summitar 50/2 opinions? [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

Michael I.

06-27-2006, 14:50

Hi!

I have a chance of gettign a summitar 50/2 with slightly scratched back element(allegedly doesn't effect image quality) for 75$.

I have a zorki 4 (with jupiter 9 both from Oleg Khalyavin)to mount it.
I would like to hear your opinions about the lens.I wanted a leica lens for a long time now - is it a good entry?

Thanks.

Perk1518

06-27-2006, 15:12

Beautiful and fine performing optic. -- Paul

kmack

06-27-2006, 15:20

It is a good 1950's lens, lower contrast than modern lenses, see this recent disscussion (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23769) for some more info.

My Canon 50/1.8 is a bit sharper and has more contrast, but I also really like the images I get with my Summitar on the Bessa R.

Michael I.

06-27-2006, 15:22

hoe does it compare to J-8?

Todd.Hanz

06-27-2006, 15:30

"glowing" when used wide open:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=24127&cat=5500

sharp enough stopped down:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=26292&cat=5500

todd

kmack

06-27-2006, 15:32

On a Zorki you may be better off with a good J8, see the famous (here at least) Dante Stella "Ivan the incompatible" (http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html) page and make your own decision.

Michael I.

06-27-2006, 15:37

good point. I think I will get it anyway - I think I can resale it for this price

Kim Coxon

06-27-2006, 15:46

I will swap it for a very nice J8 if you don't like it. :D

Kim

good point. I think I will get it anyway - I think I can resale it for this price

Michael I.

06-27-2006, 16:06

i might consider it with a nice canon P body attached :).

but thats to soon to talk now - let me get it ->test it ->dislike it first.

What is it's going price nowdays anyway?

Kim Coxon

06-27-2006, 16:11

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/c.htm ;)

Kim

What is it's going price nowdays anyway?

Michael I.

06-27-2006, 16:14

thanks - so I'm guessing I'm making a good deal.

Kim Coxon

06-27-2006, 16:17

It depends whether tey are cleaning marks or scratches. ;)

Kim

Michael I.

06-27-2006, 16:21

the back element is a touchy place too.
I'll examine it before I buy - i've seen a picture taken with it wide open and havent seen any blemishes if it says anything.

David Murphy

06-27-2006, 20:50

Most likely you are in posession of a real winner -- enjoy it

Michael I.

07-03-2006, 10:11

It is a summitar not a summar! of 1939 vintage

David Murphy

07-03-2006, 10:31

colyn

07-03-2006, 17:58

I've used a Summitar for a number of year now and can highly recommend it. Contrast is slightly lower than newer glass but is still an outstanding performer.

jkelly

07-03-2006, 20:04

I really enjoy my Summitar.

OldNick

07-03-2006, 21:24

I have a Summitar that produces fine images, though not as contrasty as more recent Leica lenses. When I started using it, I found that the aperture ring was very stiff. I had a CLA done on it and it is now quite smooth. The only digital images I have at the moment from this lens happen to be B&W, as shown below.

Jim N.

Michael I.

07-06-2006, 04:38

The seller sent me some pictures of the lens - the barell seems to be of a weird color - is it oxidation or brassing or what?

kbg32

07-06-2006, 04:43

The seller sent me some pictures of the lens - the barell seems to be of a weird color - is it oxidation or brassing or what?

It looks like the color balance is off. The seller photographed the lens with light/film etc., that was not balanced for each other.

Michael I.

07-06-2006, 04:46

makes sense.

are several reflections on the lens surfaces indication of coating?

varjag

07-06-2006, 05:23

While I would consider a lens with defects on front surface, I would not buy a lens with scratched rear element, other than for parts or if it costed pennies. The closer defect to film plane, the more impact it will have on resulting image. It's not that you'll see it on all shots, but it might e.g. flare badly when you least expect it.

You may discover later that resale value is not that high, too.

Michael I.

