Alternatives to LTM 50/2 Summitar

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

JC or Luigi, our Leica history experts will be able to give chapter and verse but my guess is the Leica stopped using thorium glass because of the manufacturing risks in making the glass and grinding the lens blanks, which would produce thorium dust and vapour, rather than any perceived risk to customers, once the thorium is locked away in the glass. I suspect the radiation level from old fashioned radium paint luminous watches, clocks and automotive instruments, is far greater. I know watch collector magazines recommend that you don't wear an old watch with a radium luminous paint dial, on a regular basis and they have to be repaired under very strict conditions. 

 

Wilson

[Cuthbert]

JC or Luigi, our Leica history experts will be able to give chapter and verse but my guess is the Leica stopped using thorium glass because of the manufacturing risks in making the glass and grinding the lens blanks, which would produce thorium dust and vapour, rather than any perceived risk to customers, once the thorium is locked away in the glass. I suspect the radiation level from old fashioned radium paint luminous watches, clocks and automotive instruments, is far greater. I know watch collector magazines recommend that you don't wear an old watch with a radium luminous paint dial, on a regular basis and they have to be repaired under very strict conditions. 

 

Wilson

 

I didn't know that, my 1939 Summicron is like glass...because it's uncoated, surely they didn't use thorium in it.

 

By the way, being a Pentaxian I own several Takumars that have Thorium, and I suspect also some of my Fujinon glass has it, of course the late Industar 61 were called L/D because they used a good amount of Lanthanium in the elements, so I'm not scared or surprised by it, I've seen several tests on youtube with Geigers and the radioactivity is never harmful for the user. I missed that bit because I thought the Germans both in the East and West didn't have access to these materials.

 

P.S. I also have vintage watches with radium, they are not dangerous as well at least for the wearer because the plexi blocks all alfa and beta radiations, and the gamma emissions are low. Of course it would be a bad idea to lick the dials or the hands...

[Advertisement]

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

[jc_braconi]

The Summicron began production in 1953 with threee elements of the new LaK9  and a thorium glass which is also radioactive and needs a rear lens of heavy lead glass to block the rays that would fog the film.

The redesign in 1969 by Mandler introduced new glass types and the famous lanthanium crown that gave the Summicron its name and fame was dropped and replaced by flint glass. with two goals reduce the cost of production and improve performance.

 

I dont think that they have in mind at that time the reseach of safe for employees.

[wlaidlaw]

JC,

 

There was a rumour that Leica stopped using thorium because of the expense of supplying lead underpants for the glass making gnomes 

 

Wilson

[otto.f]

I understand you lost confidence in the Summitar but I can follow the earlier suggestion in this topic of trying the Summitar around 1946 with round iris. I bought this one after pico tipped us here about it and I am really amazed about its performance and bokeh, although I do not use it with film. 

[wlaidlaw]

I understand you lost confidence in the Summitar but I can follow the earlier suggestion in this topic of trying the Summitar around 1946 with round iris. I bought this one after pico tipped us here about it and I am really amazed about its performance and bokeh, although I do not use it with film. 

My Summitar is OK on digital, albeit not as good as my contemporaneous 50/1.5 Opton Sonnar on a Muscelli adapter, as you can easily correct the blue tinge. However I think the blue tinge is a problem on colour reversal film on any Leica coated Summitar. If you look through my lens, you can clearly see the blue tinge. When my father had his Summar coated just after the war, he sent it to a company in Holland who used the Zeiss process. This had a brownish appearance rather than the blue of the Leica coating. The price of a good early version of the Summitar is about the same as a collapsible Summicron, which is recognised to be a better lens, so I can see little benefit of buying the older design. Lens technology improved a lot during the war, driven by the need for high resolution for aerial photography. 

 

Wilson

[giordano]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really liked the coated round-diaphragm Summitar I had long ago. Maybe not the sharpest, but at moderate apertures it was capable of a lovely "3-d" effect with early 70s Ektachrome. Some years later I had a collapsible M-mount Summicron which was a tiny bit sharper but not as lovable. But it's a matter of taste; I just feel it ought to be one or other of these two, especially if you need something collapsible.

