Sharp Contrasty Summar?

[fastdap@mac.com]

I posted here, a bit ago, about Valentines day in Malibu with my 111c and Summar. Well I have the results back in the form of tri-x negs and a proof. The only problem is that I was expecting a soft (by today's standards), flat, and prone to flare image; I did not get any of these characteristics! Upon fairly careful examination (with a loop) the images are very sharp, snappy, and quite capable of handling adverse flare conditions (bright highlights off water). Anyone else find such from their Summar?
mark

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by fastdap@mac.com

I posted here, a bit ago, about Valentines day in Malibu with my 111c and Summar. Well I have the results back in the form of tri-x negs and a proof. The only problem is that I was expecting a soft (by today's standards), flat, and prone to flare image; I did not get any of these characteristics! Upon fairly careful examination (with a loop) the images are very sharp, snappy, and quite capable of handling adverse flare conditions (bright highlights off water). Anyone else find such from their Summar?
mark

The revenge of Summar... it has always brought the omen of the less appreciated Leitz lens... I have one, nickel, not fine cosmetic but good glass... well it IS soft but only when wide open or almost (3,2...4,5...lovely old scale...); otherwise, not so different from an Elmar 50: I think that the general consensus about Summar=Soft is a sort of Long, LONG tradition dating back to times of 15 ASA films, and people who bought a f2 lens did it mainly to USE it a f2, or very near, to have decent exposure times. And do not forget that Summar 50 went into the market AFTER the legendary Zeiss Sonnar for Contax... no direct experience with it, but it is a famous lens... at that times people used to discuss hard about photo equip not much differently from now, I think, and the Leitz/Zeiss confrontation was a top discussion item; let's imagine (probably true) that Sonnar resulted really BETTER than Summar at f2: : from all the photo community, a unique sentence was written in the stone for the centuries: SUMMAR IS SOFT !

[earleygallery]

I have a Summar which has produced 'soft' images. My version has some internal fogging however which could be the main reason for this (I still haven't taken it apart to try to clean it).

To make a fair assessment I think you really need to look at some 10X8's - contacts may well appear sharper (and post an example here).

Luigi makes some interesting points. I guess by todays standards the Summar is definately soft but in its day maybe not?

[fastdap@mac.com]

Originally Posted by earleygallery

I have a Summar which has produced 'soft' images. My version has some internal fogging however which could be the main reason for this (I still haven't taken it apart to try to clean it).

To make a fair assessment I think you really need to look at some 10X8's - contacts may well appear sharper (and post an example here).

Luigi makes some interesting points. I guess by todays standards the Summar is definately soft but in its day maybe not?

The prints are on their way!

[doubice]

...."Sharp Contrasty Summar".....

An oxymoron.....

Oxymoron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jan

[fastdap@mac.com]

Originally Posted by doubice

...."Sharp Contrasty Summar".....

An oxymoron.....

Oxymoron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jan

Exactly!

[lars_bergquist]

The redoubtable Dr. Paul Wolff spoke of the Summar as 'painterly' and said that it couldn't handle light sources in the image. He never used the Summar except wide open; if he was able to stop down to 3.5, he used an Elmar.

Also, in those days, 'speed lenses' were never as good even at mid-apertures as medium speed lenses (and 3.5 was a fast medium speed in those days!). This is also true about the Zeiss Sonnar lenses. These handled reflexes better than both the Summar and the contemporaneous Xenon because incredible feats of cementing kept the number of free glass/air surfaces down to six. This however reduced the 'degrees of freedom' that the designers had available, so something had to give. That something was flatness of field. Both the 2.0 and the 1.5 Sonnars of the 1930's--'40's exhibited very strong curvature of field.

The first fast camera lens to end that discussion by being good both wide open and stopped down was in fact the first 5 cm Summicron, and that was the main cause of its high reputation and fame.

The old man from the Age of Max Berek

[Dan States]

The Summar is a VERY sharp lens if it is working properly...too bad most are not.

I have been luck to find one that cleaned up perfectly and is sharp from F2.6 or so on. By F3.2 the only difference between my Summar and any other 50 is the contrast...or lack therof.

A good rule for using a Summar is to only use THAT lens on the roll of black and white film and to develop about 20% longer than you are used to with modern coated lenses. You need to extend the contrast range of the negative to match what modern papers are tuned for.

If you think about what the common photographic problems in the 30's they were too much contrast in fine grain films and managing grain in the high speed films.

If you process your own negs you can still get amazing full scale images from the Summar, but you need to be in the mindset of developing negs from uncoated lenses.

Finally, an orange filter is a big plus when shooting landscapes with uncoated lenses. It will help clear up the UV and bring out more definition of the tonal scale.

By the way, until the days of digital scanning of color negatives I would say forget the Summar for color. Today the amazing control you have over saturation and contrast means you can get great color prints from the Summar with a bit of tweaking from your scans.

Attached is a shot I made at F2.2 and 1/40th. It's a quick and dirty scan but you can see that for what it was designed for the Summar can excel.

Best wishes
Dan

[fastdap@mac.com]

Originally Posted by Dan States

The Summar is a VERY sharp lens if it is working properly...too bad most are not.

I have been luck to find one that cleaned up perfectly and is sharp from F2.6 or so on. By F3.2 the only difference between my Summar and any other 50 is the contrast...or lack therof.

A good rule for using a Summar is to only use THAT lens on the roll of black and white film and to develop about 20% longer than you are used to with modern coated lenses. You need to extend the contrast range of the negative to match what modern papers are tuned for.

If you think about what the common photographic problems in the 30's they were too much contrast in fine grain films and managing grain in the high speed films.

If you process your own negs you can still get amazing full scale images from the Summar, but you need to be in the mindset of developing negs from uncoated lenses.

Finally, an orange filter is a big plus when shooting landscapes with uncoated lenses. It will help clear up the UV and bring out more definition of the tonal scale.

By the way, until the days of digital scanning of color negatives I would say forget the Summar for color. Today the amazing control you have over saturation and contrast means you can get great color prints from the Summar with a bit of tweaking from your scans.

Attached is a shot I made at F2.2 and 1/40th. It's a quick and dirty scan but you can see that for what it was designed for the Summar can excel.

Best wishes
Dan

Thanks Dan, as I suspected because my tri-x negs have a great look. I still haven't yet had the time to make prints by I can tell by the negs, the images look great. I'm going to test the lens further (wide open) and then make some prints and will post here.
Thanks again, mark

[flatfour]

As so many have said on this forum in the past it does depend on how the lens has been treated by its owner. My 1936 lens has always had a lens cap on it and has only had one other owner. It produces quite acceptable punchy prints but i think some Summars especially coated lenses don't seem to have the same 'bite'