Is my 35mm Summaron (2.8) a dud?

[bernstein1234]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi folks, recently I got to purchase a 35mm f/2.8 Summaron (non goggled) from a shop which sells pre-loved lenses. The lens physical condition was excellent, no haze, dust, visible scratches and so on. I understand this lens was in production from as far back as 1958.

I did some test shots with ME (Typ 220, equivalent of M9) and found the images to consistently have this retro look and light veiling especially in #2. Is my lens faulty or is this normal for 35mm Summaron? All images were captured in DNG format and processed minimally (highlights, shadows, contrast, exposure) in LR5.

 

 

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!

Edited May 20, 2023 by bernstein1234

[bernstein1234]

More images. 35 Summaron with ME(Typ 220)

 

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!

[bernstein1234]

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!

[bernstein1234]

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!

[bernstein1234]

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!

[spydrxx]

What aperture were you shooting at? Were you using a lens hood or UV filter in any of the shots? The lens does exhibit some softness until around f4-5.6.

[bernstein1234]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

25 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

What aperture were you shooting at? Were you using a lens hood or UV filter in any of the shots? The lens does exhibit some softness until around f4-5.6.

Thanks for the reply. All were captured with 2.8 except for the last one which was opened to around 5.6 or f8. No hood and no filter used.

[Ccoppola82]

This seems soft compared to mine. 

[bernstein1234]

When shot up close eg human portraitures the eyes were sharp. Perhaps my copy is more optimised for close ups. My copy is also susceptible to flare and stray lights entering the lens resulting in soft glow.

[Pyrogallol]

They look good to me, especially at f2.8 without a hood. Don’t expect the biting micro contrast of a modern lens.

If you are only using a digital camera ! You can adjust contrast and colour etc in the computer. Try it with a real film camera.

I have almost a dozen Summarons in all the varieties.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Pyrogallol

[KFo]

That's the interesting thing with older lenses.  While they are sometimes technically "defective" in optical terms if it works for your style then use it.  To me this looks pretty interesting.

Sharpness; I don't know what to say other than to quote HCB:  "sharpness is a bourgeois concept."

[pgk]

1 hour ago, bernstein1234 said:

When shot up close eg human portraitures the eyes were sharp. Perhaps my copy is more optimised for close ups. My copy is also susceptible to flare and stray lights entering the lens resulting in soft glow.

Herer's my take; I would firstly use an LED torch to shine through the lens. It may have light haze and/or dust  which will increase overall flare, reduce contrast as a result and may cause highlight 'glow' which can soften the image. The torch will accentuate this and make it easier to see. Stopping down may improve the lens though, if the central haze is lower. If it has haze and/or dust it will simply require a clean, lubrication and possibly adjustment (CLA) which is quite possible and effective with such a lens. One thing which gets easily overlooked is that whilst lder lenses are not as 'good' as modern lenses in terms of their contrast nor resolution, they can produce lovely imagery as long as it is accepted that these factors are their characteristics. I have much older lenses than yours which, given the right subject and lighting, can still produce great images. I am not so sure that the images you posted are quite so well suited to your lens as they contain lots of detail and really need good contrast to be as 'punchy' as they need to be. Personally I would take such photos on a more modern lens.

[spydrxx]

I think the above comments pretty well reflect my experience with 30+ years using this lens. I regret selling it when I needed some money, and quite frankly more modern contrast and resolution were drawing me away from older lenses at the time. I looked thru the many hundreds of negatives I'd used the lens on and came to the realization that they lacked that "snap" I thought so important. As I look back today, with more modern post processing capabilities, I realize how good that lens really was. It is too expensive for me to reacquire, especially since I have other 35mm lenses; but I did recently close a deal on the f/3.5 version for my Barnacks, and in testing it on a Sony A7Rii I'm quite pleased with it. So my advice is use it and become familiar with its nuances, it really is a good earlier lens. Once you can take advantage of its characteristics, I think you too will appreciate its special place in the Leica lineup.

