like them very much, as well. The lower contrast, somewhat pastel colors that these lenses produce is something I like at times, but not everyone appreciates that look. If you're accustomed to more modern lenses that provide more contrast and you want to stay closer to that style, look for a coated Summitar.
 
lcp12345 said:
Hi,
I am newbie in old lens. If I want to get a Summitar, is it better to get a coated version? What is the main difference between coated/uncoated version?
Click to expand...

Hi,

Welcome aboard; the Summitar came out in 1938/39 in an uncoated version and coated ones started to appear from No 857601 of 1946. They were made right up until 1955 or so but were overshadowed by the Summicron. Having said that I think that a coated Summitar in good condition will perform brilliantly for most people. It's probably true to say the later ones are best but I'm not too familiar with the history of coating.

There are also some uncoated ones that have been coated later on, some at Leitz and others elsewhere. So I'd be a little wary of any coated pre mid (?) 1946 one.

Regards, David
 
Like Helen, Raid and others here, I have the hots for the Summitar. I have had 3 or 4 in the past with both types of iris. I fould the 6-blade ones to produce the swirly bokeh more often than the 10-blade ones, whether coated or not. The best one I had was from 1943 but, apparently, it was a collector's piece and went off to a glass case existence with a similar vintage IIIC-K.

My current one is coated and from 1949 in the 70xxxx range, with (I think) 10-blade iris, it certainly has a very round "hole". I'm looking forward to teaming it up with my MM when I next get the chance to actually go out and make some pictures!
 
I bought mine as a non worker in good condition (cheap).
Aperture/focus seized, very easy fix.
524480 makes it 1939. First batch?

Uncoated 10 blade.

Some seperation of front elements, but it doesnt seem to make much difference.
Will take it for a walk when the Sun shines again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jbennett68
Reccomendation a leader trimmer for me.
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
stuart_115
stuart_115
D
Industar 22/50 photos
Replies
12
Views
2K
56 DIN
56 DIN
jesse1dog
Summitar 5cm f2
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Coldkennels
Coldkennels
A
Anyone ever had a Summitar with a mismatch of parts and gotten it to work?
Replies
9
Views
603
wlewisiii
W
Godfrey
Today's shooting rig ... customized Kodak Retina IIIc-x
Replies
16
Views
2K
Godfrey
Godfrey
Back
Top Bottom