"Damaged" Summitar 5 cm f/2 - Not so damaged....

[DcAnalogue]

Hi to all!

As I recently got a nice M2.... I had to find some lenses. The first one comes from an "unlimited" loan of a friend. He lent me a "damaged" Summitar 5 cm. I have to say that looking through the lens... it's not so good, but (while waiting for the Ltm to M adapter I ordered) I decided to test it first on digital (Fuji X-T10) and then on film, using my Canon 7 Rf.

Despite the appearance of the lenses... the test went surprisingly well... and the Summitar proved to be a great lens!

You can read and see more on my Film Blog.

 

[antmar]

I am a passionate photographer since I was 16yo and that is about 30 years now. When I was a student I had one camera and one lens and I wasn't aware that this lens could be damaged from fungus or haze or anything like this. I was devoted to shoot again and again and at that period I took some pictures that now I know that I can't repeat in the matter of pure photographic creativity.
Later a friend of mine told me that my lens, a SMC Takumar 50mm f:1,4 was heavily damaged by fungus and I changed the lens with a new-old one when I found the money with no noticeable change in the image quality and absolutely no change in my creativity.
Enjoy your lens, a Leica lens can never be bad for a real photographer, these ideas came in our mind with the Internet and some equipment reviewers who test lenses and cameras like gadgets although they have no photographic skill and no love for photography at all.
Of course a damaged lens maybe lesser than a perfect one but this is for perfectionists.

 

[DcAnalogue]

I am a passionate photographer since I was 16yo and that is about 30 years now. When I was a student I had one camera and one lens and I wasn't aware that this lens could be damaged from fungus or haze or anything like this. I was devoted to shoot again and again and at that period I took some pictures that now I know that I can't repeat in the matter of pure photographic creativity.
Later a friend of mine told me that my lens, a SMC Takumar 50mm f:1,4 was heavily damaged by fungus and I changed the lens with a new-old one when I found the money with no noticeable change in the image quality and absolutely no change in my creativity.
Enjoy your lens, a Leica lens can never be bad for a real photographer, these ideas came in our mind with the Internet and some equipment reviewers who test lenses and cameras like gadgets although they have no photographic skill and no love for photography at all.
Of course a damaged lens maybe lesser than a perfect one but this is for perfectionists.

I totally agree with you......

 

[mgb74]

Someone did a test a while back where the progressively damaged to front (and maybe rear) element of a cheap lens. It's was interesting to see how much damage it took to achieve a noticeable effect on a print.

But, with all due respect, your choice of photograph in your original post is a bit confusing as it doesn't appear (to me) to support your conclusion. Looking at your blog, there are a lot of other photographs that better support your point.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Hi to all!

As I recently got a nice M2.... I had to find some lenses. The first one comes from an "unlimited" loan of a friend. He lent me a "damaged" Summitar 5 cm. I have to say that looking through the lens... it's not so good, but (while waiting for the Ltm to M adapter I ordered) I decided to test it first on digital (Fuji X-T10) and then on film, using my Canon 7 Rf.

Despite the appearance of the lenses... the test went surprisingly well... and the Summitar proved to be a great lens!

You can read and see more on my Film Blog.

I have a Summitar from 1946,one of the early coated ones with the nice round aperture. It also has separation of the front cemented pair - bad, iridescent separation over about 20% that looks awful. Guess what? The lens works pretty darn well! Yes, I can make the separation show in a picture, if I work at it, but the lens is very good as-is.

 

[DcAnalogue]

But, with all due respect, your choice of photograph in your original post is a bit confusing as it doesn't appear (to me) to support your conclusion. Looking at your blog, there are a lot of other photographs that better support your point.

Hi, thanks for your considerations. Btw. mine isn't a scientific approach but, rather a practical one. I'm just sharing my experiences (thinking it could help other people, as other people's experiences helped me), so I don't fully understand your remarks. Aren't the images enough to see if the lens works? Do you think I missed some kind of situation which could demonstrate better this fact?
Could you please tell me which one so... maybe I've shot it but not published... and can do it here....

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Hi, thanks for your considerations. Btw. mine isn't a scientific approach but, rather a practical one. I'm just sharing my experiences (thinking it could help other people, as other people's experiences helped me), so I don't fully understand your remarks. Aren't the images enough to see if the lens works? Do you think I missed some kind of situation which could demonstrate better this fact?
Could you please tell me which one so... maybe I've shot it but not published... and can do it here....

I'll point out that neither you nor I have a flawless example of this lens to compare our lenses to. "Works well enough" and "works as originally intended" are two different things. Lots can happen to a lens over 60-70 years, particularly in the past several years with those dreadful U-tube "tutorials" on how to ruin good equipment.

 

[DcAnalogue]

I'll point out that neither you nor I have a flawless example of this lens to compare our lenses to. "Works well enough" and "works as originally intended" are two different things.

Ahhh I understand now.... What I meant was, of course.... "works well enough" (or.. I don't see any big flaw) and just...... for that one roll & few shots on digital..... but it seems to be enough for my needs.

 

[DcAnalogue]

I made a mistake and appeared this comment... and now I can't figure how to remove it...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Ahhh I understand now.... What I meant was, of course.... "works well enough" (or.. I don't see any big flaw) and just...... for that one roll & few shots on digital..... but it seems to be enough for my needs.

Well of course. I have a ca. 1908 9 1/2" Goerz NY Dagor in an early Compound with a 9mm gouge in the very center of the rear outer glass - you couldn't find a worse place to put such damage. I also have the same lens in barrel, with flawless glass - same era; after blacking the gouge with India ink, I cannot find a difference between the two.