ironringer Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share #21 Posted May 2, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) It may be that all the late 1940s-early 1950s Summaron 3.5 cm f3.5 lenses are softer-focus toward the edges. However considering the reputation of even old Leica lenses, I "feel" that another example may prove better than the lens I tested in Berlin. Soon I will try my friend's Summaron, and others if possible, to see if the Berlin example I tested was unique, or typical. Mr. Bertolotti mentions a good point - testing with a non-full-frame digital camera (APSC sensor or smaller) means that you work with the center of the lens glass, so the observed performance would be better than testing with a full-frame Leica M9. Unfortunately I can't afford to buy an M9 just to test old lenses for my IIIf, so I will continue to ask for recommendations from the Forum users. I may test my friend's Summaron with B&W film, shooting pictures at different apertures, of a big brick wall for a "test grid". That process takes longer but it will show real-world results with my IIIf. I do not know the Forum protocol - is it "beyond the rules" to mention that I am interested in a good 3.5 cm screwmount lens, perhaps the later Summaron f2.8, if a Forum member has one available? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 2, 2014 Posted May 2, 2014 Hi ironringer, Take a look here Which M adapter for 3.5 cm Summaron on M9?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ironringer Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share #22 Posted May 2, 2014 Returning to my original post about my original Leitz 9 cm M adapter ring that would not "lock" into position: I later tested this adapter ring on 2 other Leica M bodies, and it would not lock into place on those bodies either. Therefore one of the bayonet "teeth" must be slightly bent or damaged. I was able to return this faulty 9 cm M adapter ring to the Ottawa camera store where I had purchased it, and exchanged it for another identical adapter, that works fine on an M body. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted May 2, 2014 Share #23 Posted May 2, 2014 I agree with Luigi Bertolotti; the pictures do not convince me that this copy of your 35/3.5 is particularly bad. I can't see any differences between right and left but if you are convinced of that, the explanation of this can also be sought in the Chinese ring being not even. Seems even more likely to me than an optical error in the lens that would produce such an error Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironringer Posted May 3, 2014 Author Share #24 Posted May 3, 2014 I used "no Chinese parts", only original Leica-Leitz products, in my tests: Summaron f3.5 cm lens, Wetzlar-made 5 cm adapter ring with cutout, and a genuine M9 camera. Based on my 25+ test pictures, there is no doubt that when used at f3.5 the lens I tested has soft focus at the sides, more than I expected. This lens may have been a poor example, or perhaps all early 1950s Summarons are soft-focus at the sides. However the lens was sharp enough in center, and I was pleased with the overall performance (colour, contrast, "look") of this 60-year-old lens. Not bad, but there may be better examples out there. Today I borrowed another LTM Summaron 3.5 cm f3.5 lens to test with my IIIf, and after I have the film developed and scanned, I will report the results. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted May 3, 2014 Share #25 Posted May 3, 2014 I've never seen a Summaron picture perfectly sharp in the corners when used wide open. It would be pretty rare with any older Leica lens for sharpness across the frame with the aperture wide open. I say 'rare' but I can't think of any. This is why f/5.6 is generally regarded as the prime aperture because below it and above it lenses tend to display faults. Not that it should put anybody off using all the available apertures, photographs are a sum of parts, not just sharpness. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 3, 2014 Share #26 Posted May 3, 2014 (edited) ...Today I borrowed another LTM Summaron 3.5 cm f3.5 lens to test with my IIIf, and after I have the film developed and scanned, I will report the results. I am curios to see the results... with film I think is another matter... Btw... I tend to think that a possible "unflatness" of a Chinese adapter isn't sufficient to give an appreciable effect on a 35mm f 3,5 (maybe, unless the uneven thickness is SO evident, even at sight) : I have the screwmount lens that is most critical in this sense (Summarex 85 f 1,5) and tested it on M with one original and two 3rd parties... one of them gave indeed a certain "unbalancing" between focus at left/right (test on a trivial sheet with squares... a well-flat newspaper can be used the same way, with long focals), but you noticed it at f1,5...f2... and nothing at f2,8 & over (around 1,5 meter distance if I remember well) Edited May 3, 2014 by luigi bertolotti 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted May 3, 2014 Share #27 Posted May 3, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is the Summaron 35/2.8 M-mount, 1961. First the whole picture, then left and right edges and corners, then middle. 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/225380-which-m-adapter-for-35-cm-summaron-on-m9/?do=findComment&comment=2582023'>More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 3, 2014 Share #28 Posted May 3, 2014 Thanks... full frame sensor and f 2,8, I suppose... for what I see (with jpg posted is better to be cautios) a certain degree of uneviness can be spotted in the concrete's grain... maybe, abit also on bricks' borders... really minimal imho... Is this your feeling too, on the originals ? (it looks to be a rainy weekend, here... I'm tempted to start a set of tests with my 35s... starting from Summicron asph and going down to Elmar, old Summilux and SummaronS included... ). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted May 3, 2014 Share #29 Posted May 3, 2014 Yes it is made with the MM. I see a little unevenness too, but I see that as belonging to the wall and not to the lens. It is 2.8 indeed. I cannot see a difference between left and right. You see, these bricks have less grain at some spots than other Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 4, 2014 Share #30 Posted May 4, 2014 (edited) I have made a sort of extreme test with my Summaron 35 f 2,8 wide open, a printed page (height of fonts 4/5 mm) at center and at right/left of the frame... noticeable difference (but no between right/left... I post only center+right) As a refernece, did the same with the Summicron 35 asph at f2. Summaron - center 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! Summaron - right Summicron asph - center Summicron asph - right Distance was around 1,2 meters: heavy crop, of course: straight jpg out of camera, lens detection off (the Summicron indeed is coded... but I forgot to set), M was at a rather high ISO (1250) being in interiors; illumination not perfect (uneven at center/right, but the Summaron has, anyway, not surprisingly, more loss of light at borders) Edited May 4, 2014 by luigi bertolotti 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Summaron - right Summicron asph - center Summicron asph - right Distance was around 1,2 meters: heavy crop, of course: straight jpg out of camera, lens detection off (the Summicron indeed is coded... but I forgot to set), M was at a rather high ISO (1250) being in interiors; illumination not perfect (uneven at center/right, but the Summaron has, anyway, not surprisingly, more loss of light at borders) ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/225380-which-m-adapter-for-35-cm-summaron-on-m9/?do=findComment&comment=2582664'>More sharing options...
