Summar 5cm F2 blades

[Yaeli]

Hello everyone,

I'm thinking about buying an old Summar 5cm F2, but the pictures on the one I found leave me perplexed. I don't understand why the aperture blades would look like that on the first photo. The store answered by saying : "The aperture blades are working perfectly, as indicated in the listing. The position visible in photo 3 is simply the aperture partially closed and may look unusual because of the angle of the picture, but there is no issue with the diaphragm. The optics are in good condition for their age. There is no fungus. There may be very light internal signs consistent with vintage lenses, but nothing that affects normal use".
So, is it normal to find blades in that position ??

Thank you beforehand for your answer !

 

[Don_ih]

I think that is just an abnormal reflection. I bet the aperture blades were not adjusted between photos so the second photo is how they should look from the rear.

If the aperture blades were messed it, it would be apparent in both photos.

 

[Don_ih]

That front element, however, looks like it may be a bit hazy.

 

[koraks]

I agree with @Don_ih that we're just looking at some odd reflections due to how the lens was illuminated for the photo.

Also, the photos are just pretty poor quality so everything looks more fuzzy and hazy than it may in reality be. The front element does look a little funny, but it may just be an old uncoated lens (a quick search shows this is a lens from the 1930s and is indeed uncoated). The lack of lens coatings can cause flare also in a product shot if lighting is not managed well, as is evidently the case here. It's the same as photographing a window on a house which may reflect sky, water etc. and make everything inside look a little hazy or even entirely invisible.

 

[Yaeli]

I think that is just an abnormal reflection. I bet the aperture blades were not adjusted between photos so the second photo is how they should look from the rear.

If the aperture blades were messed it, it would be apparent in both photos.

That front element, however, looks like it may be a bit hazy.

I agree with @Don_ih that we're just looking at some odd reflections due to how the lens was illuminated for the photo.

Also, the photos are just pretty poor quality so everything looks more fuzzy and hazy than it may in reality be. The front element does look a little funny, but it may just be an old uncoated lens (a quick search shows this is a lens from the 1930s and is indeed uncoated). The lack of lens coatings can cause flare also in a product shot if lighting is not managed well, as is evidently the case here. It's the same as photographing a window on a house which may reflect sky, water etc. and make everything inside look a little hazy or even entirely invisible.

Thank you both for your answer ! That is reassuring.
It is sold by a generally reliable store (RCE Foto, in Europe), but at 190 euros, it's almost half the price of any other Summar or Summitar I could find, so I was wondering if something might be off with it. I wonder if I should ask them for a few more pictures, just to be sure...

 

[Don_ih]

Yes, that lens is uncoated. The edges looks dirty - which may be on the outside. The glass in a Summar is softer than contemporary lenses and cleaning can easily make fine scratches. I'd ask for a better photo that shows the surface.

It's nowhere near as good as a Summitar, by the way. But it will definitely give photos the Summar-look (fuzzy and low-contrast).

 

[koraks]

I wonder if I should ask them for a few more pictures, just to be sure...

Why bother? If you want it, just order it online from them. If you don't like it, you can send it back within 14 days. It's EU after all, so EU legislation applies and that's very much in your favor here.

 

[Yaeli]

Yes, that lens is uncoated. The edges looks dirty - which may be on the outside. The glass in a Summar is softer than contemporary lenses and cleaning can easily make fine scratches. I'd ask for a better photo that shows the surface.

It's nowhere near as good as a Summitar, by the way. But it will definitely give photos the Summar-look (fuzzy and low-contrast).

I've asked them for a few more pictures of the blades closed down, and of the front element.
I have seen some comparisons between the Summar and Summitar, and I hesitate between the two. The Summitar seems even softer wide open, especially in the corners, but better stopped down than the Summar. It does have a very distinct background look that is wonderful in black and white, though... The 10 blade version would be a must, but I cannot find a good one at a reasonable price here - they're all 6 blades like the Summar, so...

Why bother? If you want it, just order it online from them. If you don't like it, you can send it back within 14 days. It's EU after all, so EU legislation applies and that's very much in your favor here.

I'd rather avoid the hassle of waiting, testing, sending back, and having to look for another one, if I can avoid it. But yes, it's definitely great to have the option to send back. Plus, in this case, it comes with a 6 months warranty too, so I'm not taking much risks anyway.

 

[Vaidotas]

The internal haze is common thing in this vintage lens due to helicoid grease residual evaporation.
Collapsible Summar 50/2 is nice lens with prominent character.

