Summitar f1.5 picture quallity

[Perceval]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There has been some discussion over the years about the Summitar. I have a version from 1955 which has just been cleaned. Are there any opinions on its pure pictorial quality; as distinct from performance in lines per millimetre, contrast and sharpness?

[UliWer]

One of the worst features of the "Summitar" is that it is easely mixed up with the Summarit, which comes in a historical and a modern version

 

You mean the 2/5cm Summitar (collapsible precedessor of the Summicron) or the 1.5/5cm Summarit (non collapsible precedessor of the Summilux)?

(The modern 2.5/50 Summarit can be ruled out by your description).

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Perceval]

Abject apologies!....a careless typogrphical error on my part and I have fallen into the trap you describe. My lens is a SUMMARIT.

[wizard]

Are there any opinions on its pure pictorial quality; ...

 

At f1.5 the image quality is pretty horrible, or dream-like, depending on your point of view (quite soft and lots of flare caused by spherical aberration, coma etc.). Stopped down it gets very sharp from about f4, but contrast stays low and colors are, therefore, subdued. A good lens for certain subjects and moods, but don't use it as your day to day standard lens, there are much better ones.

 

Andy

[UliWer]

No reason to apology - one can only blame Leica for the confusion they caused by names for different lenses.

 

The optical design for the 1.5/5 cm Summarit was made by Schneider in the mid 30s and Leitz sold this lens originally under the name "Xenon" - to add further to the confusion. The post-war Summarit was coated but the optics stayed unchanged.

 

So it is a rather outdated concept and one should not exspect the lens to be comparable to the modern designs: fully opened contrast and resolution are very low, even with the coated version colours seem to be "foggy". Without a hood (which is well made, but really expensive) flare can be extreme. Stopped down to f5.6 it gets better, though even then I think a 50-Elmar or Summicron would be the better choice.

 

If one takes these "qualities" into account one may achieve some interesting results with it. You may find some in this thread:http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/113481-m8-old-glass.html

 

 

The lens has a very low resistance for IR. So if you use it on the M8 without filter, you get a really tough magenta. On the other hand it my be interesting for IR-photography.

[tobey bilek]

While not the sharpest lens wide open, I have made some very nice images with mine, on film mostly. I get a classic Leica image from mine, sort of soft but sharp hard to explain.

 

These are old lenses prone to fog with very delicate coatings outside and the inside ones are even softer. It is most important you get a good copy. Mine is clear inside, came with an E41 UV filter so the outside is basically never been cleaned. The are a few small 1 mm coating marks I can see with a magnifying glass, nothing with naked eye. Bought a proper shade for $150.

 

Most have been cleaned and the inside screwed up so you will never get it to perform properly unless you have it recoated.

 

Mine gives nice colors stopped down outside in good light. The 1.5 images are all on black & white film and I do not need high contrast paper to print them.

[Perceval]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks; I have a roll of Fujichrome Sensia 200ASA. I will use the first twelve frames with the Summarit, the next 12 with a Summitar and the last 12 with a 50mm f2 Summicron from 1956, making sure that some frames are exposed at the maximum apertures. All three have been cleaned and serviced and the results should be revealing