Jump to content

Early Summarit - what is so good?


pico

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am prompted by opinions about the early LTM Summarit, largely from one member who strikes me as particularly discriminating. So I ask the impossible for words - what's so great about it? My wife has one on the Leica her father left her, but it is so beat up it is impossible to evaluate. Really, the lens was so full of dust and scratches - here's the best image from the middle of the frame. Quite poor

 

Of course the answer to my question is "Buy one and let the lens speak for itself." I would still value the words from a couple esteemed members first.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While far from being an esteemed member, it is always fun to have an uninformed opinion. 

 

My understanding is that the old Summarit's value was that it was fast. In those days, f1.5 was pretty impressive. There was no expectation of great resolution at f1.5 (you were just happy to not have to shoot at 1/8 sec).

 

At that time for good resolution, the choice was probably a f3.5 Elmar. Or maybe a contemporary/early Summicron. Even a Summitar at f2.0 was not a show stopper when it comes to image quality.

 

Like the dog walking on its hind legs, you are impressed that it is done at all, not at how well it is done.

 

Were I a collector, I would want one. As a photographer - no interest. If I wanted to use an old lens, I would get a late f3.5 Elmar.

Edited by Michael Hiles
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Imho the question is simple : it's the only Leitz superluminous classic that one can have and enjoy onto a Barnack at a decent cost (the few Summiluxes 50 in LTM are "collectors' items" - fine Xenons are really scarce).  On any Leica M, digital or not, a Summilux of the '60s is simply and always better... there is no some special "magic" in the Summarit wide open, and for my experience, the OOF of my Summilux of 1961 is more pleasant than the one of my Summarit Taylor Hobson of 1950 (with good glass - have also a BM Summarit of 1958, but with very poor glass... images no much better than the one you posted)

Edited by luigi bertolotti
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am prompted by opinions about the early LTM Summarit, largely from one member who strikes me as particularly discriminating. So I ask the impossible for words - what's so great about it? My wife has one on the Leica her father left her, but it is so beat up it is impossible to evaluate. Really, the lens was so full of dust and scratches - here's the best image from the middle of the frame. Quite poor

 

Of course the answer to my question is "Buy one and let the lens speak for itself." I would still value the words from a couple esteemed members first.

Actually, when stopped down it is pretty good, wide open the plane of focus is still pretty sharp in the center. The OOF rendering can be a bit wild and swirly , though and it does benefit by a  slight contrast boost in postprocessing. A lot of its bad rep comes from scratched examples with haze. If you get a good one, it is still a pleasure to use in a vintage way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the first at least halfway decent fast 50mm in screw-mount (and in M-mount for that matter, since it predated the Summicrons). It's a nice f/3.5 lens - with faster apertures available "for emergency use only," like those tiny "emergency" spare tires in some cars.

 

It's just the Xenon with "better" postwar coating - although it is a "dipped" coating rather than vapor-deposited, and thus soft, and thus prone to the easy scratching and "cleaning marks" and/or haze.

 

I ran across a very clean one and tried it earlier this spring on the M10 for a week or so (I had an idea it might replace my 35 and 90 temporarily while they went in for 6-bit coding - ultimately took a different path.) It produced some very competent images - stopped down. The lower contrast (even with clean coating) is, as always, a help in stretching dynamic range on digital. Gives a touch of "1950s" Robert-Franky feel.

 

Someone asked me recently to recommend a Leica M 50mm that would "image" a bit like his v.1 35 Summilux non-ASPH at full aperture, and that is what the Summarit does. Dreamy. He realized he already had a Summarit that came on an M3 body, and had never bothered to try it - and reported that he did like it a lot in that context.

 

Here's a sample at about f/3.5-4 on the M10. It does have a nice brilliance to it in the overall version, if a bit "loose" in resolution off-center in the crop. Slightly OOF areas can be a bit streaky, as though they were motion-blur (doubtful in this case, shot at 1/750).

 

While it is no Summilux or Summicron, let's put it this way - if someone told me "You must shoot for the rest of your life with this lens - or give up photography" - I could make it work. I even kinda miss it now.

 

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!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And - some additonal 50 Summarit + M10 images here on the M10 image thread (bottom of the page):

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268528-m10-the-image-thread/page-21

 

(and I should have mentioned - the Summarit I used was in native M mount, not adapted LTM. Same glass AKAIK).