 

[koraks]

I'd rather avoid the hassle of waiting, testing, sending back, and having to look for another one, if I can avoid it. But yes, it's definitely great to have the option to send back. Plus, in this case, it comes with a 6 months warranty too, so I'm not taking much risks anyway.

The alternative is that you ask for more photos, they're likely not conclusive again because, after all, they're still just photos, so you end up purchasing the lens so you can have a proper look at it. For everyone involved the quickest solution is to just order the lens since there's a very good chance that the description is faithful and the lens is just fine (within the inherent limitations of a 90-year old product).

The internal haze

It's presently not clear if there's any internal haze. The only way to tell for sure is to...wait for it...inspect the lens in person. Hence my recommendation above.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello everyone,

I'm thinking about buying an old Summar 5cm F2, but the pictures on the one I found leave me perplexed. I don't understand why the aperture blades would look like that on the first photo. The store answered by saying : "The aperture blades are working perfectly, as indicated in the listing. The position visible in photo 3 is simply the aperture partially closed and may look unusual because of the angle of the picture, but there is no issue with the diaphragm. The optics are in good condition for their age. There is no fungus. There may be very light internal signs consistent with vintage lenses, but nothing that affects normal use".
So, is it normal to find blades in that position ??

Thank you beforehand for your answer !

I'd stay away from it.

 

[Don_ih]

I have seen some comparisons between the Summar and Summitar, and I hesitate between the two. The Summitar seems even softer wide open, especially in the corners, but better stopped down than the Summar.

I'd be inclined to ignore such things. Comparing a pristine Summar with a scratched-up Summitar will give you the results you cite. I have a pristine copies of both. The Summar never gets used. The Summitar:

Almost wide open (2.8 - handheld, 1/30th - mounted on the close-up adapter)

I don't think that counts as soft.

 

[Saganich]

I have three Summar's, one has very obvious coating mottling and flares nicely as in the examples below. Notice around the window frame and similar dark/light transitions. I believe Summars in general will 'glow' to varying degrees depending on the front element condition...this example being severe.

 

[Yaeli]

The internal haze is common thing in this vintage lens due to helicoid grease residual evaporation.
Collapsible Summar 50/2 is nice lens with prominent character.

Almost all of those I've seen for sale have some amount of haze, yes. Even on the official Leica store that shows all second hand lenses in Europe, they note it : "has some haze", "slight haze", etc...
But I do love the images I've seen taken with it (or with the Summitar).

The alternative is that you ask for more photos, they're likely not conclusive again because, after all, they're still just photos, so you end up purchasing the lens so you can have a proper look at it. For everyone involved the quickest solution is to just order the lens since there's a very good chance that the description is faithful and the lens is just fine (within the inherent limitations of a 90-year old product).

I hear you. The only thing is : I've made several purchases recently that didn't turn out well, and I'm kinda tired of sending things back and forth all the time. Depending on the pictures they send, I'll either be fully reassured, or, if I have any doubt left, I'll go for the Summitar I found on the Leica website, despite it being 200 euros more expensive.

I'd be inclined to ignore such things. Comparing a pristine Summar with a scratched-up Summitar will give you the results you cite. I have a pristine copies of both. The Summar never gets used.

I am very, very new to the world of Leica lenses. I have very little knowledge about any of them, and this comparison was only in one video, and could very well be, like you say, because of the state of the lens, or even some error from the user during the shoot. The only reason I'm even looking at Leica lenses is because I want a certain look that comes (if I understand correctly) from the lack of coatings and from spherical aberrations, and there aren't many lenses that fit that bill apart from pre war Leica lenses, apparently (though I might be wrong here too... I tend to be wrong a lot in this particular field). I have been looking at the Jupiter 8 too, though, which is dirt cheap and seems to give decent results too (though not quite as good as what I've seen from old Leica lenses).

I have three Summar's, one has very obvious coating mottling and flares nicely as in the examples below. Notice around the window frame and similar dark/light transitions. I believe Summars in general will 'glow' to varying degrees depending on the front element condition...this example being severe.

Ah, so it has more to do with the front element's condition than with the actual optical formula ?
It is indeed very noticeable in the examples you've shared !

 

[Don_ih]

The only reason I'm even looking at Leica lenses is because I want a certain look that comes (if I understand correctly) from the lack of coatings and from spherical aberrations

So, on film or on digital?

Anyway, I doubt you'll get a "certain look" from a Summitar. If you do, it's because of condition. You will get a definite look from a Summar. I think it's well displayed by @Saganich above.

 

[Yaeli]

So, on film or on digital?

Anyway, I doubt you'll get a "certain look" from a Summitar. If you do, it's because of condition. You will get a definite look from a Summar. I think it's well displayed by @Saganich above.

