Coated Summar

[breandan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm new to the Forum and if this question has been answered previously, I apologise.

 

In 1964 I bought a IIIc with a coated (the coating is a bluish colour) collapsible f2 Summar, lens No. 247422 in London. The lens is obviously older than the camera and would have been uncoated to begin with. It looks to be nickel - not chromed.

Was it common to have older lenses coated and where would this have been done? Could any of you very knowledgeable people help me?

[scsambrook]

I think if you search the forum posts you'll find quite a bit about coating older lenses, but very briefly -Yes, in the late 1940s and the 1950s there was a flourishing industry in the UK coating older lenses. I'm not sure if all these operators optimised their deposits for particular lenses, but the consensus from users at the time (and I can recall the mid to late 50s very well) was that there was a worthwhile improvement.

 

Summars were a popular thing for recoating, not least because the front glass seems to have been physically soft and easily abraded, and a 'polish and coating' job was maybe the optical trade's equivalent of a 'short back and sides' at the barbers. Well, that's a bit of info to start you off ...

[Guest Ron (Netherlands)]

Must have been quite common practise. I have a 1933 35mm nickel elmar with coated lenses.

 

[lars_bergquist]

This was close to a cottage industry. AGA in Sweden -- they had an active optical branch and was not exactly a 'cottage', in spite of the kitchen stoves -- offered the service.

 

But some of the more rustic operations coated only the outer surfaces (and the metal of the mount ...)

 

And yes, Leitz did offer to coat older Leica lenses, until the early 1950's, I think.

 

The old tweed-coated man

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

I have a Summar non collapsible that is coated.

Used it a lot on Kodachrome but have not tried it on the M8/M9. Will do so now that my appetite has been whetted.

Teddy

[DavidStone]

I have a 1936 collapsible Summar that had the usual fine abrasions on the front element when I bought it some years ago. Despite this, it produced some good negatives.

 

I subsequently had it cleaned, the front element re-polished, and all the surfaces single-coated at Balham Optics in London. They warned me that their coating was not as hard as that on modern lenses, and would scratch easily, so I fitted a 1A filter to protect it. I've used it on film, and also on my M8. It retains all the characteristics of the Summar, with a distictive 'look' that's (not surprisingly) somewhere between a coated and uncoated lens.

 

It seems clear that many of these lenses were subsequently coated, perhaps because the Summar has more air to glass surfaces than the Elmars, so the benefit would be greater.

 

David

[breandan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks to everybody who replied re coated Summar. I have learned a lot from your answers and also from the Forum. I bought the IIIc(which had already been synchronised for flash) and the Summar for £30, complete, in 1964. That was quite a lot of money for an impoverished student in those days! - so I had to sadly trade in a Leica II + 3.5 Elmar 5 cm(no flash) for £13 in part exchange.

I have used the camera for a lot of b/w and for some colour prints and transparencies down through the years. The flash synchronisation was redone once by the now defunct Wallace Heaton - otherwise it has been, and still is, a treasured and faithful friend.

 

I hope the M9 which should arrive this week will be as reliable and see me out!

Breandan

[scsambrook]

. . . . I hope the M9 which should arrive this week will be as reliable and see me out!

Breandan

 

Keep the old one! And use the Summar on the M9 - love to see some pictures from it