Summitar vs others - character?

[ChrisN]

I notice Keith has another collapsible Summitar 50 for sale. I've wanted another collapsible ever since I was silly enough to sell my early Elmar 50. How does the Summitar compare? The other lenses I've used include a Summicron 50 from 1970 (black, Wetzlar, no tab, no hood), and Canon 50/1.8 and 1.2.

I don't mind a bit of "character" but I don't want to lose sharpness totally 😀

What do you think?

 

[payasam]

Chris, the Summitar will give you "character" wide open. Stopped down, it's just another decent lens.

 

[maddoc]

Chris, the Summitar will give you "character" wide open. Stopped down, it's just another decent lens.

I second this. A special character wide open and a little bit prone to flare. Stopped down it is a really decent lens (at least my one). Together with a IIIf or so a very pocket able combo !

 

[David Noble]

I would agree with Payasam. It is a very nice little lens, and sharper than I expected probably from 2.8 or 4 on. Wide open, it goes a bit dreamy, and it is probably more prone to veiling flare than a modern lens. But nice and compact, and it has an interesting way of rendering color—kind of pastel-hued, somehow.
Not a high-contrast lens.

I have a gallery of pictures shot with it *here* if you want to take a look. Can't remember the apertures used, but some of them were wide open...

 

[ChrisN]

Thanks very much, folks, and David that's a set of really nice photos you have there. I've sent Keith an email!

 

[Nando]

Here's one that I just scanned about 15 minutes ago. I love the lens.

There's only two things I don't like; the unique filters and it flares quite easily. I got the 12585H hood for it. It works most of the time. It was meant for e39 35mm and 50mm lenses and doesn't fit as snug as it supposed to. The Summitar specific Barn-door type hood probably works a lot better.

 

[David Noble]

Thanks very much, folks, and David that's a set of really nice photos you have there. I've sent Keith an email!

Thanks, Chris. I think you will really enjoy the lens. It is a lot of fun to use.

 

[Nando]

David,

Those are excellent photographs. I don't think I ever shot colour with the Summitar but after looking at your photographs, I really want to go out and give it a try.

 

[David Noble]

Nando,

Thanks . The Summitar has a very interesting way with color. Subdued, but pleasing. I think these older lenses definitely give a different feel to color than modern ones, maybe even more than the differences in b/w rendition. I wouldn't want to use the Summitar for everything, but for a certain look, it is very nice.

 

[Shac]

Summitar vs others - character?

Hi - I have one and support what the rest have said. However, I haven't experienced the pastel rendition of colours that Davi mentions. Mine is certainly v. clean inside - could that be a difference. Velvia shots above f2 are rich and contrasty. I have the barndoor lens hood which I donlt always use.
Love it. Think you will too.
David

 

[sirius]

I like my lens. I think it is much better than my Canon 50, f1.8. The tones are wonderful and 3D like most Leicas, even though it is an old lens.

Mine has some haze around the edges of the internal element. I think they perform much better when cleaned. I love what the lens does at f2. It had a beautiful character but an older style to how the photos turn out.

Here's a link to my pictures with a summitar: my flickr. Gabriel M. has a bunch of lovely sharp summitar pictures on his flickr site.

Remembering that mine has some haze, I did find that the lens flares like crazy. I don't have a lens hood either. The colour is different, definitely not as nice as David's above. I find the character of the colour changes between f2 and smaller apertures. Wide open it has almost a watercolour look to it. Stopped down it is more pastel.

wide open

stopped down

Wide open and close, it is really wonderful how this lens draws people.