07-06-2006, 05:47

Since I am offered the lens for 75$(if good to mint ones go for 150-250$) I believe I would be able to resale it for at least the same amount,and if not - not such a great loss(I would always be able to tarde it for a j - 12 for example - a lens that I am curios about) besides I would like a fast,cheap collapsible lens. If I like it it stays and my excellent J-8 goes if I dont it goes and my J-8 stays.

Any lens that old flares like crazy - I will improvise a shade of some sort.

xayraa33

07-06-2006, 06:31

I know it is hard to tell from photos, but that Summitar looks like it has some issues with haze on the glass elements.

Michael I.

07-12-2006, 00:24

is haze cleanable?

David Murphy

07-12-2006, 00:41

a tech can usually remove it and leave the coating (if any) intact

Michael I.

07-12-2006, 06:22

thank everybody for the usefull advice

Michael I.

08-18-2006, 21:30

I got a lens for some time now.

It has no haze and no obvious cleaning marks. The barrel is brassed and there is a small scratch on the outer perimeter of the back element. I have some pics of it on my blog.

I shot two films with it and will scan them soon.I am excited.

It is an uncoated one,distance is in feet,appertures are old style(which annoys me - Israel is very sunny and f12.5 as the smallest apperture allows only 100 iso and faster films)

David Murphy

08-18-2006, 22:15

It's an excellent lens and I am sure you will be pleased. I've owned plenty of Russian glass and I own the Canon 50/1.8 too. The Canon is a shade sharper, however it's a newer design. I almost can't praise the Summitar enough. The Summitar convinced me that Leica was the real deal.

payasam

08-18-2006, 22:37

If I'm not mistaken, Michael, the Summitar was introduced in 1939. You therefore have one of the earliest. Leitz did not coat their lenses at that time, although lenses could be sent to the factory to be coated. Varjag is right about the danger posed by scratches close to the film plane: but you say the scratch is on the periphery of the rear element, and in any case you have to see your first results. The Summitar was a considerable improvement over the Summar, and it was Leica's fast normal until the arrival of the Summicron. Only three things to remember, really: first, that it has low contrast wide open but is nearly as good as its successor when stopped down; second, that it is very prone to flare; and third, that both glass and coating (on post-war lenses coated by Leitz) are soft. My own Summitar is evidence of the first two, and I have seen more than one example ruined by heavy-handed "cleaning".
[EDIT] Jim, is your picture of the young woman a small, or very small, portion of a frame?

OldNick

08-19-2006, 14:33

Payasam,
I pulled up the original negative from which I cropped the picture, and found that the image I used is less than ten percent of the negative. I hope that answers your question.

Jim N.

payasam

08-20-2006, 08:10

Jim, it appears that my question should have been "small, very small or infinitesimal". The grain in the greys made it clear that there'd been much cropping: but the sharp borders between light and dark on the dress made it just as clear that that could not be attributed to a fast emulsion. Remarkable character the lens has, if you compare the dress with the hair: unless the head moved a little during the exposure.

M

OldNick

08-20-2006, 08:40

M, I agree that the lens is impressive. I would like to have an LTM Summicron, but, except for wide open exposures, I would not expect much diffierence. I will attach another image that uses the full negative. I don't have the exposure recorded.

blakley

08-20-2006, 08:43

If you'd like to see a comparison of the Summitar with a bunch of other Leica-mount 50mm lenses, including pictures at apertures from wide-open to f/4, look at this link:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HHZ5 (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HHZ5)

Michael I.

08-20-2006, 14:50

I would like to have an LTM Summicron

I wouldnt mind having a canon P or a leica m of some kind but unless some philantropist turns up I doubt I will get anything better then my zorki 4. such is life :)

payasam

08-21-2006, 01:04

Jim, the reflections off the aircraft speak of artificial light of some sort, and the background is mostly dark, but the depth of field suggests that the aperture at which the picture was taken was not the largest. I don't think all that many screw mount Summicrons were made. Also, I recall reading that the first few (or many?) were Summitars with a star after the name. It's probably enough to keep in mind that, for about a decade, the Summitar was the fast normal for the Leica.

Thanks for the link, Blakley. Should serve as education.
[EDIT] Bob, at f/2 the Summitar does give distinctly ring-shaped out-of-focus highlights -- but then some of the other lenses you tested do that too, not including the Noctilux.