otto.f Posted May 4, 2014 Share #31 Posted May 4, 2014 That's the way to do it when it rains Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted May 5, 2014 Share #32 Posted May 5, 2014 IMHO I think this kind of tests must be made on a stativ repro table to be sure to be in an exact parallel plans. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 5, 2014 Share #33 Posted May 5, 2014 A little tip which I was told by the late Stuart Bean of H.A.Baker, the Leica dealers in Lewes. A soft unwashed piece of chamois leather is very useful for unscrewing LTM to M adapter rings. It is also very good for unscrewing stuck filters from the front of lenses, as it gives a very good grip. On the LTM adapters, it prevents getting nasty cuts on your hands from the bayonet lugs. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JMF Posted May 5, 2014 Share #34 Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) A little tip which I was told by the late Stuart Bean of H.A.Baker, the Leica dealers in Lewes. A soft unwashed piece of chamois leather is very useful for unscrewing LTM to M adapter rings. It is also very good for unscrewing stuck filters from the front of lenses, as it gives a very good grip. On the LTM adapters, it prevents getting nasty cuts on your hands from the bayonet lugs. Wilson A piece of bicycle inner tube does the job too. Edited May 5, 2014 by jmanivelle Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 5, 2014 Share #35 Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) IMHO I think this kind of tests must be made on a stativ repro table to be sure to be in an exact parallel plans. ..I used a sort of... Edited May 5, 2014 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted May 5, 2014 Share #36 Posted May 5, 2014 A piece of bicycle inner tube does the job too. A little tip which I was told by the late Stuart Bean of H.A.Baker, the Leica dealers in Lewes. A soft unwashed piece of chamois leather is very useful for unscrewing LTM to M adapter rings. It is also very good for unscrewing stuck filters from the front of lenses, as it gives a very good grip. On the LTM adapters, it prevents getting nasty cuts on your hands from the bayonet lugs. Wilson Just use the rear M cap for unscrew LTM to M adapter rings Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 7, 2014 Share #37 Posted May 7, 2014 Just use the rear M cap for unscrew LTM to M adapter rings I have destroyed at least one cap doing that. The plastic is quite soft on more recent caps. The older bakelite ones are fine for this job. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted May 8, 2014 Share #38 Posted May 8, 2014 I have destroyed at least one cap doing that. The plastic is quite soft on more recent caps. The older bakelite ones are fine for this job. Wilson indeed, better to specify Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironringer Posted May 9, 2014 Author Share #39 Posted May 9, 2014 Thank you otto f. for sharing the brick wall tests, and Mr. Bertolotti for sharing the printed page tests. There is clearly a softer focus toward the edges for both Summaron 35/2.8 lenses. So I would expect MORE-soft edge focus if the same tests were made with a Summaron 35/3.5 lens. Sunny weather delayed my outdoor tests of a borrowed, screwmount, Summaron 35/3.5 lens, since my IIIf is loaded with ISO400 B&W film. By waiting until sundown I was able to use f3.5 wide open and 1/1000 exposure time, taking pictures of a brick wall (grid test) and an outdoor scene (real world use). Next week I will have the film developed and scanned. This raises a question – did Leica ever make ND filters in A36 or E39 sizes? I have never seen any for sale. ND4 (2 stops) or ND8 (3 stops) filters would be useful when trying to use screwmount Leica lenses "wide open", with modern fast films. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 9, 2014 Share #40 Posted May 9, 2014 You may have to do like I did when I wanted an IR/UV filter for using my 50 Summitar on my M8. Buy any old tapered thread Leica fit filter and an e39 or bigger filter of the type you want. Then take them to a good local manufacturing optician and ask them to cut the e39 glass to fit in the A36 ring. I was pleasantly surprised how little they charged to do this. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.