Summar

For Summar enthusiasts: This shot of the bastions of Valletta across Grand

Harbour on Malta was taken with a well-used uncoated Summar I bought a couple

of years ago, but did not get round to using it until very recently.

Surprisingly, the glass looks very good, but the body shows its had a lot of

use. Lens #4456xx. Film: Fuji 800ASA Professional Portrait. Elmar hood used

with push-on UV filter that has a slightly green tinge. Using this filter on

another Summar on my IIIb or IIIf I allowed a factor of 1. Here I used a

Bessa R, and the TTL meter confirmed that factor.<div></div>

Good glass with a worn body is often a good sign -- a particularly good specimen of the lens that was well-loved by a prior owner. My Summar is the same way, pristine water-clear glass, but with a good bit of the chrome plating worn off. It has behaved great, a beloved travel lens.

I took my 1935 uncoated Summar to New Orleans this weekend, along with my IIIa. <br> <br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5029798-md.jpg"><br> <br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5029808-md.jpg">

It seems to me, when you see a subject and bring the camera to your eye the Summar is going to capture what you see. Other lenses might even improve on the subject, but the Summar sees more like my eye sees. So I find it visually satisfying.

 

I agree that it has to be very clean optically.<div></div>

Thanks for posting your Summar photo's, Rob. Adrian, you make an interesting point about how the Summar renders images quite close to what the eye sees, i.e. not crisper and more contrasty. I have thought a similar thing about the images from my 1933 Elmar 50mm. The images correlate well with my memory of what I saw through the viewfinder as I took the picture. I find that this reproduction of reality enhances my enjoyment of looking at travel photographs taken even years before; in a sense I can relive the moment more completely. Best, David

Thanks for the responses here - photos and comments. David - I use a Leica Ia as my everyday camera, and I agree with you about the way the old Elmar 50mm - like the Summar, as Adrian points out - captures and renders what we see.

I do wonder if the lens makers necessarily like their developments, which they are obliged to make in order to stay in business. Someone recently posted an article by the chap in charge of Gillette in which he contemplates making a ridiculous five-bladed razor, or loose the sales race. (looks like he plumped for a vibrating one instead - does seem to shave better, though !)

 

The Summar, which I had cleaned by CRR Luton early this year, seems to have taken the place of the Summicron, ever since.

That bit about the razor was a spoof, from the Onion.

"That bit about the razor was a spoof, from the Onion."

 

And damned funny, too! ;-)

OK, but the Mach3Power Turbo razor exists - in day-glow, iridescent green.

That's why the pre-war Elmar 50/3.5 stays on my M2. That, I suppose, is how I feel about the lens. It correlates to what I remember, although I must say that my eyes are not sharp and almost all lenses resolve better than my eyes!

 

My wife's eyes, they are something else. My daughter's are even more amazing. She inherited the 20/20 vision of my father and the eagle eyes from my wife. She says she can see the legs on a mosquito as it flies by! So I guess she will have to use a very sharp lens to capture what she sees.

Hey Jack, I like both pictures you took in New Orleans posted on Oct 10, 2006.

 

Can anyone confirm if those rather obvious 'glow' the mythical 'Leica glow'?

Here are 2 pictures I took with the Summar I bought recently.<div></div>

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

From these 2 pictures I think I bought a rather clean lens (no fog).

 

Vignettings are expected at the corners but I kinda like that. Generally soft with descent color contrasts

(vibrancy) makes this lens an interesting/unusual wide-portrait lens for me.