Leica LTM Summitar the star...

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
This thread is what made me buy one from Keh.com... first shot taken with it... (1950 version on M8)

06_17_ford.jpg
 
4798487038_d0b9de5bdc_z.jpg


I have been trying to figure out how I really feel about this lens. Then a pic like this shows up... THIS is what I was looking for.

My Summitar was manufactured in 1946, so it should be coated. But it isn't (any more). That has resulted in more flare than I was hoping for. But it doesn't happen every time does it? :)
 
My Summitar came with my circa-1946 IIIc, and it's my only LTM lens. What I thought was flare caused by haze was actually a light leak through the collapsible barrel which I've since plugged (fingers crossed!). Aside from this, I've absolutely no complaints about this lens! Especially with slide film, people remark that it's got an old-time movie film feel to the images...

4525827949_3f6c1fec64_z.jpg



4525826001_a2df151214_z.jpg


4838056322_9104a8ce43_z.jpg


4744293058_c1a12a5328_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
beyond said:
How come some pics are sharp while some are not? You guys did some sharpening to the pics?
Click to expand...

I suppose some can focus better than others, some use digital vs film and when scanning film - depending on how its done - some loss of sharpness occurs. Plus with a lens that old - there are some samples that are much better than others.
 
Two Kinds of Summitars

Two Kinds of Summitars

beyond said:
How come some pics are sharp while some are not? You guys did some sharpening to the pics?
Click to expand...

The last production lenses from 1950, 51 use the remaining 6 blade iris from the parts stock of pre war Summars. These lenses have the crazy swirly bokeh or the soap bubble bokeh depending on the f stop. It seems the depth of field appears as an abstraction with these lenses as well.

Also, I believe quality control was at best hit and miss through 1951. Bubbles in the glass are common. I've owned a number of Summitars, the one I have now from 1948 (and probably the best I've ever seen) is perfect and I laid out $500 for it. It seems the seller knew what he had as well.

This lens will easily pass for a first year Summicron in quality except for wide open. Nevertheless, a good clean Summitar, now VERY hard to find, is a must have, and has a look as beautiful as the best lenses of signature ever made.

If I'm looking for mood, art and kindness to the ladies I reach for the Summitar, for reality and gusto I use the DR Summicron. They make for the perfect pair of 50's.
 
My 1949 coated Summitar, w/ a small bubble in the glass, is now back from Spa Sherry and is sparkly clean. I put it on the IIIc this weekend, and have got a roll of Tri-X going. I can hardly wait to see the results... :)
 
I really like my Summitar so bought a 2nd, for a very good price. My intetntion was to have it CLA'd and as I appreciate the work of James Ravilous, have the coating removed (purely as an experiment, can be re-coated so nothing lost). I picked it up the other day from Malcolm Taylor, who informed me the glass was excellent with a good sparkle. Some of the first few shots highlight it requires learning how to use, especially in flare prone situations.
Maybe a customised hood will be required, but so far I'm encouraged by the results.
A couple of the first few frames.





5-9-10-034 -1 -HP5.jpg
 
Oh Two, thanks for the explanation. I was wondering about the swirly bokeh too. I have two copies of Summitar. So far they have been smooth like rodt16s portrait shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top