butch
Established
The last few days here and at P Net, there's been quite a bit of traffic about this lens. I have a 50 Summitar that I enjoy dearly but have never looked at a Summar. What's caused this interest? Was there an article I missed?
What's this about the Summar?
- Thread starter butch
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 20
- Views 2K
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I think it's just that the Summar (to the best of my knowledge) was usually uncoated and softer. (again, this is just based on what I know.. so, please, Leicaphiles.. if you insist on correcting me; do so kindly 😀 )
Now.. if there WAS a run on summars; I'm sure we'd hear about it here first 😀
Cheers
Dave
Now.. if there WAS a run on summars; I'm sure we'd hear about it here first 😀
Cheers
Dave
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I've never shot with one, but supposedly, at wide aperatures, it is a bit soft which makes it a great portrait lens.
F
former member
Guest
Leica's first F2 lens, replaced by the Summitar when color film started appearing on the scene. Both are classic 1-2-2-1, 6 element in four group, Planar formula lenses. The Summitar has larger elements to combat light falloff at the edges. (paraphrased from "The Leica Manual")
Some Summar's were coated after they left the factory. Summitar's were coated after WW-II.
Some Summar's were coated after they left the factory. Summitar's were coated after WW-II.
FrankS
Registered User
Hi Butch, The Summar is just a funky vintage lens.
Les Lammers
Established
Try one, you may just love it. I have 2, coated and uncoated and will not part with them.
The old glass was very good, some better than others. It's personal preference. If you buy
the lenses right you can try a few different ones and keep those that do it for you and lose little or nothing when you sell those that don't.
Les
The old glass was very good, some better than others. It's personal preference. If you buy
the lenses right you can try a few different ones and keep those that do it for you and lose little or nothing when you sell those that don't.
Les
John Shriver
Well-known
It was Leica's first 50mm f/2 lens. It shows.
On the plus size, it is very small, much smaller than all the later f/2's. Very much of the Barnack era, when size and weight were very important. (Consider the Mountain Elmar.)
This is a lens where you can see the unsharpness at wide apertures on a 4x6 inch print. It also vignettes wide open. It can be used for flattering portraits, although a 50mm lens is a bit short for portraits. (The Elmar 90/4 can also make a nice portrait lens wide open.)
The bokeh is wild and swirly wide open -- looks astigmatic. The swirliness is really only noticeable within a stop or so of wide open.
But, it gets sharp and contrasty when you stop it down to f/8.
Like the Summitar and collapsible Summicron, the front glass is spectacularly soft flint glass -- very easy to scratch when cleaning.
Many of them are ready for CLA action, even if not scratched up. Internal haze is common, as is failing black paint on the edges of the elements.
I love mine, but it's not an everyday lens.
On the plus size, it is very small, much smaller than all the later f/2's. Very much of the Barnack era, when size and weight were very important. (Consider the Mountain Elmar.)
This is a lens where you can see the unsharpness at wide apertures on a 4x6 inch print. It also vignettes wide open. It can be used for flattering portraits, although a 50mm lens is a bit short for portraits. (The Elmar 90/4 can also make a nice portrait lens wide open.)
The bokeh is wild and swirly wide open -- looks astigmatic. The swirliness is really only noticeable within a stop or so of wide open.
But, it gets sharp and contrasty when you stop it down to f/8.
Like the Summitar and collapsible Summicron, the front glass is spectacularly soft flint glass -- very easy to scratch when cleaning.
Many of them are ready for CLA action, even if not scratched up. Internal haze is common, as is failing black paint on the edges of the elements.
I love mine, but it's not an everyday lens.
R
ray_g
Guest
Butch, check out Gabriel's 50mm lens comparison thread for an example.
John Shriver
Well-known
Oh, yes, I agree with Les. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a good bit of sample variation among Summars. Not as much as Hektor 50 f/2.5's, which were really inconsistent.
Mine has immaculate water-clear glass, no cleaning marks. I've cleaned out any haze, and redone the black paint. But the barrel shows a lot of use marks. This was a lens that was somebody's favorite, it got used hard because it was a good one!
Mine has immaculate water-clear glass, no cleaning marks. I've cleaned out any haze, and redone the black paint. But the barrel shows a lot of use marks. This was a lens that was somebody's favorite, it got used hard because it was a good one!
JimG
dogzen
I tried using a Summar with my Bessa R but lens couldnt collapse all the way in. Might not be a good combination.
Todd Frederick
Todd Frederick
I had one of these lenses in the mid '90s and it provides a very nice soft glowing image. If you're into mega-sharp lenses this is not for you. This give a very smooth, mellow image. I'm looking for another one for my M2 (with an adapter). The images are beautiful (but not super sharp).
FrankS
Registered User
Here's a shot from my gallery taken with a Summar lens. Sharp and glowy.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=5981&cat=5089
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=5981&cat=5089
Les Lammers
Established
JimG said:
The Bessas and ZI can be damaged if you attempt to collapse the lens. That does not preclude their use on these cameras.
doubs43
Well-known
Brian Sweeney said:
My 1939 EXPERIMENTAL hard coated Summitar being an exception, of course! 😉
Just kidding. (Brian, you had me going for about 10 seconds, wondering what you knew about Summitars that I didn't! Then I had a good laugh.)
For those wondering, I bought a 1939 Summitar for an excellent price because it had something hanging inside. I correctly guessed it was a strip of paint from the rear lens group. Less than an hour's work and I have a very nice Summitar. But, it's coated and looks like a 1950's single layer Leitz coating. Brian commented that it must be the ultra-rare experimental 1939 hard coated Summitar! 1939 was the first year of issue for the Summitar and they were not coated then.
Anyway, here's a Summar shot taken of my wife at f/2.2 IIRC. The lens is uncoated and belonged to my father for many years.
Walker
Attachments
regit
Established
FrankS said:
Most excellent shot, Frank. Love it!
thafred
silver addict
I Love my Summar because it collapses fully into my Bessa R but only if I push it in straight! (I mean not turning the Lens Barrel while pushing....otherwise you hit the Meter-cell with the metall-stops on the lens barrel.)
Maybe there´s different versions of this lens ! ( as we noticed in the "how to CLA a Summar" Thread)
I like my uncoated Summar very much! Stopped down it´s sharp and gives nice bokeh wich becomes really weird and Funky when at f 2.0 as John Shriver mentioned. The compactness makes it a winner for some situations.
BTW. My 77 J8 "Glows" much more when wide open than the Summar does.
Attached is a FunkyBokeh shot with the Summar at 2.0 .. plus a 100% detail....it´s pretty sharp even wide open!
Fred
Attachments
jkelly
Analog hobbyist
The Summar look - uncoated 1935 model. 1/200 @ f6.3.
doubs43
Well-known
jkelly said:
VERY nice! I like the mood and the perspective.
Walker
John Camp
Well-known
FrankS, JKelly -- I love that look! This goes a little bit to my question of film vs. digital of a couple of weeks ago -- if there's anything you can do with film that you can't do with digital. I'm not sure you could do this; it seems like any digital manipulation at all might break up the mood, or the glow, or whatever it is. I need one of these things...Wonder if Sean Reid has tried one on a R-D1? That might be a series of articles for him -- old lenses on new digital cameras...
JC
JC
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
It's a lens designed by The Stonecutters and sold by the Saunieres on ePrey 😉
Seriously, I don't know. I got mine after having seen photos from the 1930s taken with it; that was almost a year ago.
Seriously, I don't know. I got mine after having seen photos from the 1930s taken with it; that was almost a year ago.
