Leica LTM Uncoated thrifty fifties

[sienarot]

Ideally, I'd like to have an uncoated 50/2 Summar, however they don't seem to be as abundant as their FSU counterparts. I've been thinking about picking up a cheap Jupiter 8. I'm under the impression early versions of this lens were uncoated. Is that true? Since my likely source for finding one will be eBay, is there a way I can determine whether or not it's an uncoated version? Are Industar 50mm lenses uncoated? How does the Jupiter fair against the Industar? Any other suggestions as to cheap 50mm LTM lenses?

 

[sienarot]

Thanks for the info, Daniel!

 

[payasam]

Curious how time reverses things. Uncounted thousands of Leitz lenses were sent back to the factory to be coated when that became possible, and now there are photographers looking specially for un-coated lenses.

 

[Nikon Bob]

From personal experience I would second Daniel's suggestion of an uncoated Elmar 3.5. If in good condition, haze free etc., they perform very well and some type of hood is also necessary to get the best out of it.

Bob

 

[ErnestoJL]

Even the collapsible Industar 22 is coated. So no chances, look for a good uncoated Elmar. Even being it in Ex+ condition it won´t cost you an arm and a leg.
I have a collapsible uncoated 50/2.8 CZ Tessar (prewar) and results are quite interesting compared to coated lenses (J8 o J3).

Cheers
Ernesto

 

[mike goldberg]

Hi sienarot,

Mike here...
Check this out; the guy is a decent Seller and answered ALL my questions in detail. This Summitar is single coated, sharp, not too contrasty, and flare is reasonable with a lens hood.

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110156752528&sspagename=ADME:B:AAQ:CA:1

Good luck, Mike

 

[sienarot]

The 50/3.5 Elmar certainly looks interesting. I'll have to keep an eye out for one.

Mike: I actually came across that last night in my searching. I'll have to keep an eye on that in ~10 hours when the auction comes to an end!

 

[Trius]

Not a Leica lens, but an uncoated Steinheil Cassar 50/2.8 on a Tower 51:

Shots into the sun without a hood were considerably "flarey", but what the hay!

 

[peter_n]

Even the collapsible Industar 22 is coated.

The collapsible Industar 10 is coated too!

 

[TheHub]

I paid $350 for my Summar 50/2

Thanks Japan 🙄

 

[john neal]

The 50/3.5 Elmar certainly looks interesting. I'll have to keep an eye out for one.

Mike: I actually came across that last night in my searching. I'll have to keep an eye on that in ~10 hours when the auction comes to an end!

Derrick,

If you are still looking, I have an uncoated Elmar that I'm about to sell via the classifieds here - you could have first refusal. I'll take some shots and post to my gallery tonight.

 

[David Murphy]

Sorry to spoil the party, but my experiences with uncoated lenses has not been happy. It's much more than flare and susceptibility to stray light that they suffer. In addition to really egregious light loss in a complex lens design (e.g. a Sonnar or Summitar), the big problem is due to multiple internal reflections which are present with any use. This causes a general washing out of the image and apparent lack of sharpness. The non-linear response of film to light variations causes spiking and flare from bright spots on the subject (like specular reflection) and these seem to bleed out on the image -- a damn horror show IMO. Uncoated lenses (sometimes) do a bad job with color film -- the colors to me always looks sort of strangely metallic in some sense - disturbing actually. They handle B&W a lot better, just low contrast, which may be an effect the poster needs.

Even simple coatings on the front and rear elements really elevate great optical designs like the Tessar, Elmar, or Sonnar (even Fed, Zorki, Jupiter) to dramatically new levels of perfomance.

By the way Trius I love that shot of the Wine glass, but are you sure the Cassar is not coated? The Tower 51 is a mid-fifties vintage camera and almost all serious camera lenses made by that time had at least the front element coated.

 

[sienarot]

Derrick,

If you are still looking, I have an uncoated Elmar that I'm about to sell via the classifieds here - you could have first refusal. I'll take some shots and post to my gallery tonight.

