1934 Summar [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

naturepix

09-19-2006, 17:10

I finally got a roll back with some images taken with a 1934 Summar that came on a IIIb I purchased about a month ago. As expected it is soft (it is after all 72 years old!), but I like the look. I scanned the image and did a bit of processing in PS, but not much. Turned it into a duotone (which I much prefer over straight b&w). The picture is of my lovely daughter. Tri-X at 400, F5.6 at 1/100, using a IIIf RD ST. Love that camera. It really is a joy to use.

Ronald M

09-19-2006, 17:42

Lovely picture. Let someone try that with modern glass.

I do appreciate them both though. I have an uncoated 3.5 elmar, Summar, all the way to the newest 50 2.8 and 90 4.

So many lenses, so little time.

aad

09-19-2006, 18:08

Very nice. I wonder if our old soft lenses looked this way when they were new, or if they have changed over the years.

Love my IIIf RDST, too.

wlewisiii

09-19-2006, 18:19

I really wish people would stop posting pictures like this. I just lost another auction for a Summar... :bang: :D

Very nice shot. It really does remind me of why I do want to get one though. Thank you for sharing it.

William

jesse1dog

09-20-2006, 02:01

Know the feeling about losing auctions for Summars and Summitars too!

It's a great picture with a tremendous nostalgic feel - it nearly could be the 1930s! I've got just a few of my grandfather's colour slides from the 1930s - Rollei not Leica. Their 'dottiness' is something to be seen to be believed! When was colour stock available in 35m and what was it like? The Summar was probably ahead of the colour fim stock then available.

Ronald M

09-20-2006, 02:30

My Summar is quite sharp stopped down. I have a family pic taken outside with it and printed on Cibachrome. Not sharp like a modern lens, but nice enough. My Summitars are sharper. I never warmed to my collapsible `cron, so I gave it to my son.

Pull processed E6 and and an uncoated lens gives a side that would make you puke if you saw it. It prints on Ciba beautifully and has been on display for 20 years still looking as new.

I went thru all this because the color neg at the time got very contrasty and looked terrible. Agfa came along with a nice color neg and that was the end of that process.

naturepix

09-20-2006, 03:10

Thanks for your comments. I bought the Summar (with the IIIb attached) from my local camera store in Grand Rapids, MI. They often have good stuff. I am trying to convince Greg there that he should sell me a Nikkor 3.5cm 2.5, which he let me borrow a couple of weeks ago. It is very nice. I also am hoping to find a reasonably priced Summitar. Would love to have one. One can never have enough Leicas or lenses.

Skinny McGee

09-20-2006, 04:12

I have a 1936 uncoated that I love .. Sometimes it takes very soft shots ans other times it gives very sharp images at the same F stop. I think maybe it has to do with light around effecting the uncoated glass. (angles and such)

jkelly

09-20-2006, 05:15

My most satisfying images, which is not the same as saying the most technically good, have come from my 1935 Summar. And it's true that not all Summar images are soft. It can produce very sharp images with sufficient light. But, they all have a unique quality.

ffttklackdedeng

09-20-2006, 07:12

Mine's from 1937, clean and almost free of cleaning marks, and the pictures are real sharp, so I guess that dreamy very nice 'dottiness' in naturepix's lovely picture might by a result of the lens condition?

I especially like the way it renders light sources, which 'extend' into their neighbourhood. And the out-of-focus areas are very nice, too.

naturepix

09-20-2006, 15:51

Hello JKelly,

I wish my Summar was as sharp as yours. It simply isn't... not much I can do about it. So, it will be my "soft" lens. I really do need a good 50, though.

I particularly like your horizontal river photo. It is wonderful.

raid

09-20-2006, 16:18

Here are some color photos taken with a Summar.

Raid

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=606483

jkelly

09-21-2006, 02:56

Raid,

Thank you for the compliment! I always enjoy seeing the shots of your lovely daughter. With as many lenses as you have, I'd say you pretty much have the spectrum covered.

Jack

raid

09-21-2006, 05:38

Jack:
Your posted photos are wonderful.I especially like the second one.

Yes, I think that I have covered the range of spectrum for vintage 50mm lenses that are available to me. I am sure that there are other 50mm that are great and that I have never used. I wish I could try out a super contrasty and sharp new 50mm lens to see if I even like it or whether it actually opens up a new type of photography for me.

