Washed out colors with summar lens

Hello

 

This is my first post in this forum. One year ago, I bought a Leica IIIa with a summar lens. I know that this lens is

very prone to flare, so I take care to have the sun always in my back. I do not use a hood for this lens, since it is

too large for me to carry around. Most photos I take show an effect which looks like the colors are washed out in

the center of the image. Is it flare or does my lens have some problems (the summar lens is from 1938 and not

coated). I had it cleaned a few weeks ago by a professional leica dealer, so there is no fungus on the lens.

Thanks for your help!<div></div>

Looks like plain old overexposure to me.<P>If you're shooting slide film you need to try different exposures until you find the best ISO for you. If it's print film then it could be either over exposed negative or (more likely) poor commercial printing.

I would say that is a very reasonable image for an old lens. The same shot taken with a modern Summicron would be

totally different but if you want the retro look, you've got it. Leica also recommend a hood at all times. The don't do that just

to sell lens hoods

The lens is uncoated and flare prone. It also vignettes which is why the Summitar was developed. Vignetting is darkening towards the corners.

 

You need less exposure and a lens shade would help but not cure the flare problem.

 

This pic has two problems, vignetting and overexposure.

 

The colors will never be as intense as with a coated or multicoated lens. It also will not give exposures as deep into the shadow areas. They will simply be black without detail. Bright highlights also tend to merge together will less separation than modern lenses.

 

If you want a more modern look yet retain the small size, get a coated 50 3.5 Elmar or Cosina Voitlander 50 2.5. The Coated Elmar has a character all its own and the CV 50 is quite modern.

Older lenses tend to have lower contrast. Secondly a lens hood might be a good idea even though you're not

shooting toward the sun. Third, old leica lenses have soft lens coating and could have some scratches which reduce

contrast. Fourth, some older leica lenses can be fogged from oil particles and for other reasons. None of those

things keep you from getting a picture, but it could reduce the contrast even past what the lens was capable of new.

 

So, I think you'd doing pretty well really. And you can always bring it into your computer and up the contrast some.

 

And you can use this look to your advantage. I have a shot was taken with a russian leica copy with it's 50/3.5 with

similar flare prone/lower contrast characteristics, with some contrast addition from photoshop. It has a slightly

dreamier different look than a modern sharp as a razor lens.

Sorry, couldn't post the picture, I'll try again<div></div>

It appears to have some flare in the central portion as well as being overexposed by about 1 stop. The exposure issue could be easily corrected in the future by taking better measurement, and the flare could be minimized by using a hood. If you choose to not use a hood, then just be prepared to experience a lot of flare issues. I had this crop up with one lens of mine, and once I capitulated and put a hood on, I was much more satisfied with my shots.

You might find that this lens performs better with B&W film,it has a very soft feel which will give you a quality you will not get with a

modern lens ,it does fall off towards the edges but that is part of the quality of the lens ,also shoot into the sun and see what happens ,the

flare might well make the image better

Although your real problem is overexposure, note that even though there is blue sky above, there are no shadows on the ground. You are never going to get saturated colors in images taken in cloudy/overcast conditions, or in the shade.<P>P.S. I don't see any flare in this picture.

View apertures of f/4 or wider with the Summar as "emergency" settings. Unless you deliberately want low contrast and serious light falloff.

 

The Summar is definitely low contrast lens, but yours seems a bit lower than normal. Are you sure there's no cleaning marks, no haze, and the black edging paint is in good shape? My Summar is clear as water when you look through it. If yours isn't, it's not doing what the lens could do from the factory.

 

I have a 1945 coated Elmar 90/4, whose coating has mostly been cleaned off. It gets a nasty white haze spot in the middle at larger apertures. A slighty older one, no coating, but crystal clean, blows it away. So it doesn't take much "damage" to cause problems with these lenses.

 

Alternately, dedicate the Summar to working with Kodachrome 64, which is absolutely the most contrasty color film in the world.

As others have said...a tad overexposed but actually (on my monitor) looks pretty good.

 

I always, always shoot with a hood...they are really not that big !

I don't see any flare here either.

 

regards

 

andy

After taking a closer look, I do see the spot in the middle. That doesn't look normal to me, but I'm used to lenses in at least the mid '40's range. I get this same effect when using an IR filter on my Nikon 50mm. I suspect it's because light is bouncing around the lens and reflecting off the aperture blades. A lens hood should help a little. I really like the effect of this lens. It may be due in large part because of the lack of coating that modern lenses have.

Embrace the Summar -- truly a class Leica-look lens. I think you'll like it better for B&W<div></div>

Thanks for the many contributions, it was a pleasure to read them. I'll take care for overexposure the next time. The film I normally use (200 ASA) is a no-name product from a drug store (DM), but in view of its reddish color, I believe it is a Kodak film. Just one last question, when is vignetting stronger, at f2 or at f12,5?

With most lenses, the larger the aperture NUMBER, the less the vignetting.<P>Just one more suggestion -- since you are using color negative film, I suggest that you take that one negative back to your photofinisher and tell him that it's too light, and ask to have it reprinted, and see what they come up with. It is my guess that the problem is with the film or the printing, not with your camera/lens.<P>And good luck -- the Leica IIIa is a wonderful camera.

@ Bill

I scanned the negative with a Nikon Coolscan V. So I think, the problem is probably overexposure. The lens is clean (no fog), some minor scratches on the front lens and a deeper scratsh on the rear lens. Other images on the same film do not show (or less) this washed out colors and some others do. The next picture shows the same effect on the upper right corner.

One more try ...<div></div>

I would be interested to see some black and white shot with this lens. Slow film like FP4. As others have commented this era of lens would be better matched to film and emulsion of that period i.e. monochrome. One day I will explore some of

these wonderful old lenses but as yet I am not ready, preferring Leica's more modern incarnations

There is some vignetting but to me it looks as if there is weak hot spot off centre, could there be a mis alignment of a lens element? Iwould suggest that with any old camera it is vital to check th lens/ shutter combination at the iso speed of he most commonly used film- Ido this with Ilford delta 100 using a sekonic exposure meter. This will give the correct exposure information for that camera.In this instance it has to be remembered that the Summitar with its larger first elementwas designed to improve on the summar. It is very difficult to test a screw Leica shutter except by using film,M Shutters can be tested easily electronicallybut although they are usually consistent they are not as accurate as electronic shutters

I agree with Rodney -- doesn't look like simple over-exposure; there may be something a bit weird about your lens, or perhaps even the way film is sitting in the film holder. I shoot color with a Summar on a Konica Hexar RF and have not seen the particular unevenness in your images. (<a href=" of mine is here</a>.)

The exposure looks bang-on for the foreground subjects, but too much for the more reflective buildings in the background. I believe part of the problem is simply the high contrast ratio in the two shots.

Could it be the blonde in the center of the frame?

 

I have a Summar, too. It really does need a hood and is best suited for selected subjects: portraits, still lifes, perhaps.

 

Have a look round the Internet to see if you can track down a Fikus hood, which is multi-purpose.

 

Film choice is critical. I think an extra-color slide or print film will work much better.

I get a light spot in the centre when taking into a bright sky, and that's at small apertures. My Summar is very clean, has no cleaning marks, elements properly allingned and edges blackenned.

 

To counteract it I like to use the barn-door, Summicron hood (slightly smaller mount than the exclusively Summitar one) mounted via a SOOGZ A36 to E39 adaptor - which the hood clamps onto the outside of. Anyway it's easy to carry, though bulky when on the camera. But, closed, also works as a sort-of lens-cap.

 

Like Bill says, in the first image there are no shadows so colour and contrast must have been boosted, unless there was a very bright hazey light, and that can be quite glaring.

 

The colour from the Summar and Fuji Reala can be wonderful. I can no longer get it processed to my satisfaction, though (in the UK).

It doesn't take much in the way of cleaning marks on a Summar to change it from an old-fashioned lens to a special-effect (soft focus) lens. Those scuffs could setup a reflection pattern in the lens.

 

The construction of the Summar is such that it's highly unlikely for the elements to get off-center after manufacture. They are all very firmly peened into the mount.

 

A lack of paint on the edges of the innermost two elements can cause much trouble.

Somewhat pastel colours are widely held to be a plus point with the Summar. In my view, it is unwise to work without a hood, the more so with old Leitz lenses.