Which one?

[Bas]

Sean, very interesting test indeed. I was thinking about buying a Summicron LTM 50/2, but this test and the results of my 50/2 Summitar made me keep my Summitar.

Thanks for the time you spent on that test, very good indeed.

Cheers
Bas

 

[raid]

I am expecting in the mail a Summitar 50/2 lens soon. I certainly will test it out, but it will not be a test as scientifically designed and executed as the one decsribed by Sean.

 

[payasam]

Sean, going by what I know of the two lenses, based roughly on 20 per cent use and 80 per cent reading and talking, your results are pretty much what I had expected. That the Summicron's results at f/2 were considered sharper and had less "glow" goes to show that the description of the Summitar as "variable contrast" is not much off the mark. As the Summitar is stopped down, its contrast and sharpness very nearly approach those of the Summicron. Many of the pictures taken in the 1940s and later were the work of the uncoated Summitar, and few would complain about them even today. The Summitar is known for not having a field anywhere close to flat. There are sample photos somewhere, either on RFF or on photo.net, which show this. If, as you say, the differences are not likely to show up on a monitor, I'd advise you not to waste your time. Carry on with the tests, though. [Edit] The world of photography needs easily identified star bookcases.

 

[payasam]

Sean, your M mount Summitar would appear to have anticipated the first M body by eight years.

 

[Fabian]

I have got another roll back from another lab and this time the results are quite pleasing. So the developing makes a big difference.
I think I am going to develop the film my self and let just the prints done by the lab, because that roll cost like a fortune.
Here are two pics.
Hope you like them. Still Leica IIf and Industar-22 on Tri-X.

P.S. I will get a summitar anyway. Just fell in Love with the portraits I've seen.

Fabian

 

[Nikon Bob]

That Industar-22 looks pretty good to me from the examples shown. You might not gain much with a Summitar but then there is only one way to find out and Summitars are not that expensive. If you get a Summitar let us know how you think the two compare.

Nikon Bob

 

[Bas]

I do agree that your I22 is quite good. Here is a picture shot with my Summitar, film Agfa APX 400 developed in Xtol and scanned with a Genius HR8 flatbed film scanner.

I can't see any real important difference... anyways, has it has been said, the only way to know is buying one 😉

Cheers
Sebastian.

 

[Sean Moran]

Payasam, you are right. This is a puzzle. The serial number of the Summitar puts it as 1946. It is M-fitting though - and I don't think it's an adaptor. Any ideas?

Seán.

 

[payasam]

Sean, if it's an adapter it'll screw off. It can also be identified as an adapter by the thin plate which forms the flange. The mount may have been modified after the M3 came out, though I cannot imagine why anyone would go to all that trouble when an adapter is so much less expensive and so simple to use. I had five lenses with my M3. All were screw mount.

Fabian, you might be going about things the wrong way. Developing a film is usually a simple time and temerature affair which anyone can do. The end result, what you see, is the print. If you are satisfied with prints made by machines, that's OK: but if you want (generally larger) prints where contrast must be judged and where dodging and burning in may be needed, you may have to pay a great deal for the skills of the human who does the work. You may also have to hunt: there simply are not many good darkroom people left.

 

[Ronald M]

The collapsible 2.0 and 2.8 lenses are all the same size for all practical purposes. The 3.5 is almost flat collapsed, but does not have a diaphragm adjusting ring around the outside.

The Summicron and Summitar are sharper than the 2.8 Elmar at 4.0, same at 5.6 to end. The Elmar has a little more contrast.

My favorite is the 3.5, then 2.8 Elmar. Sometimes my daily carry is the M6 with 3.5 Elmar. I did some family studio portraits with the 3.5 for Easter. They turned out great.

All are nice lenses and you really can`t go wrong with any. Just get one in good condition and treat the soft coatings carefully. Spend what is necessary to get something decent and you can use it the rest of your life.

The 90 and 50 Elmars have some very qualities for people pics.

 

[Sean Moran]

Mystery solved!

Mystery solved!

What I thought was an M-Summitar ...

Is in fact a 1946 LTM Summitar with an adaptor. Bravo Payasam!

I was talking just now to Malcolm Taylor - from whom I bought the lens - and he told me that it is a screw-mount lens with an M-adaptor, so I could use it with the 1932 Leica II he has just repaired for me (together with the accompanying uncoated Elmar 5cm f/3,5). Any Irish or UK-based Leica fans really should use Malcolm at least once. He is on the expensive side, but he restores Leica's own cameras from the Leitz museum (including the Ur-Leica) and he can - and will - talk about Leicas at length when you telephone him for an estimate.

I'm now looking forward to taking portraits using the Summicron, Summitar or Elmar - depending on the age and/or vanity of the sitters.

Cheers!

Seán.

 

[payasam]

Ever considered, Sean, that you can use M lenses only on one kind of body?
[EDIT] Sound thinking. For every book case, the lens of its choice...

 

[Marc-A.]

Hello everybody,
I totally concur in the Summitar praises. It is a fantastic lens, for portrait (wide open for instance), but not only: indeed it shows impressive sharpness stopped-down... just shoot at f8 in street (or f9 depending on the version).
A few examples of my own Summitar (1940, but coated at Leitz by the previous owner):
Street photo
Portrait 1
Portrait 2

I like the Elmar character too, and it is an option to consider carefully; I've a Red scale (not the 2.8) and it is now my first lens: very sharp stopped-down, contrasty, and still kinda soft wide open (f4, not f3.5 because of the vignetting effect).

Anyway, both the Summitar and the Elmar (and probably the Summicron, that I did not test and that I do not want to buy) show great performances so:
- if you need a fast lens, consider the Summitar
- if you need a small lens, consider the Elmar (the Summitar is quite heavy for the Leica II, III cameras)

Bests,

Marc