Michael, if your Zorki holds film flat, has the correct flange to film distance, no light leaks, and shutter speeds within the latitude of the film or films you use, there's no hurry to look at the other pasture. A good option is to make do with what you have, learning along the way. Many have done that with success, while damned few have dug up philanthropists who give people what they already have.

Michael I.

08-21-2006, 01:33

Michael, if your Zorki holds film flat, has the correct flange to film distance, no light leaks, and shutter speeds within the latitude of the film or films you use, there's no hurry to look at the other pasture. A good option is to make do with what you have, learning along the way. Many have done that with success, while damned few have dug up philanthropists who give people what they already have.

I have a very successful zorki 4 but I hate it's viewfinder. I dont like the fact the framing isnt precise and that you dont see outside the frame(like with a canonet for example). I postred some j-8 photos in my blog yesterday - i wonder how it compares to a summitar.Nevertheless I prefer it to the canonet which I couldnt get friendly with(a great lens with hideous 5 blade diaphragm on a so so body)

thafred

08-21-2006, 03:50

I postred some j-8 photos in my blog yesterday - i wonder how it compares to a summitar

Hi michael,

I´ve posted a thread yesterday compairing 8 50mm lenses, Summitar, J8, Cron, Nokton..... see here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=357673#post357673

I like both lenses but prefer the summitar for its collapsible feature and the focus tab. quality wise i think they are pretty equal.

Friedrich

Michael I.

08-21-2006, 04:23

what abot real world differences(flare,hood and filter availabilty-j 8 is no problem summitar is,performance wide open and stopped down)? my summitar is uncoated and I live in a very sunny place.

jkelly

08-21-2006, 08:05

I think both my Summar (left) and Summitar (right) are sharp lenses, but the Summitar is marginally sharper.

OldNick

08-21-2006, 08:26

Michael I.

08-21-2006, 08:52

Hoods and filters for the Summitar are no problem unless you are "hung up" on keeping everything authentic. I use a push-on Series VI adaptor and Series VI hood and filters. The unusual thread on the front of the Summitar requires a special match in accessories.

Jim N.

is the adaptor dedicated(summitar to series vi)or tension or what?how do I find one on the bay?is there a way to adapt 40.5 filters to the summitar?

OldNick

08-21-2006, 09:22

Michael, my Series VI adapter that I use for the Summitar is marked as follows: Kodak Series VI Adapter Ring 1 5/8 in. - 41mm Made in USA. It is a push-on friction fit with slight adjustment for snug fit. Since the lens outer surface is ribbed, it will not mark the lens. You might check with some of the filter supply houses to see if they have something similar. The ring also fits my Steinheil Culminar 85mm f/2.8 lens, and another smaller, similar ring fits my Elmar 50mm f/3.5. Hence, one set of Series VI filters will work with all of my LTM lenses except for my Jupiter 12.

Jim N.

Michael I.

08-21-2006, 09:39

ok,thanks for the info.I will scan the summitar photos, compare them with the j-8 and decide which one to sell.

payasam

08-22-2006, 00:29

As I think I said, Michael, flare is a problem with the Summitar. Easily the best hood is the one which Leitz made for the lens, the SOOPD. Since your Summitar is an early one, you will need the clamp-on version of this hood, not one of the two later clip-on types. Alternatively, any 41 mm push-on hood will do. That is an uncommon size, so a 42 mm one can be used with narrow strips of paper glued around its inside to reduce the inner diameter. Felt is also good. Do remember, though, that round hoods aren't much help. If you cannot get a rectangular hood (at one time Leitz, Canon, Nikon, just about everyone made them, and today's "petal" shape is no different in principle), making a push-on mask for the front of a round hood is not difficult. The Summitar takes filters with a most unusual tapered thread. The Series VI way leads to both a hood and filters; but it is an old road, not much travelled now.

Jim, why is your Culminar 41 mm while mine is 42 mm? I measured the thing with callipers before getting hold of a hood. The push-on adapter says only "42 Combined". Combined with what, I shall spend the rest of my days wondering.