[wlaidlaw]

John, 

 

It is interesting that you get quite a few people saying how much they liked the round diaphragm Summitar but I have never seen a single post from someone saying they liked the hex diaphragm model. I wonder if something other than the diaphragm was changed. It seemed an odd move because it was before the cost and production accountants turned up at Wetzlar (around 1970 from what I have been told). There is no advantage of a hex diaphragm other than maybe robustness that I can think of, so I wonder if the lens was recomputed and there was no room for the circular diaphragm mechanism. I have seen it suggested that in reality it has more in common with the later Summicron than the previous Summitar  but I have no hard evidence for this. 

 

Wilson

[Cuthbert]

The Summicron began production in 1953 with threee elements of the new LaK9  and a thorium glass which is also radioactive and needs a rear lens of heavy lead glass to block the rays that would fog the film.

The redesign in 1969 by Mandler introduced new glass types and the famous lanthanium crown that gave the Summicron its name and fame was dropped and replaced by flint glass. with two goals reduce the cost of production and improve performance.

 

I dont think that they have in mind at that time the reseach of safe for employees.

 

Interesting...this is not Summicron rated but I don't know if you are familiar with the Canon 50 mm f1.2:

 

http://www.antiquecameras.net/canon50mmf12ltm.html

 

A lot of them including mine look "foggy" inside because the coating of the fifth element (first after the iris) with the years gets damaged, the official theory is that the coating of the fourth element delaminated and caused the problem, now I wonder since the lens is very brownish if the rear reason is the thorium.

 

I disassembled my lens and in my case there are HOLES on the fifth elements.

[wlaidlaw]

Someone has contacted me off forum to say that the reason for the change to the hex diaphragm was very simple. Leica found a large supply of left over/unused diaphragms from the Summar and decided to use them up on the later version of the Summitar. The hex diaphragm is actually much more expensive to make than the 10 blade diaphragm due to the complicated mechanism that makes it curve forward on closure. You can see this in the photo below together with the very complicated mechanism,. You can also see the very blue tinge of the coating and the total absence of cleaning marks because basically the lens is unused from new. I doubt if my father took more than three reels of film with it and I have only taken another three. I only wet clean it with Zeiss tissues. 

 

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!

[jc_braconi]

JC,

 

There was a rumour that Leica stopped using thorium because of the expense of supplying lead underpants for the glass making gnomes 

 

Wilson

    !

[jc_braconi]

Have you tried it on digital cameras ?

[wlaidlaw]

Have you tried it on digital cameras ?

Yes. It is OK on digital but not as good as my Opton Sonnar, which is what I use when I want an old fashioned look or alternatively my 40mm Summicron-C. The blue tint is obviously no problem on digital because most of it is corrected by the AWB and the rest you can correct in PP. I think on digital, you tend to notice the soft corners more than you do on film. The Sonnar is much sharper in the corners and a little higher in contrast but still quite low compared with modern lenses. Neither of these lenses trigger the focus peaking until about f8. 

 

Wilson

[tobey bilek]

Red Scale 3.5 elmar.  They are coated.

 

50 1.5 Summarit is also nice.  You will need the proper shade and finding one is good condition is hard and costly when you do.

 

Summitar also made with round diaphragm leaves, later model

[philipus]

I'm sorry to hear your Summitar isn't performing well, Wilson. Mine, which is a coated 1950 model with round iris, works great including with transparency film. If I recall Puts's correctly, the Summitar was designed for use with colour films.

 

I realise you may not want another Summitar but do consider the 10-blade version as it does perform quite differently. They are quite easy to find for reasonable money in good condition.

 

You've probably seen it already but Red Dot has a Thorium Summicron in stock.

 

I have also read good things, over at RFF as I recall, about the Nikkor 1.4. I may very well be wrong but I believe Dirk Steffen (menos) has one.

 

br

Philip

[wlaidlaw]

Philip, 

 

I have looked at a few Summicrons but they have all been terribly yellow from the thorium radioactivity. I think I will wait until I have got some Paypal credit from selling a whole lot of surplus hifi and buy a mint 50/1.5 Summarit. 