[ocean2059]

To OP: I think that your lens is good but maybe needing a CLA service. Many of older Elmar and Summaron 35mm LTM/M lenses are with single coated glass elements so the contrast is lower compared with modern 35mm M lenses. But if you are using digital M, this can be readily take care of. What I have found fascinating is that these older Leica 35mm lenses (Elmar, Summaron) are great for Monochrome M bodies where the lower contrast brings out many interesting characters that modern lenses are lacking. 

[hansvons]

I'd need a 35mm Summaron to compare to be sure. But my experience with vintage glass tells me that your lens renders images as expected. Like the early 35mm Summicrons, the 35mm Summaron is a double Gauss design, which is outdated today. They tend to be soft at open aperture, even smeary art the edges and show the famous/infamous Leica glow. At f4, they sharpen up, with their highest sharpness at f8-11. Your images mirror that very well. Please note that lenses of that vintage render low-contrast images, which back then worked nicely with the relatively steep gamma curves of film stocks at their time.

These lenses are full of character and absolutely have their place today. They shine in back-lit, moody environments and people shots, as they flare super nicely and are gentle to the skin. If you are looking for sharpness from edge to edge in cityscapes and landscapes, you should look for lenses from the 90ies until today. That'd be the 35mm Summicron ASPH and the new APO sibling in Leica terms.

[TomB_tx]

I have both a Summaron 2.8 and Summicron from that era - both had a CLA after I got them. I find the Summaron images better overall - higher contrast and at least equally sharp.

I also have a 3.5 ltm Summaron that I got about 1969 to use with a IIIf while in the military. About 15 years ago I tried it again and found very low contrast, etc. - so had a CLA done to it. This improvement was amazing - so a CLA is usually needed on lenses of that era by now.

[jdlaing]

Try it with the hood.

[Keith (M)]

My Summaron f2.8 dates from 1967.  I have never had any concerns about performance whether used with digital or film.  Last time I used it was ago the beginning of the month on M11 and two examples attached - the first at f2.8 (not an aperture I use much with they lens as I generally use it for landscapes, cityscapes etc) and one at f11.  Bought lens twelve years ago and always use it with hood 12585H (and a yellow or orange filter for use on M10M or b&w film).  Couldn't describer it as a 'characterful' lens but the results are (to my eyes) generally pleasing.

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!

 

[bernstein1234]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

I'd need a 35mm Summaron to compare to be sure. But my experience with vintage glass tells me that your lens renders images as expected. Like the early 35mm Summicrons, the 35mm Summaron is a double Gauss design, which is outdated today. They tend to be soft at open aperture, even smeary art the edges and show the famous/infamous Leica glow. At f4, they sharpen up, with their highest sharpness at f8-11. Your images mirror that very well. Please note that lenses of that vintage render low-contrast images, which back then worked nicely with the relatively steep gamma curves of film stocks at their time.

These lenses are full of character and absolutely have their place today. They shine in back-lit, moody environments and people shots, as they flare super nicely and are gentle to the skin. If you are looking for sharpness from edge to edge in cityscapes and landscapes, you should look for lenses from the 90ies until today. That'd be the 35mm Summicron ASPH and the new APO sibling in Leica terms.

Thank you for your well-written explanation. I will try out this lens more to learn about its behaviour. I bought this lens initially due to its size and portability, where I can just take out my camera and shoot on the fly. I had never imagined this lens to be a people shots camera, but nevertheless I'll try it out more on various scenarios.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hansvons]

4 hours ago, bernstein1234 said:

I had never imagined this lens to be a people shots camera, but nevertheless I'll try it out more on various scenarios.

And if I may, please try to shoot against the sun. Check how and when it starts to flare. That's when it shows its strengths. You can't have that with most modern lenses.

BTW, these old lenses show a bent focal plane that straightens up when stopping down. You can use that to your advantage by placing subjects that are farther away than the primary subject in focus at the edge of the frame. That bent focal plane is the reason why at full aperture the edges tend to be soft or even outright out of focus when shooting charts or landscapes. That changes when subjects are arranged in a staggered manner.