On digital. And that is very good to know, thank you ! I thought both would give a similar "low contrast + tendency to flare / glow" look, but again, I know very, very little about Leica lenses overall, so I might be completely wrong here.

 

[Yaeli]

Just adding this picture for information. Seems like they have strong overhead rectangular lights when they take those shots, as can be seen on this lens (and others too). So maybe, depending on how the lens is positioned, it could cause what I saw in my first images. Not sure. Anyway. I'm waiting on them to answer.

 

[sonora]

Just adding this picture for information. Seems like they have strong overhead rectangular lights when they take those shots, as can be seen on this lens (and others too). So maybe, depending on how the lens is positioned, it could cause what I saw in my first images. Not sure. Anyway. I'm waiting on them to answer.

I would think so, too. Koraks also alluded to it in message #4.

For a "low-contrast + glow" lens I would indeed suggest having a look at a Jupiter-8 – they are dirt-cheap, as you mentioned, and I have very much observed a glow-y low-contrast image quality from it at f/2. Stopped down it gains contrast, and the images are quite special.

Here are some crops from a test I did recently against an Elmar 5cm f/3,5 (excuse the extra blur, I was focused on another part of the frame, but here you can see the glow really well, especially on the high-contrast edges), as well as a full frame shot. Both Jupiter shots at f/2, and iirc the Elmar was at f/4.

 

[Yaeli]

I would think so, too. Koraks also alluded to it in message #4.

For a "low-contrast + glow" lens I would indeed suggest having a look at a Jupiter-8 – they are dirt-cheap, as you mentioned, and I have very much observed a glow-y low-contrast image quality from it at f/2. Stopped down it gains contrast, and the images are quite special.

Here are some crops from a test I did recently against an Elmar 5cm f/3,5 (excuse the extra blur, I was focused on another part of the frame, but here you can see the glow really well, especially on the high-contrast edges), as well as a full frame shot. Both Jupiter shots at f/2, and iirc the Elmar was at f/4.

Thank you for your comment and for sharing those pictures !
Yes, I can definitely see it, particularly on the 1st image (nice Olympus XA, by the way ^^).
I'm still weighing my options, but basically, I want the opposite of digital, if that makes sense. Even my relatively old EF lenses from the late 80s - early 90s look really crispy and sharp, and the difference with my RF lenses is not significant enough for my taste. So I thought that older, less coated, more "flawed" lenses could do the trick. But there's a ton of them, and I went down a whole rabbit hole trying to compare them. Anyway. The old Leitz seem like a good choice, and the Jupiters too, and maybe some early M42 lenses too. I'll keep searching, but thank you for the help and advice !

 

[sonora]

You're welcome!

 

[Don_ih]

So I thought that older, less coated, more "flawed" lenses could do the trick ...The old Leitz seem like a good choice,

But they're not. They tend to be "flawed" due to their age, not due to design.

You won't get non-digital results using digital. You will get whatever results you get from the lens. If that's on film, it's a film result. If it's on digital, it's a digital result. So you should think you want flaring, softness, haziness, aberrations - on your digital images. That has nothing to do with film.

 

[Yaeli]

But they're not. They tend to be "flawed" due to their age, not due to design.

You won't get non-digital results using digital. You will get whatever results you get from the lens. If that's on film, it's a film result. If it's on digital, it's a digital result. So you should think you want flaring, softness, haziness, aberrations - on your digital images. That has nothing to do with film.

I know it will never look like film. I've tried for 15 years, and failed, and I've finally made peace with that. I would shoot film, if many things were different in my personal life. But it's not an option for me, for several reasons I won't bore you all with (and that are not related to money, btw). What I mean by "not digital" is... something not bitingly sharp and crisp and "sterile", but more "untamed", raw, unpredictable (at least a little). And something that is not fully automated, because I often feel like the camera did the work for me otherwise. So having to shoot with manual focus lenses, using an external lightmeter, all of that helps. And if the results also are different enough from what I've been getting with my RF and EF lenses so far, then it's good enough for me (or at least, it will have to be). So yes, less contrast, less sharpness, more flares and aberrations and haziness, that's a good start for me.
There's always a part of me that will second guess that choice, and certainly regret it. It's just how it is, and if I want to continue taking pictures, I can't think of any other way to do it regularly. I might still shoot film a little, like I've been doing these past years : 3-4 rolls a year, sent to a lab for all the processing and scanning. But I can't do more than that.
I apologize for the TMI, that was not my intention in starting that post. I was just curious about that particular lens.