 

Wilson

[farnz]

I also have a 50/1.4 Nikkor Kogaku and it's an excellent performer although (in my view) slightly outperformed by my Zeiss 50/1.5 Opton Sonnar.  Popular opinion advises to acquire the Nikkor with "Tokyo" on the front ring rather than "Japan" or "MioJ" (made in occupied Japan)  because the former is slightly better although I can't recall in which way.  Finding the right shade for a Nikkor isn't easy and on my IIIf the Nikkor is a very solid lump that I feel throws the balance out and the camera wants to topple forward.

 

Pete.

[wlaidlaw]

I also have a 50/1.4 Nikkor Kogaku and it's an excellent performer although (in my view) slightly outperformed by my Zeiss 50/1.5 Opton Sonnar.  Popular opinion advises to acquire the Nikkor with "Tokyo" on the front ring rather than "Japan" or "MioJ" (made in occupied Japan)  because the former is slightly better although I can't recall in which way.  Finding the right shade for a Nikkor isn't easy and on my IIIf the Nikkor is a very solid lump that I feel throws the balance out and the camera wants to topple forward.

 

Pete.

Pete, 

 

Many thanks for the information. If it was a pure question of performance, I would probably go for the Nikkor 5cm/1.4 but to keep the camera in the spirit of my father, who would never have considered putting anything other than a Leica lens on it (except possibly a Zeiss), I feel the Summarit would be more appropriate. I agree with you about the Opton Sonnar. I suspect it was the best 50mm lens of its period, which is amazing, when you consider it is close to a 20 years old design when the Opton versions were made, with only a minor update and coating to improve it. I have been reading about the manual recomputation (100 Japanese ladies with abacuses)  of the Sonnar to arrive at the Nikkor lens and apparently, while it was very successful at closer ranges, it is slightly compromised at longer distances compared with the Sonnar. I have a coupled M adapter for my Sonnar. 

 

Wilson

[AB007]

Hi Wilson,

 

I mostly use the Nikkor 50/1.4 on my M3 and digital Ms. I love it. The sharpest of the bunch. However, I love using the collapsible Nikkor 50/3.5 on my IIIf. There is a rigid 50/3.5 supposedly very rare. It works well on the IIIf but I can't close the IIIf case while using the rigid IIIf. The Nikkor 50/2 is also an excellent performer. My most used Nikkor LTMs are 50/1.4, 50/3.5 (collapsible) and 105/2.5. I use the Leica UV filter on the 50/3.5. I have attached the following pics of Nikkor 50s for size comparison. Thanks. 

 

AB

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[fiftyonepointsix]

The Rigid Nikkor 5cm F2 is a good choice, smoother Bokeh than the F1.4 lens, costs much less. The Collapsible 5cm F2 Nikkor is rare, and the mount does not hold the lens in place as you change the F-Stop. The difference in size between the Rigid version and early version when collapsed is negligible. The Nikkor lenses were made to the leica standard. The Zeiss lenses: the wartime 5cm F1.5 lenses will focus properly, but the mount is not as well made. The wartime mount is not as durable as a J-3 mount, let alone a Nikkor. If you just do not want anything but a Leica or Zeiss lens, go with a later collapsible Summicron. The Summarit (and Xenon) are good lenses, but they are big lenses. Well proportioned for a Canon 7 or Leica M. They block a substantial portion of the IIIf viewfinder.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/sets/72157646967728723

 

With the Hexagon vs round shape of the aperture rings: I believe it was done to minimize the effects of focus shift due to spherical aberration. The 5cm F1.5 Xenon also had a hexagon shape aperture. If you examine the 50/1.5 Zeiss Opton and modern 50/1.5 C-Sonnar, you will also see an odd shape to the aperture especially F2.8~F5.6.

 

The only downside about the Nikkor 5cm F2: removing the rear element requires a special tool. I made one out of the tubular leg of a broken tripod using a pipe cutter...

Edited July 4, 2015 by fiftyonepointsix