leica old glass favourite (pre 1970)

[peter_werner1]

<p>If you happen to have a 20mm Nikkor, it would work fine used with a conversion ring on a Leica RF. DOF is big enough to focus by estimate; I had some very good results with it. See some example shots on<br /> <a href="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/11283-nikkor-20mm-4-0-m8.htmlhttp://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/11283-nikkor-20mm-4-0-m8.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a><br /> You could also try a 24mm Nikkor<br>

Regards<br /> Peter</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Jean-Marie: The 2.8 Summaron is a later design, so one would expect some improvement - the last time I had one of these was 40 years ago (it was in fact Government property, I used it for my work), whereas I have a 3.5 now. The 2.8 is rarer and this is reflected drastically in prices:<br>

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l2736&_nkw=35+mm+summaron<br>

Looks like the going rate for a 3.5 Summaron (and also a Canon Serenar) is about £300, whereas people are asking around £800 for a 2.8 - good as it is, I wouldn't say it was that good!<br>

Summar: As I and others have mentioned, the glass is soft and scratches easily - I finally acquired one a year or two ago almost without scratches. I would say not worth buying if in poor condition. The big lens hood is just to combat flare. </p>

[peter_werner1]

<p>Trying to repost the link:<br>

<a href="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/11283-nikkor-20mm-4-0-m8.html">Nikkor 20mm on a Leica RF</a></p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>DAVID Sorry I should have written ELMAR 35/3.5. It has a messy reputation; the summaron 35/3.5 seems a fine lens. I see Summars mainly on older (pre- IIIc type cameras), obviously, as the lens was probably not produced after 1939. I am not too keen on getting one of the early barnack's, although the lens intrigues me. Is your summar <em><strong>coated</strong></em>?</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>PETER Thanks for the tip. Interesting. I knew about leica glass fitting on nikon's bellow set up (NikLei adapter ring). I didnt know the opoosite was possible. Unfortunately, i am trying to move away from nikon optics, and try out different, if not greener leica patures! </p>

[jason]

<p>I have no idea what you meant about your Micro 55mm Nikkor lens? i have never used a finer,sharper better made lens ever. Flare, what is flare. My Pentax lenses have no flare. My freaking M6 has flare in viewfinder!<br>

Leica lenses even fairly modern ones, but esp. the older ones, are way softer, less contrast and flare. I love my Leica for many things but don't think they are totally ahead of the competition except usually in construction. You are asking about lenses that are old! i think from my own usage, the Canon A series (AE-1, AE-1P, A-1) with their lenses were already ahead of Leica and Leitz. Yes there are plastic parts, so has Leica in some of it's lenses.<br>

See some of the comments here, about use of plastics, one from a top serviceman in Orange County, CA.<br>

A 50mmElmar of f2.8 a good choice. Nice contrast. The 35mmSummaron f2.8 also nice! Neither are spectacular.<br>

Knowing your equipment's possibilities are important.</p>

<p> </p>

[JamieK]

<p>The Summicron 90 is a wonderful lens, though I have never used the R version. I have the 280/2.8 in R mount, and I have enjoyed it. The basic rule here is that rangefinders focus wide lenses better. SLRs focus long lenses better. Get a long lens.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>... summar <em><strong>coated?</strong></em><br>

No it isn't - all Summars left the factory uncoated, except possibly for a few produced on a one-off basis during the war for the military. Just after WWII it was fashionable for a while to get pre-war lenses coated - any coated Summar will have become so in this way. My advice - if you want the vintage look of an uncoated lens, get a 50 mm Elmar - much easier to find in good condition. I personally am also not a fan of the Summitar - it's got high resolution and quite good flatness of field but it's too low contrast and prone to flare for me. The classic postwar Leica lens for me is the Mark I Summicron - as with the 35 mm Summaron, a Canon Serenar can be a lower-priced but equal quality alternative. I did also a little while back buy 2 new Voigtlander Heliars (one f2, one f3.5) with the idea that these would allow me to keep my Barnack Leicas going for as long as I keep going - it is getting harder and harder to find older Leica lenses in good condition - the good ones are in the hands of people who wouldn't let them go for anything!</p>

[john_lovelace]

<p>Three years ago, when I bought my like-new M6, I asked two professional photogs which one-and-only lens I should buy. Each man owns and uses an M6, and both , independently of one another, recommended the Summicron 50mm f/2. I bought one, mint in box, listed in a Shutterbug magazine ad. Its lateral view, similar to that of the human eye, makes me feel as if I'm "shooting reality." For macro and telephoto, I shoot a Canon digital and ;Canon or Sigma lens. </p><div></div>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>JASON Nothing wrong with the quality of the images of the micro-nikkor 55/2.8; I was rferring to the fact that stored in the wrong position it is known to drip oil on the blades (especially in hot conditions), as does one of the older leica lenses mentioned earlier on in the tread. Softness is, of course, not per se a bad quality.</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>JOHN That kind of definition is great for still life. For landscape I would like something less chilled though. Softness does it for me if i want to turn a bunch of trees into something more interesting than...just a bunch of trees.</p>

[SCL]

<p>JM- Yes the 90/4 collapsible was definitely subject to flare and I almost always (when I remembered) used the lens shade on it (making it look like a bazooka). Initially I didn't adjust very well to the 50, coming from a long love affair with a 35, but as I increasingly used it, I became more comfortable. I think I still prefer a 35 for landscape shots, but these days when I can scan and use PS, I can almost as easily use a 50 and do a panorama with more detail.</p>

[anthony_brookes5]

