Leica LTM War time summitar

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Z

zeitoun

Established
Local time
4:52 AM
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
156
View My Gallery
I have been looking around for a summitar for my Leica II (1932). I have stumbled across several that were described as "war time". I have no idea whether those are any different from pre-war summitars (i.e., uncoated) or whether they are more sought after by collectors. Any help will be appreciated.
 
I used to own an uncoated 1939 Summitar, which was lovely with Velvia, and used in moderation, the 'bokeh' could be considered the right side of vomit-worthy 🙂

(here is a shot on NPH400)

2442189145_a18d813a7a.jpg


I now have a coated 1940 version which I paid £120 for - I would steer clear of anyone asking more for one just because it built during the war... why would it be more special?

Where abouts in the world are you? You're welcome to try mine out if in the home counties in England.
 
War time summitar

Dear Kully,

My sentiments exactly. I do not want to pay extra just because the lens came out during those fateful years. That is why I was wondering why this is even mentioned by the sellers, whether these lenses had anything special in terms of their manufacture. I gather they do not.

I will be using the lens exclusively with B&W films. From what I gathered, the coating on the post-war summitar is very "soft" and was/is easily scratched. In that sense, I think I would tend to wait until I find a clean, pre-war specimen. Part of the fun is getting that special "oldy" look, isn't it?

I am in Quebec, Canada, and therefore will not be able to take advantage of your kind offer. Thank you; it is appreciated.

Paul
 
Note also that the front glass of the Summitar is also very soft, being soft flint (lead) glass. So even if uncoated, there's an unfortunately high chance of it being scratched.

The very last wartime Summitars were coated.

It's a lovely lens, with low contrast wide open, and higher contrast stopped down.
 
What surprises me is that I have seen much more damaged summicron collapsible than damaged summitars (assumingly, I am not a pro, and only had a few samples of each in my hands).
In any case a nice ltm lens, not far performance wise from the collapsible cron.
I have two coated versions and one is for trade...
 
Kully, that is a charming portrait. Wonderful; I love her already.

I used to have a coated Summitar (#626381) but traded for a Summicron long ago. Maybe I should get one again . . .
 
One thing to check is the type of aperture blades the Summitar has - this might be the significance of wartime and post war. This is a 1939 design, so they all began basically as wartime. The later ones have a hexagon dome shaped aperture that is not as desirable as the round aperture as far as bokeh is concerned. Many wartime Summitars use the old system for displaying f stop - not a big deal. Some measure distance in meters, and some in feet. You will love it. It is a special lens with lots of character.
 
By the way, the very earliest summitars were not coated. The coated ones are not multicoated though, but they do help a little with flare.
 
I've had two coated Summitars, post-war, both with the round aperture blades. One had the beginnings of some fungus on an inner element: one time when the softer coatings helps. The fungus came off, and the coating buffed out. Second one had a lot of internal haze, and cleaned up nicely. The front elements looked good on both, better than most uncoated Summars and uncoated 5cm F2 Sonnars that i have seen.

The lens shows more astigmatism (Football shaped, swiry bokeh) and is lower contrast compared with the collapsible Summicron. It is center-sharp, but softer at the edges than the Summicron.
 
My un-coated 1938 or 1939 Summitar has some small issues, but it behaves pretty well on my R-D1

GM090401.jpg


I really need to try some of that vomitting-inducing bokeh one of these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom