Should I have the 50mm Summarit 1.5 cleaned?

<p>Just adopted a late 50s vintage 50/1.5 Summarit from the local classic camera store. The front element is not toooo badly marked, but it is very hazy, fogged, and somewhat fungused inside.</p>

<p>Shot some pics, and a few shot at around 1.5 greatly exceeded my expectations for having a nice "glow" but retaining enough detail to create an interesting but very different looking from typical modern sharp, contrasty, saturated image. Most shots were not so good, just the faint image almost buried in the fog.</p>

<p>So, it is tempting to keep the lens as is and figure out how to repeat what created the good images, but I am thinking that there might be more keepers if the lens were cleaned?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here is a large file, sorry don't seem to have software to shrink on this PC</p><div></div>

<p>get it cleaned</p>

<p>If fungus is at all advanced, it will have eaten its way into the glass surface, at which point the only remedy is very costly regrinding and recoating. If the camera store did not declare these faults at the time of sale, I would exchange the lens pronto.<br>

As you may know, the Summarit was the post-war coated version (optically identical) of the Schneider Xenon, which was uncoated and very prone to flare. I have a Jupiter 3 lens which is fundamentally the same design but coated and I love it - if you want a lens with some uncontrolled flare, a Summitar f2 is worth a look.<br>

If you keep the Summarit, have it cleaned - haze and fungus have a nasty habit of getting worse quickly.</p>

<p>David, my understanding is that the Jupiter 3 is a Zeiss design. It only has the focal length and maximum aperture of the Xenon and the Summarit.</p>

<p>Personally I'd have it professionally checked to see if the fungus has etched the glass...if so, I'd probably keep it as an oddity. If it hasn't etched the glass, I'd go ahead with the cleaning and have a good usable lens.</p>

<p>Get rid. If it was made by Lomo it would be called an "Art" lens. Not that there's anything wrong with Lomo…...</p>

 

<p>I've been through this with a rather nice Summarit 1.5 in LTM mount. I had it cleaned of fog, and it had only minimal cleaning marks on the front element. It's still a mediocre performer in my experience, especially wide open. If you appreciate fantastic build quality, and "atmospheric" effects however, consider getting an example without fungus and having some fun?</p>

<p><em> Jupiter 3 is a Zeiss design</em><br>

You are of course right. I should have said it was functionally similar!</p>

<p>Thanks all for the input.<br /> A little update. I bought the lens fully aware of the defects, and the price was very low. I have plenty of sharp contrasty lenses, bought this one just to experiment with.</p>

<p>I also have a couple of Summars, one pretty clean and one less so. I probably will have the Summarit cleaned, just hope it will retain a nice glow after cleaning, maybe it will be more predictable. It will be interesting to compare it to the Summars after cleaning.</p>

<p>Back before I wound up digital, I used both prewar and postwar coated f/1.5 Contax lenses on a IIa. Those can be very sharp. Have not gotten around to trying them yet on digital, no adapter (yet).</p>

<p>The Summarit is notorious for internal haze. Haze tends to get "into" the soft "drip" coating Leica used at that time, so cleaning it may lose some of the coating. But that will just make it less contrasty like the Xenon.<br>

So long as the front glass is unscratched on a Summarit or Summar, you can get pretty good results after proper cleaning.</p>

 

<p>When I purchased my LTM Summarit it was in similar condition to yours. My test shots were so very low in contrast and resolution that I put it in the drawer. Later I bought a Summarit cast lens hood at a going out of business sale and decided to have the lens refurbished as I thought I at least ought to try it again rebuilt with the hood. I sent it to John VanStelten who agreed to restore the lens if I agreed that I would absorb the loss if the front element after cleaning and removal of the front element abrasions cracked during recoating.. I agreed and the lens came back in like new condition. Based on what is now an almost 80 year old basic design, it is still low contrast and no world beater. Stopped down with b/w film it gives nice images, especially portraits. As the lens is subject to flare as noted by the comments, use of a lens hood is necessary. Out of focus bokeh areas are very nice. I don't know if John is still available to do the work, but his service included a complete refurbishing of the lens and mount, polishing and recoating of the front element, with optical bench refocusing of the lens. Not cheap, but if you are going to refurbish the lens, do it all.</p>

Have it cleaned, it is a much better lens than the reputation would have you believe. The Leitz 5cm F1.5 Xenon is also

quite good, once cleaned up.

 

The Summarit is optimized for close-up at F2.8; infinity at F1.5. The focal length is actually 51.1mm on the five that I took

apart. Leica's way of dealing with focus shift. I modified one of my Summarits for wide-open/close-up work.

 

Post some pictures of the lens, showing the damage. That might help assessment of it.

This is with my uncoated Leitz 5cm F1.5 Xenon, predecessor to the Summarit. AFTER I took it apart and cleaned it.<p>

 

Wide-Open on the M9, ISO 2500, i/30th second. It was dark..<p>

 

<img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3930/14947994273_095bf165c6_o.jpg" width="1024" height="681" alt="Marine

Museum, Xenon"><p>

This is the Summarit after a cleaning on the M3, taken ~12 years ago. Wide-Open, ISO 400 B&W.<p>

 

<img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5493/31019133432_e7d510ed52_o.jpg" width="632" height="1024"

alt="nikki_portrait1_small"><p>

 

My daughter after a series of surgeries, "prednisone" cheeks.<p>

 

These days, the Summarit gets a lot of use on the M Monochrom. Tiffen #611 filter adapter allows use of series VI filters and hoods.<p>

<p>All,</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments. Lens is back from cleaning. The insides turned out great, but the front coating remains "crazed" looking. It has a very nice soft rendition at f/2, but never really sharpens to tacks when stopped down. Not a bad thing to have a special purpose lens for fun with a different not modern look. I like the "special" results better than the Summar I compared it to this afternoon.</p>