Summitar 50mm f/2 and newbie lens questions

[keith_lubow]

Hello,

 

I have had a Canon Leica clone rangefinder for a while, in addition to my other

cameras. I am pretty sure it's a IVSB. I have always shot with it just as I got

it, but I am looking to find out a bit more about what's available for it. The

only lens I have ever had on the Canon is the 50mm Serenar 1.8 that came on it,

so I don't know anything about screw-mount lenses, such as which are good and

bad, and what they are worth.

 

I am looking for another lens, and I found one of these Summitars in very nice

shape for sale. I am wondering if it is a good lens, and what it is worth. It's

slow in my book, as I am used to the 1.2 aperture I have on my 55mm SLR lens,

but if it happens to be a very optically good lens, it would be an improvement

over the scuffed up lens I have now.

 

The Summitar is appealing just because it is right in front of me and very

affordable, but I am wondering if some of the later and faster Canon lenses will

work on my camera, and if these lenses are good, bad, or in the middle of the

road compared to the Summitar. For example, Canon made 50mm 1.4 and 1.2 lenses

for rangefinders (and a 0.95 too), but I don't know if these will work on the

Leica clone bodeis like mine. There is also a Serenar 1.5. Is that a good lens?

 

Thanks,

 

Keith

[alvin_hear]

<a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci">This site </a> has pages on Leica and Canon screw mount lenses and prices</a></p> AH

[ronald_moravec1]

It is a satisfactory lens rather soft at 2.0, sharpening at 4.0. Coatings are very soft and will scratch if not cleaned properly. Has not so good resistance to flare so you need a PROPER lens shade.

They are usually foggy inside and need to be taken apart and cleaned. Check with a pen light or smaller light . No other way. Any fog at all destroys the Leica look.

 

All that being said, I have two and will never sell them. They have kind of slightly old fashioned look to the picture, not unatractive at all.

[Troll]

Forget it. Your Canon lens is just as good and maybe better than the Summitar.

[keith_lubow]

Thanks a lot. That Website is great. I think for the price or $60 I may as well pick it up. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a terrible lens. It looked very clean to me, but I will double check. I know the front element looked perfect.

 

I am still going to be on the lookout for the Canon 1.4, if it will work on my camera.

 

Keith

[jkelly04]

If you can get a Summitar for $60 that's not scratched up or full of haze, get it. It's a very good lens. In good shape they usually go for between $150-$250.

[len_smith]

I have the Canon 50mm f/1.4 (last version) and it is an excellent performer, only surpassed optically by Leica in the current Summilux ASPH version. However, it is optically no better than your Canon f/1.8 except for the extra two thirds of a stop in speed.

 

Like Bill Mitchell, I am surprised that you would want to replace it with a Summitar, indeed I find it odd that you would choose another lens of the same focal length, unless of course you really need f/1.4.

 

Instead, why not consider another focal length? I suggest that an 85mm or 90mm for portraits, or a 35mm for landscapes, would be a far more useful addition to your Canon outfit.

 

The Canon 85mm f/1.8 and Canon 35mm f/2 are both very good performers and either focal length would offer you a much greater range of shooting opportunities than a second 50mm lens.

[john_shriver]

The Canon 50/1.8 is a "better" lens technically than the Summitar. But the Summitar has a unique look, and is particularly lovely for B&W work. For $60 in nice shape, that's a better steal than mine was ($79 in perfect shape).

[forum_shopper]

The Summitar is a very nice lens, considered by many to be superior to the collapsable Summicron that followed it, at least in the center. Summitars are also considered by many to show the elusive "3-D effect" more than almost any other Leica lens. You definitely will want a shade, and the original folding "barn door" is best.

 

It would surprise me a lot if the Canon 50/1.8 could not be improved upon by a number of Leica

lenses.

 

With the superior handholdability of the rangefinder, you should more than make up the difference in speed between your 50/1.2 SLR lens and the Summitar.

.

[keith_lubow]

Hello,

 

Thanks for all the thoughts on the lens. I only want to replace my current Canon lens because is is very beat up and the front element is badly scratched. The pictures are never quite sharp to my eyes, and going any greater than a 5X7 with Tri-X doesn't look very good. Maybe it would be OK with another film, but that's the film I use 80% of the time. I happened to come across this Summitar at the repair shop I use. So, I guess normally I would wait and shop for a better lens, but the price is grabbing me. As far as why I want another 50, it is just because the Lens I have needs to be replaced. A 35 would be ideal, but I want a decent 50 first. The speed helps too.

