paul_n2 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I've heard that summar's are great for portrait & nudes. I'd love to see some samples if anyone has some. Searching pulls up some nice pictures of parks, taken by Grant. I'd love to see some shots of people though. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ka_ho_wong Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 here you go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ka_ho_wong Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 some more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ka_ho_wong Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ka_ho_wong Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 1234 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Paul, Mine is crazier looking than Ka-Ho's pics...perhaps mine has more cleaning marks or he isn't shooting it wide open (it looks a bit normal @ f8 and above). I don't have any scans to show, but talk about your "Leica Glow" (also known as flare). I have the Hood for mine which is IMPORTANT. I have actually thought about selling it...let me know if you are interested (I have way too many lenses). It would be cheap....like $175. jmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Nice old glass. I`m going to start utilizing mine more. My uncoated 3.5 elmar is out for cleaning now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Just back from Dwayne's (via Kodak). Kodachrome 200, overexposed, fixed somewhat in scanning. (Don't blame the washed-out skin tone on the lens! Blame on my Gossen Luni-Pro which clearly needs calibration, evidenced by the second overexposed roll of slides.) I think this was taken wide open, or just one stop down, where the lens is certainly not "high resolution". (It takes 3 stops to sharpen up this lens, and eliminate the vignetting.) At full resolution, you can't see individual hairs, but do I blame that on the lens, or the grain of Kodachrome 200? I think that that out-of-focus areas on this Summar are more well-behaved in color than my Summitar. Yes, there is some double-imaging of the branches at certain distances, but it's otherwise nice. With the Summitar, the out-of-focus areas have a radial smear in circles around the center of the image. This isn't a problem with the Summitar in B&W, it's just noticeable in color. This Summar is a very nice specimen, just a very few fine cleaning marks. I cleaned out the haze, which was all in the front cell, and re-did the black paint on the edge of the front group. (The rear group is still flaking black paint, so this lens isn't 100% yet.) Looks crystal clear when you look through it. This lens has not struck me as flare-prone, I've taken shots with quite bright light sources in them, and not had trouble.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now