<p>Well I have no doubt which early lens I would choose and that would be a collapsible Summar. The only trouble is that there are very,very,few that have a clear front element as the glass was (relatively) soft . To find a perfect one is not very likely. I was lucky, as when I acquired mine in 1981 it had had one owner from new and had always had a lenscap.</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>STEPHEN Pitty, I started liking the idea of the 90/4, they are ridiculously inexpensive (in leica currency terms). If Ken R. is anything to go by, the flaring is really annoying and the hood doesnt do much to improve on its handicap. He claims that the length of the lens/bazooka body is to blame (probablydesigned with the visoflex in mind). <em><strong>Any flareproblems with the summar? That lens really intrigues me; seems to be the most controversial of the 50mm lenths.</strong></em></p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>ANTHONY Have you had the summar for a while now? What appeals to you most about its rendition? You sound quite passionate about it. And on what body do you use it? Any images to share?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Jean-Marie, not to be contrary, but why do you not go for the best definition possible in landscapes (which are normally a big resolution challenge, in that many small details need to be perceived by the viewer)? If you then want to simulate the softness or less corrected imagery of the older optics, you can alternatively use a Zeiss Softar type filter (or a B+W wz 1 or wz 2 filter) when you want to provide more mood in the picture, or where details are judged to be less important than an atmosphere you may want to depict. You can also do post exposure blurring numerically if you treat your images by digital software, and thereby not sacrifice the precision of a more highly corrected optic.</p>

[allancobb]

<p>Focal length choices and condition issues aside, my clear choice would be the 50mm Summitar. It has a distinctly unique bokeh; some find "the swirl" unattractive, however for me it's a definite asset, giving the lens a signature all its own. One might not be able to tell what lens was used for any given photo just by looking at it, except those made by the wide-open Summitar.</p>

[baisao]

<p>I also like the bokeh of the Summitar. It has a swirling, crystaline affect that I like. The ones with the circular diaphram render bright out of focus objects as full circles, not donuts or hexagons. It's deffinitely not the kind of lens that that delivers the lusty, silky-smooth bokeh that so many people chase after. It's neat though. </p>

[baisao]

<p>"And what's with that hideous <em><strong>boxy hood</strong></em>?"</p>

<p>I use the barndoor hood on my Summitar and like it quite a bit. It's tiny. Fold flat it flat and it fits in a hip pocket. Though ugly in one sense, it is a thing of beauty in another--this isn't jewlery but a serious tool. There is a slit at the top of the hood that allows you to see through it. I was concerned also by how it looks before I got one and used it. It's a great hood. Ta!</p>

[baisao]

<p>For the price it's hard to go wrong with the 90/4 Elmar. You will need to get one without haze, though, as that can be a real problem. The only problems I've had with flare on this lens, albeit I do not shoot into the light, were:</p>

<p>a) vignetting (which I kind of like on a very old lens) <br>

b) hotspots when shooting directly at brightly lit subjects. That particular lens was particularly hazy and it seemed that the light was refecting back out of the elements causing this hotspot. </p>

<p>Both of my 90/4 Elmars are scratch free and both have more or less haze. There is an all chrome version that is more pricy than the more common one with leatherette. The chrome ones have Continental Scale stops and is in meters.</p>

<p>Here are some photos I've taken with the 90/4 Elmars:<br>

<a href="

<p>Cheers,<br>

Jim </p>

[jason]

<p>Seems like a Summar or Summitar all very popular! Personally i don't want softness in landscape,irritating, but in portraits. my collapsible Summicron 50mm f2.0 is soft in appearance in portraits.It is probably the haze of the deteriorating elements, internally. My outside elements pristine due to usage of UV or 1A filters, always. The filter may add to haze and certainly the flare problems. My 135mm Hektor f 4.5 definitely soft as in blur. Now and then, in the right light, quite sharp if stopped down.<br>

The problem of using a modern sharp lens on a Leica-M, with a soft filter, is that you cannot see the effects.. My usual route, professionally was the Nikon-F with 105mmf2,5 being very similar to a Zeiss Sonnar, a portrait lens and the softar, yielded spectacular results. Hasselblad 150mm Sonnar is almost same, wide open.<br>

The quest for a long ago, romantic look in photos, a true Don Quixote quest! With certain older Leica optics you have a good chance.</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>ARTHUR I have seen some of your lovely pics. I also appreciate some detail in landscape especially on the far horizon. I certainly dislike a muddled representation. But most of all I enjoy the challenge of the old glass that makes you think about the process of obtaining a satisfying image rather than trying to get a fast and easy product. I avoid the difital scene: why people would like to simulate rather than create beats me.Digital IMHO stands for fast, cheap and easy: not exactly the features of quality.</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>ALLAN JIM Does the shape of the diaphragm really affect the image that much? Somebody is trying to discourage me from getting the newer super angulon 21/3.4 saying that it produces less admirable pics that the older f4 version. He blames the 4blade diaphragm for causing the less appealing results.</p>

 

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>JIM Your photographs make me think the 90/4 could be a good choice after all.</p>

 

[baisao]

<p>Jean-Marie, I have limited experience but I can say that hexagonal diaphram will render blurred bright points of light as larger <a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq330nZ99b1qfir2go1_500.jpg">hexagons of light</a>. Circular diaphrams will render these as circles or <a href="http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/361603/361603,1239689704,2/stock-photo-reed-on-a-lake-low-depth-of-focus-donut-bokeh-28456651.jpg">donuts</a>. Obviously, donuts are less pleasing. Generally speaking, more blades will result in a more circulular iris. There are exceptions: the Summitar uses more blades to create the hexagon version than it does to create the circle one. I could live with hexagons but donuts would drive me crazy.</p>