summar anyone?

[triplefinger]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/170770020226

[charjohncarter]

I had one years ago, it had a few problems. But it definitely had character, here are two (from 1964):

[harry01562]

If the lens is really in nice condition, with minimal cleaning marks, it should be worth the money spent. It is a very nice lens to use, in either B&W or color, with a character of its own. Also, its fairly scarce in the condition I mentioned. After all, it does date to the mid 30's, and most were used when cleaning with a necktie was considered OK.

[harry01562]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I like the photos posted above. They do show the character of the lens much better than words.

[buzzardkid]

Nice shots Charjohn! Like the playboy shot with the cocktail and sixties hairdo a lot.

I passed the link on to a fellow RFF-er who had an interest but sadly missed it.

Real kind of the OP to post this!

[Brian Legge]

I've only shot a single roll of color with my Summar - a roll of expired Potra 400 VC in a light leak filled FED 2.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5618737046/

I really need to try this lens again with more functional camera with a less saturation filled film. Love some of the results I've seen around.

[I Love Film]

Donna Michelle! Best centerfold ever! Is that her holding her issue?

[charjohncarter]

Originally Posted by I Love Film

Donna Michelle! Best centerfold ever! Is that her holding her issue?

Thanks everyone, but no that is not Donna Michelle. She (Donna) used to come to the gas station I worked in, in Reseda, CA. Now she lives in the Napa Sonoma area and I think is/was a professional photographer.

[Mudman]

Love mine. A few shots.

[bowieknife]

last year a very nice looking Summar was sold on Italian Ebay for ....50€ !
just one bidder ! too bad I missed it, in Europe they typically sell for around 100-150€, very perfect ones for 200€

[Mr_Flibble]

Like my SUMMAR

[Dralowid]

There should be plenty of Summars out there, take your pick of what's available but beware, some are better than others. It is a lens I wouldn't buy without seeing at first hand

Michael

[geebeewien]

I just received my 1937 Summar today attached to a Leica IIIb Screwmount camera. Allthough it shows quite some signs of use both outside as well as cleaning marks on the glasses, and some fogging inside, I have to say that I really like the charakter how the lens draws.





Pictures shot with my M8.

[traveler_101]

I'm just wondering is there a reason to buy this lens rather then a summitar, for instance? Does the Summar have particular qualities that make it a good lens to acquire? I have an Elmar 3.5 at the moment.

[geebeewien]

in my humble oppinion: no.
It just happend to be attached to a camera I got.
The Elmar 3,5/50 is a much better lens, image quality wise. Also the Summitar is much more advanced.
Yet, the Summar is an interesting pre-war uncoated lens. So if you want to experience the rendition of yesteryear, this is maybe as far as you can go within the Leica system.

[elmer3.5]

I´d love to have one summar, but never had the chance to find a sample without cleanig marks or scartches in the front element....

[ChipMcD]

Untitled by AmSteinsgraben, on Flickr


Untitled by AmSteinsgraben, on Flickr

Sorry for the reposts. It's a fun lens that I don't use often enough. Mine has light scratches all over the front element.

[ChipMcD]

Originally Posted by traveler_101

I'm just wondering is there a reason to buy this lens rather then a summitar, for instance? Does the Summar have particular qualities that make it a good lens to acquire? I have an Elmar 3.5 at the moment.

I have all three. Keep the Elmar and get the Summitar. Lots of them are in bad shape too, but you probably have abetter chance of finding a good Summitar.

[dirojas]

It is a very interesting lens. I have a nickel summar attached to a IIIa from my grandfather. Wonderful look. Regards

[helenhill]

1937 summar...

[helenhill]

[traveler_101]

I like the way the photographs of HelenHill (the parking arcade) and also Dirojas (both photographs) show texture: granularity in the photograph helps us to feel the surface of the object. I suppose Dirojas's photographs are cropped (or at least the second one is); there is no way to get that close to an object with a RF camera. Does the Summar's "signature" help achieve these kind of shots, or is it largely a matter of film-developer choice?

Edit: looking back over the thread, I wish to add ChipMcD's shot of the girders to the above comment, and also to say that I really like all the shots posted. They seem to manage a proper blend of photographic qualities with subject matter.

[dirojas]

Yep travaler_101, my second one has a slight crop but not too much, it was a pretty large window! My lens is from 1933 uncoated and has a minimmum focus distance of 1 meter. The film in my pictures was Fortepan 400, which has beautiful tonality and very rough grain. I think this is where texture comes from. Regards

[Mudman]

For the feller that just had one come in on his camera - get it cleaned before you judge it. That haze kills the lesn for me a lot. After cleaning, much sharper and defined. I think it gets a bad rap because it's an 70+ year old lens that normally needs some TLC before use.

[colyn]

Originally Posted by Mudman

For the feller that just had one come in on his camera - get it cleaned before you judge it. That haze kills the lesn for me a lot. After cleaning, much sharper and defined. I think it gets a bad rap because it's an 70+ year old lens that normally needs some TLC before use.

I would agree.

I have 2 Summars and a good cleaning did a lot for image quality..