Three Leitz Summars - not quite the same...

[BLKRCAT]

Low contrast? What's that?

My variant has minty glass, missing pieces of black paint that were removed on the interior.

F8


~2.2

 

[filmdood]

Is not Vaseline a lot cheaper? And it works on any lens. I had a Summar on my 3f back in the late 1950s. Worst lens I ever owned. I had a 127mm Wollensak that worked better on my 3f and a 50mm F2 Nikkor that worked better on my M2r.

 

[Vincent.G]

Normal choice to me.

I've had non-trashed, but heavily used and uncoated one and coating free gives more details, while afterwards coating gives more contrast, which takes some details away.

Jon's sample shots of lens B wide open and stopped down to f4 shows how versatile the lens can be. When used wide open in lowlight conditions, the low contrast or "flare" brightens up the shadows. Then when used in bright conditions, stopping down increases the contrast. Some what like 2 lenses in one. I find such characteristic useful when shooting black and white film. However the above are just my personal user experience.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I am sure coated Summars are even better than lens A, but they are very hard to find.

Thank you Jon for this very interesting comparison.

Leica IIIc, coated Summar 50mm f/2 wide open, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[Ronald M]

And common internet experts say scratches on the front do not matter.

Just be sure there is no internal haze because my experience is that even a slight amount raises difficulty that is difficult to describe.

 

[splitimageview]

It really depends on the number and nature of the scratches. I have seen lenses described as as having 'cleaning marks' that have a few extremely fine, almost spider web-like scratches, visible only with a point source, and these affect nothing. I've also seen lenses described as having 'cleaning marks' that looks to the naked eye like someone cleaned them with steel wool, and the performance suffers accordingly...

 

[jonmanjiro]

How did you inspect the glass?

With an LED flash light. But I did more than just inspect the glass. I partially disassembled both lens B and C and cleaned out some haze on the inside surface of the first element and the front exposed surface of the second element. I also cleaned both surfaces that face the aperture blades and of course the outside surface of the front and rear elements. I also touched up some paint loss on the back of the third elements of both lenses. The rear optical optical block on both lenses were clean so I didn't open them up.

How difficult would disassembly be in order to repaint interior?

With the right tools, not too difficult I expect. But it would involve completely disassembling the lens and removing elements from their fittings, and that's further than I'm willing to go.

 

[iaeaix]

Results make me wonder if the idea: "Old glass, low contrast" is mostly a matter of lens condition.

Exactly, lol.
I found a Summicron 35 v1 has no flare when shot against a led light, the best copy I have even seen.

Sent from my DMC-CM1 using Tapatalk

 

[harpofreely]

My summar would be "lens D" on this scale but I still enjoy it.

 

[lundrog]

Here is my examples and I would call it.




Fair condition? good?

A few un edited from my summer,








More

http://photography.rogerlund.net/Ga...Processed-ernst-leitz/UnProcessed-Ernst-leitz

 

[presspass]

Jon, just a quick question, and I realize this is way late in this thread, but can you recall if any of the shots were taken with either the hood designed for the Summar or the hood that fits the Elmar 3.5 and also the Summar?

 

[jonmanjiro]

Jon, just a quick question, and I realize this is way late in this thread, but can you recall if any of the shots were taken with either the hood designed for the Summar or the hood that fits the Elmar 3.5 and also the Summar?

I do remember actually! I was in full shade so didn't use a hood on any of the lenses.

 

[Ronald M]

Mine is coated and looks much like A. The others are paperweights

 

[FrankS]

Here's another way of looking at things: It's not a fault, it's a feature.

It's easy to get sharp and contrasty results with modern lenses, even 1970's SLR prime lenses available for $50. If you want a vintage look however, you'll need a vintage lens like example B or C.

🙂

 

[colker]

It would be interesting to be able to swap the front lens for something new. It´s easy to unscrew the front group.