Which pre WWII ltm lenses would/do you most like to use on M digital?

[Matlock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, pippy said:

 

I'm going to be asking for some help from our Friendly Fellow Forumites over in the Historica sub-forum as most sources (which I've seen so far) suggest that the change of designation from the lens being a 'Xenon' to a 'Summitar' state 1947 yet the link above states that there were 103(!) "Summitar" named examples produced in 1939...

In which case I'll nominate the 50mm f1.5 Summitar!

 

Phiilp.

I take you mean Summarit  not Summitar.

[pippy]

14 minutes ago, Matlock said:

I take you mean Summarit  not Summitar.

............

Ooops.......Yes! Thanks for picking-up on that rather important little detail, Matlock, and allowing me to clarify things.

Sorry to all for the mistake and any confusion caused!

Philip.

EDIT : Having checked and I managed to type the name correct just once out of the four 'mentions' in my post. "Must Do Better" as my end-of-school report invariably noted...

Edited February 1, 2021 by pippy

[Matlock]

6 minutes ago, pippy said:

............

Ooops.......Yes! Thanks for picking-up on that rather important little detail, Matlock, and allowing me to clarify things.

Sorry to all for the mistake and any confusion caused!

Philip.

A very easy mistake to make with all the rather similar Leica lens names.

I have a Xenon and two Summarits (one LTM and one M), interesting lenses.

[pippy]

13 minutes ago, Matlock said:

...I have a Xenon and two Summarits (one LTM and one M), interesting lenses...

What a lovely trio to have to hand! And yes; I've only had my '53 M-mount version four days now (and have used it on the first three of those) so I'm still very much in the 'discovery' period but so far I'm absolutely delighted with how it performs from Crazy-Stuff at f1.5 to amazingly sharp (the biggest surprise) from c. f5.6 down. In point of fact I'm about to head out for some fresh air and, as it's now dark outside, I'll take it with me to see how it performs on the M Monochrom at night...

Having read so many stories about how these are neither very sharp nor having much in the way of contrast I have to say mine shows neither of these traits. The optics are so clean it looks almost brand-new.

As far as the 'Leitz Names' is concerned I have been familiar with the 'Summitar' designation for amost as long as I've been alive. It's been posted a few times over the years but just for fits'n'giggles here's Yours Truly aged - about 5 - with my dad's IIIb and Summitar;

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!

Philip.

Edited February 1, 2021 by pippy

[BrianS]

My Xenon has very clean glass. I also opened it up and cleaned out inner haze.

 

Wide-Open on the M9

 

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!

Xenon_5cmF15_2 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Xenon_5cmF15_1 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

It's much better than the reputation would have you believe.

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by BrianS

[BradS]

I do not now nor have I ever owned a digital camera...so, forgive me if this is a dumb question....

What does digital have to do with it? I mean, how is the question posed by the OP different from, "What pre-WW2 lens do you like?" 

[Matlock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pippy said:

What a lovely trio to have to hand! And yes; I've only had my '53 M-mount version four days now (and have used it on the first three of those) so I'm still very much in the 'discovery' period but so far I'm absolutely delighted with how it performs from Crazy-Stuff at f1.5 to amazingly sharp (the biggest surprise) from c. f5.6 down. In point of fact I'm about to head out for some fresh air and, as it's now dark outside, I'll take it with me to see how it performs on the M Monochrom at night...

Having read so many stories about how these are neither very sharp nor having much in the way of contrast I have to say mine shows neither of these traits. The optics are so clean it looks almost brand-new.

As far as the 'Leitz Names' is concerned I have been familiar with the 'Summitar' designation for amost as long as I've been alive. It's been posted a few times over the years but just for fits'n'giggles here's Yours Truly aged - about 5 - with my dad's IIIb and Summitar;

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!

Philip.

Great picture Philip.

As far as the lenses are concerned I have no complaints both on film and digital. Sharp but not "clinical". 

Good luck with the night shots.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Matlock said:

Great picture Philip.......As far as the lenses are concerned I have no complaints both on film and digital. Sharp but not "clinical"......Good luck with the night shots.

Thanks for the comments and the goodwill message, Matlock. Picture of me was taken by my mum on her trusty Agfa Isolette (and the dress-code was 'Informal').

I just rattled-off a few dozen frames with the aim of deliberately trying to excite as much flare / ghosting / anything unexpected as possible and the lens performed in a much more 'normal' fashion than I was expecting. Without wishing to head-off too far OT (apparently there were some 103 serial numbers allocated to the 'Summarit-named' version of the Xenon in 1939 so still sort-of on-topic) here's one fairly typical snap.

