A couple of 50mm Summar photos

[colyn]

Taken today with my Leica IIIa and 50mm f/2 Summar lens. The front element looks as though it was cleaned with sandpaper but does surprisingly good.

Colors are a bit muted but still acceptable..

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3103/2893502432_346f64471c_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/2893502424_72e390c934_o.jpg

[Yammerman]

Is the soft focus hazy look normal for that lens or is it the result of the sand papering?

I was looking for a alternative to my Elmar as I'm getting bugged having to take off the filter to change the aperture.

I like the colours.

Ian

[colyn]

Is the soft focus hazy look normal for that lens or is it the result of the sand papering?

I was looking for a alternative to my Elmar as I'm getting bugged having to take off the filter to change the aperture.

I like the colours.

Ian

This lens is normally a bit soft but this one is slightly exaggerated by the scratched front element..

It does give a different rendering of colors..

[Sanders McNew]

Is the soft focus hazy look normal for that lens or is it the result of the sand papering?

No, it's not normal. A clear Summar will
deliver crisp contrasty negatives across most
of the frame. I've posted examples here over
the past year. Here are links to a few in my
flickr stream:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2633540398/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2812321681/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/734859024/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/535616331/

The Summar has its own vibe. If you want a
lens that gives some of the Summar's character
without its more pronounced vignetting and
softness at the corners, consider a Summitar:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2812323205/

(I have a pristine Summitar if you want one.)

Sanders

[colyn]

No, it's not normal. A clear Summar will
deliver crisp contrasty negatives across most
of the frame.
Sanders

No doubt..I've seen beautiful results from a clean/clear Summar...however when compared against other lens such as the Summitar or Summicron it does have some softness...not to the extent of my examples here though..

[TheHub]

I used a Summar this summer on my CL with Velvia. My Summar is a 1936 model with some slight scratching and maybe some fogging

Some photos, like this one:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3270/2858121956_bafe956840.jpg
came out very subdued

While others, like this one:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/2858120898_f77b1d1a3d.jpg
came out quite saturated

My set can be seen here (http://flickr.com/photos/nagoya_boston/sets/72157607295534363/)

I use the Summar as my main black and white lens

[mh2000]

mine was even worse! :)

(of course it was also trashed with cleaning marks)

[colyn]

mine was even worse! :)

(of course it was also trashed with cleaning marks)

In a low contrast situation you can see the lens is fairly sharp as in the below photo.. If I recall this photo was taken at 1/200th at f/3.2 nearly wide open.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2896326007_6ce2ee60ac_o.jpg

[rustysheepdog]

Years ago, I had a Summar that had been repolished, adjusted and coated by the now long-defunct Jason Adams Optical firm in London (UK). It was very good - slides projected with a Pradovit/Colorplan combination were critically sharp at f5.6. At f2 it was fine in low light situations - which, after all, is what it was meant for - and it got better when stopped down. It seemed to do better with Agfa CT18 than with Kodachrome II, shots with the latter seemed a little on the cool side. And I'd go so far as to say it was a far more useful lens than the 50mm f3.5 Elmar - especially if you were shooting slow colour reversal film.
I also had a typical Summar, scratches on the front and so on - there was absolutely no comparison ! I don't think photographers in the 1930s were badly off with the Summar, present day opinions are almost inevitably based on examples that have suffered with time.
Rusty.