Ugly Summitar

benmacphoto

Well-known
Local time
10:33 AM
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
901
Location
Philadelphia
So last week I bought an early summitar, that keh rated as ugly. Upon arrival I was surprised as to how clean and nice this lens actually was, on the outside. Inside there was a nice amount of haze and the aperture ring is stiff. I spent the night disassembling the lens and cleaning it. Then off to shoot, one roll of color and one roll of black and white.
untitled14.jpg

untitled17.jpg

untitled6.jpg

untitled15.jpg

untitled1.jpg

untitled2.jpg

untitled5.jpg


Overall I am very happy with this lens. Just need a lens hood to deal with the uncoated flaring. The serial number indicates that this lens was made in 1938, though I thought summitar production began in 1939. anyone else using an early summitar like this? thoughts on uncoated lenses?
 
Congratulations on the lens! Uncoated lenses have a look all their own, and produce some beautiful colors. I always use mine with a Hood, or am very careful to keep it in the shade.
 
An uncoated Summitar is an easy cleaning target. Coated ones are a whole other story -- leave them to professionals. Too easy to remove the coating along with the haze.

The key is that the soft front element should be mostly free of scratches.
 
I don't know if everyone should have an uncoated lens but I am amazed that you were able to take it apart and clean it.

I wish I photographed it, there were some nice white spots on the elements and all. used 8 q-tips just to clean out the focus ring. It looks pretty good now though, no scratches on any element.
 
DSC_048.jpg

DSC_0047.jpg


Heres an update on the 1938 lens, I wanted to post what the lens looked like with the serial number. So if anyone had any information on this lens they could let me know, since according to the number it was made in 1938, but summitar production wasn't until 1939.
 
Back
Top Bottom