Thanks for the heads up, John! Yes, I am interested though my worry is what your asking price is (and shipping) being that you're from the UK where I've noticed photography equipment tends to be a bit more than here in North America. Please shoot me off a PM when convenient!

 

[John Shriver]

A really clean Summar does not suffer from lack of coating. It's a double-Gauss design, only 8 air-to-glass surfaces. I've shot my Summar without a hood in what seemed to me to be flare-prone situations, and had no problems.

Summars are, like all Leica screwmount lenses, prone to haze. Being uncoated, cleaning them isn't a risk for losing the coating. (The only coated ones were sent back to the factory for coating post-War.)

That said, a Summitar is a less risk-free approach to the same lower contrast look. With a lot less vignetting, and less nutty bokeh.

Condition matters a lot on Summar and Summitar, very soft front flint glass, easily scratched to hell...

 

[NickTrop]

I have an average condition Summar and, while I've not shot many rolls with it, I really like this lens. It's not the sharpest I have but it's not not sharp (the nun who taught me grammar in the 4th grade is rolling in her grave after that sentence... ; )

Always use a hood (doesn't have to be a SOOMP, I've got a round cheapie I paid $10 bucks for...) and keep it above f2.8. I've not seen any flare at all using the hood, and the images are fine "sharpness"-wise. Love the way this lens does bokeh, very abstract - even at f5.6 with subjects close-in. Forget shadow-detail with this lens, it really exaggerates shadows, and has a wonderful 3D look, and "the glow". Very unique signature, no other lens I've ever owned renders anything like it. At f2.0 - wide open, the image is pert-near completely washed out. Don't go there unless you want that effect, which can be pretty cool looking actually.

I see non of the issues some have disparaged this lens. I think it's great. Be patient and get the best sample you can. They pop up regularly enough. This "review" of the lens is spot-on IMO, and has some very good tips on how to best use it.

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/ll.htm

Get the Summar.

 

[Trius]

By the way Trius I love that shot of the Wine glass, but are you sure the Cassar is not coated? The Tower 51 is a mid-fifties vintage camera and almost all serious camera lenses made by that time had at least the front element coated.

David: At my age I am no longer sure of anything! 🙄 However... as I look at the lens, I don't see any coloured reflections from the front element, just pure white. Shots I have made into the sun reveal heavy veiling flare, so those to factors lead me to believe it is not even single-coated. However, I coudl be wrong, and if there is a definitive answer on this, I would be happy to know it.

 

[sienarot]

Always use a hood (doesn't have to be a SOOMP, I've got a round cheapie I paid $10 bucks for...) and keep it above f2.8. I've not seen any flare at all using the hood, and the images are fine "sharpness"-wise. Love the way this lens does bokeh, very abstract - even at f5.6 with subjects close-in. Forget shadow-detail with this lens, it really exaggerates shadows, and has a wonderful 3D look, and "the glow". Very unique signature, no other lens I've ever owned renders anything like it. At f2.0 - wide open, the image is pert-near completely washed out. Don't go there unless you want that effect, which can be pretty cool looking actually.

That's exactly the look I'm going for. Actually, it was your 'The "Real" Poor Man's Leica?' thread that brough the Summar to my attention. Got any examples you can share?

And what's SOOMP? I'm not familiar with that acronym....

 

[jkelly]

I'm thinking about selling my Summar, but I know I'll regret it. Uncoated Summar images:

 

[sienarot]

I'm thinking about selling my Summar, but I know I'll regret it.

Give me a heads up if you do? 🙂

Those photos are gorgeous! What films did you use?

 

[NickTrop]

sienarot -

I've only had this lens about a month or so, and haven't scanned anything yet. But I will, there are several shots on those rolls that I'm quite pleased with that wouldn't have looked the way they look with any other lens. I'll PM you when I post some Summar shots, if you're still interested, sometime this week.

If you look above this post at JKelly's stuff above, it shouldn't leave any doubt it's a quality lens. A SOOMP is a rectangular lens hood with a cut-out section that was made for the Summar so it doesn't obstruct the early Leica viewfinders. They're semi-hard to find, and go for $50-ish. But I found a little round clip-on ditty that works just fine on my Zorki 4K with minimal obstruction.