VictorM.

08-22-2006, 09:33

is the adaptor dedicated(summitar to series vi)or tension or what?how do I find one on the bay?is there a way to adapt 40.5 filters to the summitar?

I use the adapter that came with a Canon Ser. 6 hood. It slips right on the Summitar. Any day now, I plan to see if the old Canon 'square' hood made for the Serenar 50/1.9 works on the Summitar.

payasam

09-06-2006, 00:48

Marc-A.

09-06-2006, 01:16

As I think I said, Michael, flare is a problem with the Summitar. Easily the best hood is the one which Leitz made for the lens, the SOOPD. Since your Summitar is an early one, you will need the clamp-on version of this hood, not one of the two later clip-on types. (...) Do remember, though, that round hoods aren't much help.

I agree with this, but I remember Todd Hanz said once (I didn't find the thread, but anyway) that he uses a round hood, the 12538 I guess, on its Summitar and it worked fine. That being said, you have to use a hood in order to reduce or eliminate flare: the square is probably better, and the second works at least.
Now this being said, Micheal, I do not understand why you're hesitating between the Summitar and the J8; though the J8 can be a great lens, properly used the Summitar is a fantastic lens.
Two examples from my last series:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=43380&cat=6305

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=43376&cat=500&ppuser=4396

Best,

Marc

Michael I.

09-06-2006, 01:40

Comments invited on this Summitar picture. Aperture, I think, was f/4, and shutter speed either 1/40 or 1/30. Fuji C-41, ISO 100, 4" by 6" print scanned, no manipulation although I see too much saturation in the reds.

Michael, in post 29 I think you mean ISO 100 and *slower*.

Yes you are right

to Marc-A;

Since I got the lens in a bargain state and it has a scratch and flare is rampant in Israel and my j-8 is proved to act well it is a qestion. I also have a hood and filter for 40.5(and a j12 on the way).

I sot two films through the summitar but didnt scan\enlarge any pics yet.The negs look ok.

Marc-A.

09-06-2006, 01:53

Since I got the lens in a bargain state and it has a scratch and flare is rampant in Israel and my j-8 is proved to act well it is a qestion. I also have a hood and filter for 40.5(and a j12 on the way).

Oh ok, I just forgot your lens had scratch on the rear glass ... it's an old thread now, so ... ;)
Then, you'd probably better keep the J8. I had a very good J8 (1955) until this morning ... sold with the Zorki 3M :(
Again from my last series, a pic taken with a J8 (Leica III, Trix)

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/medium/S_l_n_2.jpg

payasam

09-07-2006, 02:52

Good picture, Marc, and a good lens. As for hoods, there can be no doubt that their shape must match that of the image recorded on film. It is no coincidence that rectangular hoods were made for nearly all lenses which did not rotate when focussed on different distances. Draw a 1:1.5 rectangle and a circle large enough to go around the rectangle. You'll see large spaces between the circle and the rectangle: they are where the light gets in which can induce flare.

Michael, flare is not rampant in Israel or anywhere else. You find flare wherever the conditions for it exist. Ihese include bright sunlight, reflective sand or soil: but they also include lens design, lens imperfections. If you got your Summitar cheap, I'd advise you to keep it. Use the Jupiter for the bulk of your work and the Summitar at full aperture for what it does better than other lenses in that state.

jaapv

09-07-2006, 03:24

Michael, flare is not rampant in Israel or anywhere else.

I think he means that harsh light is more prevalent in a country like Israel than in some other countries, and he is right. It is sometimes hard to take flare-free pictures in high-contrast situations, as we all can testify, especially using older, less sophisticated lenses. But I would argue it is not a bad thing. Flare is often a creative element that makes a photograph special.

PaulEv

09-07-2006, 04:25

I have an early Summitar, that I got in a bargain state, no scratches but cleaning marks on the soft coating, I use this with the "Barn door hood"and flare is not been a problem here in sunny Aus.

