"Variable contrast" Summitar

[payasam]

Would someone care to comment on this picture? It was taken with a coated Summitar at f/2 on ASA 100 C-41 film, the 4 by 6 inch print was scanned and in the Gimp, the saturation of all colours was reduced to nil. The negative has more under the near arm than appeared on the print made by one of these fine automatic barber shop machines. There was wasted space at the top, my doing because for some years focussing has been time consuming and once I think I have it right I often forget to compose the frame. Therefore 4:6 aspect ratio cropped to 5:7.

The main thing, though, is the "character" of the lens at the taking aperture. Nothing was done to contrast. At smaller apertures, I have got results which are in no appreciable way different from those which my Canon FD lenses give.

 

[MCTuomey]

Not sure how to respond to your question, but here goes. I think your lens produces a nicely balanced contrast range at that f stop. I would happily use it wide open, as you have, for portraits, people-centered snaps, and the like. Others might find a more abrupt, "harsh" contrast range pleasing. I prefer yours, fwiw.

I'm not surprised your lens' contrast behavior changes as your stop down. My Summarit exhibits this behavior, so I'd expect your Summitar would do the same, maybe even to a greater degree.

 

[payasam]

Mike, the Summarit is also a "variable contrast" fellow. I think the description was first applied to the Summitar, which should not be surprising since it came first, chronologically. This is one particular picture, and no conclusions are possible until the lens has been used in other situations, other lighting, at f/2. Many value it, though, for this characteristic when they do portraits. They use it happily for general work at smaller apertures, but for full bore work prefer lenses with what you call a more abrupt contrast range. The uncoated Sonnars, for example, were deliberately designed to give high contrast, and their coated versions, as well as their Nikkor derivatives, also gave what is often considered too much contrast but which is good for newspaper work. Leitz, on the other hand, and that firm's close follower Canon, aimed more at resolution than at contrast.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Yep...looks like a summitar shot wide open to me! Low contrast and pleasing bokeh, although I find that if I shoot mine wide open and there is alot of depth behind the subject the bokeh gets swirly, further back.
It's a nice lens to have and a real bargain as well.

Here is my "humble" summitar gallery: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5500 There are some wide open shots in there.

Todd

 

[Todd.Hanz]

If you want to see some pretty amazing summitar shots see Lester Gedimans site "Italia series" here: http://www.lesgediman.com/

Todd

 

[doubs43]

From their introduction in 1939 until the Summicron was introducted, the Summitar was the flagship f/2 lens for Leitz. It was highly regarded in it's day and is still a fine lens if in good condition. I have three, all coated including a 1939 one.

Walker

 

[John Shriver]

That's what I found with my coated Summitar when I took a test roll with Kodak E100GX. Very much "variable contrast". Very obvious on a slide, where there's no printing manipulation.

 

[payasam]

Todd, in this picture the background is flat and is just behind the subject. I've seen Mr. Gediman's work, much of which is brilliant. You're right, Walker. The most widely used Leica normal was of course the Elmar, and with excellent reason: but among the faster ones, the Hektor wasn't quite up to it and the Summarit was pretty expensive for what it gave, apart from being a tricky customer. Hardly surprising that the IIIc made during WW2, and for some while afterwards, is so often seen mounting a Summitar.

 

[Dan States]

At the widest apertures the Summitar suffers from a unique kind of flare. Any sources of light, even moderate, can cause a veiling glare. What makes it unusual is that it tends not to flood the entire frame, but stays reasonably localized. I have several portraits shot at F 2 that show gobs of veiling glare across about half the frame. If you get lucky it can be a cool effect..totally unpredictable however.

At smaller apertures it's a great lens, but strangely it becomes prone to ghosting at the smallest apertures. Mine Likes about F5.6-8 best.

Best wishes
Dan

 

[payasam]

Dan, the Summitar is known to be exceptionally prone to flare. Therefore the SOOPD hood for it, a design which could not have been bettered. I speak of a generalised flare, not of a "localised" phenomenon, on which at this time I am not qualified to comment. I will say, though, that it sounds like what "portrait" lenses were and are designed to give, although there it's usually under-corrected spherical aberration at work.