 

Keith

[dan flanders]

Your last post casts a different light on the matter. The Summitar is a wonderful lens and though I don't use mine very often you would have a hell of a time depriving me of it. However, there is a problem if you use filters regularly. It takes filters in a singular mounting that are difficult to acquire and don't particularly compare to modern filters. Of course you may be able to obtain an adapter that will permit use of modern E39 filters, but you will have a long search to find one at a reasonable price. Nevertheless it is difficult to imagine a more satisfactory lens for B&W, and nine observers out of ten couldn't tell its images from newer, more modern lenses. Go for it!

[peter]

I have a summitar and love it. I also have two summicrons of various ages and a some Canons - 1.8 and 1.4. All are fine lenses but I would not go past a summitar if you have a good one. You can find the filters on eBay reasonably cheap, so you do not necessarily need to worry about the adapters. Most B/W photographers get by with a yellow, an apple green and perhaps an orange or red for dramatic effects. I dont think these are too rare. Some who have not owned them put them down on the basis that the summicrons are later an hence must be better. Not necessarily true depending on how and what you shoot. As another poster says: They are sharper in the centre at most apertures but softer overall at full aperture than the summi. The proof of quality is in the shot. I have found that they give a lovely look to B/W.

[dan flanders]

"You can find the filters on eBay reasonably cheap, so you do not necessarily need to worry about the adapters. "<p> The problem isn't their availability -- it's their age. Unless you can find new, old stock many will be discolored, scratched. I have some good ones I obtained fifty years ago, but all I have seen available lately have been disappointing. Modern filters, especially the multicoated variety are significantly superior in the flare dept. The SNHOO adapter is nowhere near easy to obtain and usually has an inflated price.

[keith_lubow]

Thanks for the info. I am going to pick it up Monday when I get my motor drive out of the shop...always something to spend money on, be it equipment, repairs, or supplies. This time they are getting me for two in the same location!

 

The filters aren't an issue. I don't often use them unless I am using Kodak HIE, and I never use that film in 35mm size anyhow. Sometimes a dark yellow and sometimes a yellow-green with panchromatic film, but rarely enough that I won't miss them. The shade is a more pressing issue to me.

 

Also, what are your thoughts on a Canon IVSB vs. a Leica IIIc? The same shop has a Leica IIIc for sale also, used looking, but not any worse than my F-1 SLRs, and just serviced. He said he'd give me the camera and the lens for $325. I already have a similar camera, and I won't have an X synch with either one, so I think unless this is somehow an improvement on the Canon, I am going to pass on the body and just get the lens.

 

Thanks again.

 

Keith

[MTC Photography]

Summitar 50/2 is a wonderful lens, one of Max Berek's masterpiece. It is also beautifully made, I like it more than Berek's other lens, the

Elmar 50/3.5

[peter]

"What do you think of a IVSB..."

 

Great camera. Well made. In fact it is possibly better made than its Leica equivalents. BTW I think I did not fully answer your question about the Canon lenses you mention. All would work on your body although the later (black an chrome) ones would not look the part as they were designed for later bodies. If this does not bother you then dont worry about it.

 

If you did end up exploring Canon alternatives to the Summitar I would suggest either the Canon 50mm f1.8 or the Canon 50mm f1.5, both preferably in full chrome if you wish to match the body. I prefer the former as its an excellent lens and cheaper than the latter.

 

Serenar is the early name given to Canon lenses. Some have the same optical formula as the later Canon badged ones, some, I think, do not.

 

You asked about shades (for I presume a summitar). I just use the standard (early) Summicron shade. Works about as well on both lenses. If you cannot find the earlier lens shade then use the later vented one if looks do not bother you.

 

If you did go down the Canon lens route, unless you are lucky and persistent finding a lens hood may be a problem especially if you want a chrome screw in shade. They have a diameter of 40mm and this is non standard so unless you luck out and stumble on a Canon shade then you will find it hard to meet your need. I have seen these riginal shades on eBay but they tend to be relatively pricey and quite a few I have seen, have poor and worn chrome. The later black and chrome "clip on" shades are a little easier to find but still go for more than I think they tend to be worth.