I purchased origninally as a second faster standard lens with my Elmar on the iiia it has gravited to my M3, where it seems to live and never fails to impress if treated right. Do note Colour, requires thought, I prefer use in the F5.6 to f 8 range, but on b& W with a yellow filter, the character of the lens comes into its own.

Do not use without a hood though it can bite!!

Todd.Hanz

09-07-2006, 05:08

nice images guys. Here is a pic of the hood I use on my summitar, the IROOA.

Todd

Michael I.

09-07-2006, 17:27

Looks pricey.I got the lens for 75$ - I am not going to spend 35-70 on a hood - I will get another lens\body for that money.I adapted a plastic fed rectangular hood to it. Seems to work.

raid

09-07-2006, 17:30

I hope to be able to try out my Summitar for the first time coming weekend. From what I have read and seen discussed on this lens, it seems to be very popular.

Raid

payasam

09-08-2006, 02:14

Jaap, possibly you did not read the whole of my post. I spoke of bright sunlight as a cause of flare. We have some pretty harsh light in India. Often enough, for some pictures even soft paper and dilute developer were not enough to cope.

Pretty IROOA, Todd, but for the Summitar the hood is the SOOPD.

Michael, despite what I said above, the FED hood should work admirably. Sounds like the one for the Industar 61.

Michael I.

09-29-2006, 00:07

I fitted a FED hood.I shot a couple of rolls but didnt scan\enlarge them - the negatives seem fine.

i decided to send the lens for CLA anyway(Oleg Khalyavin with a j-12 - A friend has family ion a city where he lives and she's off to see them so shipping is free) - what's the point of having leitz glass when it doesn't perform at it's best?

planetjoe

09-29-2006, 00:57

I've been working - almost exclusively, now - with a later Summitar ("hex iris", for those of you that keep track of that sort of thing). Can't seem to get enough of it. I got a great hood arrangement from a fellow here on RFF, using a Tiffen Series VI adapter with a dedicated Summitar thread and a Kenko Series VI vented hood. There's a UV filter in there, somewhere, too. Turns out to be functional AND smart-looking. Round hood, although I haven't yet wrestled terribly with flare.

As folks have pointed out, a push-on Series VI adapter would do nicely, too. There are also Summitar thread --> E39 adapter rings out there.

I really like what this lens can do wide open in low light, which of course complicates the flare issue when point sources are around. However, the results so far have been sharp where I want them to be. A recent example (Delta 3200 @ EI1600):

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/200609090205_thedresser_4x6x100.jpg?5975

I've also got a round-iris Summitar, an earlier model, but I can't really tell the difference in performance...they say it's mostly a question of bokeh, but I think the signature (pardon the term) is very similar. The round iris is in need of a CLA, and then I'll probably decide between the two, and sell the other. Anyone have useful round vs. hex experience?

Because of my unabashed love for this lens, I'm leaning toward a Summar just for kicks...and, of course, a collapsible Summicron is inevitably in my future, as well.

Cheers,
--joe.

Michael I.

09-29-2006, 01:23

My summitar is an early 1939 uncoated round diaphragm model.
My problems with it are flare and a minimum apperture of 12.5(Israel has harsh light). I got it cheap due to a small scratch on the back element(off center).I already have a very good coated j-8 from 1958.
I will print the negs from both and compare them - then I deciede which one will stay and which one will go.

Xmas

09-29-2006, 06:35

Michael I.

Has it been aftermarked hard coated?

Noel

planetjoe

09-29-2006, 09:03

My summitar is an early 1939 uncoated round diaphragm model.

Sounds like it would be a very nice "indoor" lens, if that's possible. I've been hearing nice things about uncoated pre-war stuff, lately. In fact, while tracking Summars for sale, it would seem they're fetching more these days. You might want to think about the "going value" for your Summitar, in that case.

Also, you can't go wrong with a good J-8. It makes different kinds of images, though, certainly.

Cheers,
--joe.

Michael I.

09-30-2006, 00:55

Michael I.

Has it been aftermarked hard coated?

Noel

Nope.no coating.-any idea of value?

mauro scacco

10-01-2006, 08:28