Edited by adan
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I got my 5cm/f1.5 Summarit a couple of months ago, I was somewhat taken aback by the total lack of anything approaching contrast when used wide open. Even though the lens appears in good condition with very little front element damage, no apparent fogging or fungus and a relatively modest amount of dust and paint flaking, when used wide open, everything looks like it is taken in a faint grey fog and it is very flare and veiling glare prone. Compared with two similar period lenses I have, a 1954 Zeiss Opton 5cm/f1.5 Sonnar and a 1952 Canon 5cm/f1.8 Hiroshi Serenar, the Summarit is very low contrast and fairly low resolution. Now what I don't know is how much invisible oil contamination of the air surfaces there is. I know this can degrade lens performance, by altering the refractive index at the glass/air interface, so I will reserve my final judgement until after I get it fully serviced by either Malcolm Taylor or Alan Starkie. Malcolm apparently has a minor tweak of the element spacing, which changes the optimum lens performance aperture from f2.8 to f1.5, which I will get done if I send him the lens. I agree that stopped down it improves quite a lot but for top class LTM performance from f2 downwards, I have the incomparable 1999 Special Edition Series 5 LTM 50mm Summicron, which is probably the best 50mm LTM lens ever made or ever will be made. 

 

I will post some images taken with the SL later today. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of photos and no I was not going outside as it is raining cats and dogs in Provence today. I have done no PP at all other than convert in ACR to JPEG and re-size. I think you can easily see the foggy look I was talking about. These are both taken at f1.5 with an M240. The lens is a seemingly pretty near mint (probably Exc++) cosmetically 1957 model LTM Summarit. Ignore the EXIF if you were looking at it, as the Rayqual LTM to LM adapter ring I used, is coded to use with my series 5 LTM 50mm Summicron. 

 

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

You may call the development from the Summarit to the 1. version of the Summilux and then the 2. version (pre-asph) a constant but only gradual progress. Colours become clearer as contrast increases, the "bokeh" gets less swirly nervous and more easygoing.

 

Though  I think there are no "big leaps" forward like you may notice for the "rigid" Summicron compared to the collapsible version and the Summitar, or perhaps the last version of the Elmar-M compared to its many precedessors - the modern apsherical Summilux is really not comparable, it's a totally different lens.

 

First Summarit, then 1. version then 2. version Summilux, all fully opened, no changes in Lightroom (all examples have faultless glass)

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks more like the results that I am having; Wilson's lens appears to have some kind of veiling flare or haze. My point is that the (indeed rather low) contrast at wider apertures can easily be boosted, getting pretty decent results.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

jaapv almost spoiled the game... :)

 

 

You may guess which lens is this:

 

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!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing that my lens has oil contamination, which at least will clean off easily in Mr. Taylor's capable hands. At least I hope my lens has oil contamination or else it is a "Friday" lens. There should have been no veiling glare as it was taken indoors with no additional lighting.

 

I have to admit when I bought my LTM series 5 Anniversary Summicron, I had not realised that Leica did a 50mm/f1.4 Summilux V3 (pre-ASPH) in that 1999 anniversary LTM series or I would have bought one of those instead. OK it would have been a bit more expensive than the Summicron, which I had a friend buy in a sale in Japan and only paid £1150 for a mint copy but if I factor in what the Summarit cost me and what Malcolm Taylor's bill will be, I suspect there would not be that much in it. 

Edited by wlaidlaw
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good lens if you have good copy and putting it for good use. I'm not sure if putting of old Leitz lens on modern digital body is any good. I used to have good (clean, not scratched at all) copy. It was good lens on film M.

 

Scan of the darkroom print from negative taken with LTM Summarit 50 1.5.

 

20741042632_d2da0391af.jpg

 

Scan of very old, long time expired cinefilm Kodak 50D, exposed and developed recently:

 

19369906891_e6920b311f.jpg

 

In my office I have 8x10 darkroom print from the negative taken by this lens at f5.6. It is flawless and I, personally, I prefer its rendering to Nokton 50 1.5 VM. On film.

 

Here is the scan of the negative taken with this lens:

 

M4_2_Summitar5015_K400_HC110_July_2020.J

 

I think it is just wrong lens for digital Leica cameras. Well, I sold mine before getting digital Leica. It was just too heavy lens to use it all day.

Edited by Ko.Fe.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best results will be on a Monochrom.That will bring out the subtilities of a low-contrast tonal range. I'll have a  try at it in the near future.

I wouldn't know why it would be the wrong lens on a digital M. I have never been able to find a lens that was specifically "better" on either film or sensor.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

First example @ 1.5 on MM1, processed in ON1 Photo RAW, mild contrast boost only, no sharpening

 

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

A  high-contrast process:

 

 

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!

 

I'll look for some more shots this weekend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap, 

 

You definitely don't seem to be getting the fogging that I seem to be getting. I think my Summarit needs to go on its holidays to Oswestry (Malcolm Taylor). Still I have my lovely new (to me) mint Summaron to play with on my LTM cameras, whose performance is way better than I expected. 

 

I took the Summarit outside for the first time on digital. The B&W films I took with it on my Model III, are all away at Labo Gris in Lyon, being processed with all the sense of urgency of an arthritic snail. In subdued sunlight, it is a lot better than the test shots I took inside and the fogging is nothing like as apparent. I have to agree it certainly has interesting "painterly" bokeh. I boosted the contrast in ACR on this shot and applied a tiny bit of sharpening in unsharp mask

 

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!

  • Like 1
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...