Jump to content

Alternatives to LTM 50/2 Summitar


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a 50/2 hex diaphragm Summitar on my IIF. This was the lens my father bought new on the camera in Brooklyn in 1953. He never like the Summitar very much and neither do I. It is not particularly sharp, has odd jagged bokeh and has weird blue tinged rendition on colour reversal film. My father much preferred his pre-war Summar, which he had had coated in the Netherlands in about 1948/49. Whereas I would never sell the Summitar, in view of its ownership history, I am looking for a better lens to use on my IIF, as I have ended up not using it a lot because of the Summitar. I have narrowed my choice down to a collapsible "Thorium" Summicron or a collapsible Nikkor HC 50/2. I have not actually used either of these lenses so I am going on various internet opinions. 

 

I trust the opinions of the people on this forum more, so any advice or opinions you could give me would be very welcome. I want to get a period lens, close to the 1953 of my IIF, rather than a modern CV or Leica anniversary LTM lens and preferably collapsible. It will mainly be for use with colour reversal film. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canon Serenar collapsible from about 1951 looks like it copied the mount of the Summitar, but I've heard it evolved from the Nippon Kogaku that was made for Canon in prior years:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Although you don't want a modern lens, the Nickel Heliar 50 f2.0 is styled like the rigid Summar of 1932. This Heliar also doesn't collapse, but sure looks the part on my 1930s III, and has great build and good performance, even on my M9.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Best I can think of is 50mm Summicron collapsible in LTM. I have a bajonet version I like very much.

Pretty rare to find a good sample because it was quite rare in LTM version and a lot where ruined by 'cleaning' marks on the very soft front glass. Put an UV filter on it when you get it and never touch the glass again!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Best I can think of is 50mm Summicron collapsible in LTM. I have a bajonet version I like very much.

Pretty rare to find a good sample because it was quite rare in LTM version and a lot where ruined by 'cleaning' marks on the very soft front glass. Put an UV filter on it when you get it and never touch the glass again!

I have a couple of these lenses and can testify that the front element is very easily scratched. Both of mine went to John van Stelten for polishing and recoating and they are fine now. The recoating costs a fair amount but it was worth it to me.

 

Regards, Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the suggestions folks - very helpful

 

1) I have never had much luck with modern CV's over the years, with only one decent one out of four bought (15mm Super Wide Heliar). 

 

2) I will look out for a Canon Serenar. I had never heard they were a successor to the Nikkor's. Canon generally designed their own lenses. 

 

3) The chances of finding an unmarked Summicron are not high and if I did, the competition from the fondlers and put it in a display cupboard, wearing my white gloves merchants, would make the price very high. As James says, I could get it repolished and coated (by Malcolm Taylor in Oswestry) but that would neither be cheap nor quick. 

 

4) I have been offered another interesting lens, a Nikkor SC 5cm f1.4 in LTM not Nikon RF mount. Now I believe this lens is a licence built version of the post war West German Zeiss 50mm f1.5 Sonnar (the f1.4 being marketing BS - rounding down of f1.48). This is a lens I know well, from using my Opton Sonnar on my Contax IIA rangefinder and it is excellent. With Velvia 50, another stop frequently comes in handy. However, it is not collapsible and would not therefore, fit in my ER case, if I wanted to use that. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, 

 

Thanks for suggestions. To my eyes, the Canon 50/f1.8 just looks wrong on a IIF, as do the f1.4 and f1.2. With the black knurled barrel, it looks very Japanese, whereas the earlier f1.9 collapsible, looks identical to a Summar/Summitar/Summicron collapsible. As Velvia 50 will the film I will be using most, I would not want to go slower than my current f2. 

 

Wilson

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wilson, if you want a period lens, then you really should consider the Elmar 5cm 3.5. Yes it's a stop slower but so much performance in such a tiny package! I'd suggest buying the red scale version. If you don't like the aperture 'ring' on the original version you can find the later 2.8 and 3.5 in LTM mount also (the 3.5 is better though).

Link to post
Share on other sites

James, 

 

I have a number of front aperture adjustment versions of the 3.5 Elmar both nickel and black. Whereas I think they look perfect on my 1C standard and Model II, they look a bit "weedy" on the larger IIF. Also for colour reversal, they are uncoated. I don't really want to buy yet another version of what I already have. I had a 2.8 Elmar a few years ago and thought it was the worst made Leica lens I ever had. The wobbly barrel fitted where it touched and there were no detents on the aperture ring to speak of. It was new so I sent it to Solms (this was in 2006, when Leica service was probably at its worst) and it came back no better at all, so I returned it to Caplins, who I believe sent it back to Leica. In addition, for use with Velvia 50, I really don't want to lose two stops for shutter speed and achieving shallow DOF reasons

 

Wilson

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the suggestions folks - very helpful

 

2) I will look out for a Canon Serenar. I had never heard they were a successor to the Nikkor's. Canon generally designed their own lenses. 