No attempts nor pretence to artistic content but, importantly, there was a street-lamp literally just out-of-frame top-left. Shot snapped at 1/60th f2 @ ISO 2500. Image greatly downsized but otherwise is essentially sooc (click for slightly sharper image);

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!

Philip.

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by pippy

[pippy]

2 hours ago, BradS said:

I do not now nor have I ever owned a digital camera...so, forgive me if this is a dumb question....

What does digital have to do with it? I mean, how is the question posed by the OP different from, "What pre-WW2 lens do you like?" 

Not a dumb question at all, Brad; quite the reverse.

There are a few angles which might be considered but just for starters here's one major aspect. Before these digital days of 100% (or more) Pixel-Peeping very few photographers complained about how their Leitz lenses performed in terms of image quality. Film was / is a fairly forgiving medium. Digital isn't. If there's a 'flaw' in a lens' optical design then it can be discovered/diagnosed/discussed/decried - or deified - and debated ad nauseam.

A whole new raft of lens designs ensued so as to perform 'better' (i.e. with fewer inherent technically optical flaws) for these new times and for this new type of capturing medium. This is (probably!) the main reason we have so many FLE, APO and ASPH lenses for our photographic enjoyment.

OTOH some photographers found that they didn't like this rendering which most of the new, more 'optically perfect' lenses had to offer because this optical perfection seemed to come tied-in with a different, more neutral lens-character in terms of rendering and so many photographers subsequently rediscovered the beauty which the older lenses can bring to the party.

There are other aspects, too, but - for me - it is this lack of perfection which makes some earlier lenses very interesting to use with a digital body whose own superb performance actually heightens the awareness of these 'flaws'.

Philip.

EDIT : Nor, just to be perfectly clear, do I have any problems whatsoever with the rendering of these newer lenses - I have a few myself and love what they, in turn, can achieve! They are simply different brushes for different paintings. All have their place.

Edited February 1, 2021 by pippy

[BradS]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

Not a dumb question at all, Brad; quite the reverse.

There are a few angles which might be considered but just for starters here's one major aspect. Before these digital days of 100% (or more) Pixel-Peeping very few photographers complained about how their Leitz lenses performed in terms of image quality. Film was / is a fairly forgiving medium. Digital isn't. If there's a 'flaw' in a lens' optical design then it can be discovered/diagnosed/discussed/decried - or deified - and debated ad nauseam.

A whole new raft of lens designs ensued so as to perform 'better' (i.e. with fewer inherent technically optical flaws) for these new times and for this new type of capturing medium. This is (probably!) the main reason we have so many FLE, APO and ASPH lenses for our photographic enjoyment.

OTOH some photographers found that they didn't like this rendering which most of the new, more 'optically perfect' lenses had to offer because this optical perfection seemed to come tied-in with a different, more neutral lens-character in terms of rendering and so many photographers subsequently rediscovered the beauty which the older lenses can bring to the party.

There are other aspects, too, but - for me - it is this lack of perfection which makes some earlier lenses very interesting to use with a digital body whose own superb performance actually heightens the awareness of these 'flaws'.

Philip.

EDIT : Nor, just to be perfectly clear, do I have any problems whatsoever with the rendering of these newer lenses - I have a few myself and love what they, in turn, can achieve! They are simply different brushes for different paintings. All have their place.

Fantastic answer. Thank you! 

[Matlock]

9 hours ago, pippy said:

Thanks for the comments and the goodwill message, Matlock. Picture of me was taken by my mum on her trusty Agfa Isolette (and the dress-code was 'Informal').

I just rattled-off a few dozen frames with the aim of deliberately trying to excite as much flare / ghosting / anything unexpected as possible and the lens performed in a much more 'normal' fashion than I was expecting. Without wishing to head-off too far OT (apparently there were some 103 serial numbers allocated to the 'Summarit-named' version of the Xenon in 1939 so still sort-of on-topic) here's one fairly typical snap.

No attempts nor pretence to artistic content but, importantly, there was a street-lamp literally just out-of-frame top-left. Shot snapped at 1/60th f2 @ ISO 2500. Image greatly downsized but otherwise is essentially sooc (click for slightly sharper image);

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!

Philip.

 

I did think about taking some night shots. However we don't have street lights in our village and the nearest filling station is 3 miles away. 😀

[pippy]

On 1/25/2021 at 8:49 PM, pgk said:

Perhaps I should have said before 1940😉.

Good News (for me)!

The possibility of there being 103 examples of the Xenon manufactured by Leitz in 1939 as the 50mm f1.5 Summarit has been confirmed(*) so my nomination stands!

Philip.

(*) Post # 12 here;  https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/317567-name-change-from-50mm-f15-xenon-to-summarit-and-one-further-question/?tab=comments#comment-4132219