Raid

harry01562

09-21-2006, 19:21

Lovely portrait... that's the very characteristic look of that lens. I own a 1935 Summar, and a 1948 Summitar that I never plan to sell. I doubt that I could afford to own another if I was so dumb. Many others like the soft, dare I say "glow" of these lenses, and what they do for portraits, especially.

The Canon 1.9 is almost as nice, and quite a bit cheaper, in most cases. It also has harder coating than the Summitar, and is equal in construction, IMHO.

Harry

ffttklackdedeng

09-24-2006, 12:47

Thought I might add some examples.. First one's real sharp (normal lighting conditions) while the second one was with strong backlighting ('king of uncontrolled flare'?) :)

ray_g

12-30-2006, 14:51

Just caught up on some scanning and found this thread. This was from a few months ago, when it was a little bit warmer. I like how the summar is soft wide open.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/60/338992573_c8240107c5_o.jpg

charjohncarter

12-30-2006, 16:41

I had an f2.0 Summar (prewar) in 1963-64, some of the best slides I have ever taken were with than lens on a IIIc. Wide open it made everthing look great, especially my girlfriend.

naturepix

12-30-2006, 18:30

Hello Ray_G,

Very nice portrait. Beautiful. Thanks for posting it.

Dave

reagan

12-30-2006, 19:46

I like how the summar is soft wide open.Hate to disagree, ray, but it's obvious on this one that the softness is from the pretty model and not the lens. ;) A great shot, worthy of a frame.

ray_g

12-31-2006, 06:32

Thanks, guys.

Les Lammers

12-31-2006, 07:06

naturepix

01-01-2007, 07:03

A CLA would do wonders for your Summar.

Les,

Thanks for the suggestion. I thought about that, but I'm afraid it would need a lot more than just a CLA. It looks like there is some separation... too expensive. Since I posted the Summar photo, I've picked up a beautiful Summitar. It's great. It's my current, favorite 50. So, the Summar will wait... for now.

Xmas

01-03-2007, 12:04

The Kodachrome film in 35mm came out after the 16mm and 8mm stock late '30s but was pretty sharp although desperately slow at 10 asa, kodacolour similar (32 asa I think) but less sharp. So the summar and elmar were struggling and you needed to stay smaller than f5.6 or 8 - so needed sunny day or solid tripod/static subject, you needed a hood as well. The B&W film was grainy and slow and solvent (fine grain) developers did not help speed sharpness, all depressing.

So we are spoilt with the last few cassettes of K25 (I have one left) and modern optics, high refractive crowns and flints, near diamond hard multi coatings, computer optimised, some aspherics etc. we can use 2.8 or 4, lots more uV near to poles, warmer near poles, longer summers etc.

Dont worry about that your daughter is pretty and you need to catch fleeting expressions with Fuji chrome 400.

Noel

Soeren Engelbrecht

01-05-2007, 12:02

Really nice. Here's my own daughter - Asta - taken on a 1936 Summar + 1938 IIIa. Wide open, obviously :-)

http://www.imagepro.dk/upload/Asta_Summar_web_IV.jpg

350D_user

01-05-2007, 12:17

I really wish people would stop posting pictures like this. I just lost another auction for a Summar... :bang: :D Thanks for the reminder. Not only did I miss out on a 5cm Elmar, I've also missed out on a 3.5cm Elmar. :(

Mind you, I have heard that I might be getting an LPL enlarger.

Er... </ot>

ffttklackdedeng

01-05-2007, 12:39

Really nice. Here's my own daughter - Asta - taken on a 1936 Summar + 1938 IIIa. Wide open, obviously :-)

http://www.imagepro.dk/upload/Asta_Summar_web_IV.jpg

Now that is a sweet and beautiful picture! Welcome aboard, Soeren!

mauro scacco

02-03-2007, 11:53

Here is the result from a summar of 1937
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=55380&ppuser=7461

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=54714&ppuser=7461

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=54715&ppuser=7461

Last 2 pic at 1/30 f2
The performance at f2 is excellent, the obliged compression at 150 pix doesn't return justice...
I must say that my summar is an eccellent lens, without scratches or fog...

Dan States

02-10-2007, 16:54

It should be noted that the Summar is from an era when all prints were manually processed, and burning and dodging was the name of the game.

Most of the softness of shots from the Summar can be eliminated with careful printing technique. It's a great old lens and looks wonderful on portraits when used around F3.2

Best wishes
Dan