 

According to Peter Dechert's book on Canon rangefinders I was wrong about the 1.9 Serenar. He comments that the earlier f2.0 was based on the Nikkor's Sonnar, but the 1.9 changed to a Gauss design.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Peter Dechert's book on Canon rangefinders I was wrong about the 1.9 Serenar. He comments that the earlier f2.0 was based on the Nikkor's Sonnar, but the 1.9 changed to a Gauss design.

Hmmmm - maybe not an improvement. I like Sonnars. I presume the 1.9 lens would be more like a Summar or Taylor Hobson Anastigmat in design. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my eyes, the Canon 50/f1.8 just looks wrong on a IIF, as do the f1.4 and f1.2. With the black knurled barrel, it looks very Japanese

 

 

. I had a 2.8 Elmar a few years ago and thought it was the worst made Leica lens I ever had. The wobbly barrel fitted where it touched and there were no detents on the aperture ring to speak of. It was new so I sent it to Solms (this was in 2006, when Leica service was probably at its worst) 

The Canon 1.8 was available earlier in all chrome, which is a good visual match:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

It sounds like you had the later Elmar-M 2.8. Although it's only 2.8, you might find a good "classic" Elmar LTM 2.8. This version was released for the IIIg when it came out, and later offered in M mount also. It has nice aperture control. This was the first Leica lens I used (in M mount) in the mid-60s, and it sold me on Leica.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 50/2 hex diaphragm Summitar on my IIF. This was the lens my father bought new on the camera in Brooklyn in 1953. He never like the Summitar very much and neither do I. It is not particularly sharp, has odd jagged bokeh and has weird blue tinged rendition on colour reversal film. My father much preferred his pre-war Summar, which he had had coated in the Netherlands in about 1948/49. Whereas I would never sell the Summitar, in view of its ownership history, I am looking for a better lens to use on my IIF, as I have ended up not using it a lot because of the Summitar. I have narrowed my choice down to a collapsible "Thorium" Summicron or a collapsible Nikkor HC 50/2. I have not actually used either of these lenses so I am going on various internet opinions. 

 

I trust the opinions of the people on this forum more, so any advice or opinions you could give me would be very welcome. I want to get a period lens, close to the 1953 of my IIF, rather than a modern CV or Leica anniversary LTM lens and preferably collapsible. It will mainly be for use with colour reversal film. 

 

Wilson

 

I also have a pre-war Summitar and it's not particularly sharp, are you looking for collapsible lens or also a rigid one would work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have a pre-war Summitar and it's not particularly sharp, are you looking for collapsible lens or also a rigid one would work?

Cuthbert, 

 

I would prefer collapsible. If I am going to go for a rigid, I will get the Nikkor 5cm f1.4. I have found a nice looking Canon Serenar 50/1.9 and it even comes with a good condition Canon IV attached. It is on eBay at the moment but not a buy it now, so I will have to wait. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

On doing a bit more research, the Serenar collapsible 5cm f1.9 does not get good reports. Soft and low contrast are just some of the things said about it. The Nikkor 5cm f1.4 on the other hand gets glowing reports, particularly when used wide open at nearer distances. It was apparently recomputed from the earlier licence built 5cm f1.5 model 7-3 Sonnar by a roomful of ladies at Nikkor with abacuses (abaci?). Its only downside is its weight, being a brass body lens with large heavy lumps of glass in it. Also at longer distances at f1.4, you can get veiling flare but this disappears at f2. There appear to be loads of different Japanese lenses in 5cm LTM both collapsible and rigid, which I have never heard of like Konishiroku (maybe later Konica), Tanaka Kogaku and so on. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you disregarded the collapsible feature I would have suggested a good Industar 61, possibly chromed, but if you need it small in SU they produced the 50, the problem is that it's relatively slow, f3.5.

 

Both lenses are sharper than my Summitar and more flare resistant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end of the day, I suspect I may stick to Leica and get a Summicron. One nice unintentional feature is that the natural yellowing of the glass that has occurred due to radiation from the thorium glass, is just about right to offset the bluing effect of early coating. Apparently you should not let kids handle these lenses but this may be an urban legend/scare tactics. 

 

I definitely want f2 or faster.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they used thorium from introduction up until about 1954/55. Supposedly the element nearest to the film is made from lead crystal glass to stop the radiation fogging the film. I am told if you leave fast film in a body with a thorium Summicron for any period, you will still get fogging. The lead glass would stop the alpha emission but would do little against the gamma rays. However I believe it is not dangerous with thorium dust from mining and gas mantle manufacturing being the only real public risks. Thorium 232 has a half life around 14 billion years so only decays very very slowly. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...