Summitar (6 blade) or Canon 50/1.4/1.8 LTM?

[kb244]

Seeing as the price might be about the same (~ 250-ish), would you go with a Canon 50/1.4 (or 1.8) that's got a bit of dust inside but no fungus/haze/etc, or a Summitar 50/2 (the newer 6 bladed version) with a stiff-ish aperture ring and engraved? (to go on a Canon 7)

I used to have a 50/1.8 on my P that I liked, but not sure of the optical quality of either the black-barreled Canon lens or the Summitar (I just know the 6 blade is considered less desirable as the bokeh shape is hexagonal rather than round like the older 10-blade version).

 

[frank]

Pro: In many cases my Summitar resulted in images with more vintage character than my Canon 50f1.8.
(With RF's, I go for character; with SLR's I go for neutral and clinical.)

Con: My issue with the Summitar was the special filters (or filter adaptor) that it required.

 

[kb244]

Pro: In many cases my Summitar resulted in images with more vintage character than my Canon 50f1.8.
(With RF's, I go for character; with SLR's I go for neutral and clinical.)

Con: My issue with the Summitar was the special filters (or filter adaptor) that it required.

Is the Summitar you have the older 10-aperture blades that had the circular bokeh, or the post-50s model when they switched to 6-blade hexagon?

And good point about vintage character. The Canon 35mm f/2.8 Serenar I currently have on the Canon 7 basically has soft/distorted edges wide open but with a tack sharp center, the edges sharpen up around f/5.6. But least that came with a set of 34mm "Digital" filters which included a polarizer which is nice. But I rarely use the UV it came with because of reflection coming off the back of the UV filter.

some of the vintage class I don't bother with filters, such as with my Pentax-M 50/1.4, or my Jupiter-11 135/4, unless it's a polarizer.

 

[frank]

The Summitar I had was the older version. I sold it when I came across a collapsible Summicron. I sold my Summarit 50 as well.

 

[frank]

A Canon 7 is a largish body that holds a Canon 50f1.4 well. If I were you, I'd go with that. Makes a nice combo.

 

[kb244]

A Canon 7 is a largish body that holds a Canon 50f1.4 well. If I were you, I'd go with that. Makes a nice combo.

This is how it looks currently with the Canon Serenar 35/2.8

 

[frank]

Looks like it's been swimming in cold water.

 

[kb244]

Looks like it's been swimming in cold water.

That took me a second, probably cuz I always associate a camera like it were a boat, ie: "she", "her".

 

[kb244]

Just remembered one I used to have for my Canon P. a Chiyoko 50mm f/2

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Summitar: beware of scratched coating. Many 1940s and (maybe) early 1950s examples had a soft coating, so make sure the one you buy is pristine. As far as I know, most Japanese lenses of that era were much more robust.

 

[kb244]

Summitar: beware of scratched coating. Many 1940s and (maybe) early 1950s examples had a soft coating, so make sure the one you buy is pristine. As far as I know, most Japanese lenses of that era were much more robust.

Good to know. The Summitar I'm waiting to see I haven't seen a picture of it yet, supposedly he's going to be listing it shortly.

From my limited experience with the older canon lens (both LTM and FD), they almost always seem robust.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

My dad bought the Summitar I now use in 1949 at a PX in Guam. My example has aberrations at f/2, (let's call it character), but by f/4, it performs amazingly well on contemporary standards. Here are some examples of this lens used on a Fuji X-E1 digital camera in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (look at the b&w pictures, the color are scans of Kodachrome from an OM1): https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2014/02/historic-sweet-olive-cemetery-baton.html
As for filters for to fit the unusual 36mm recessed thread, check filterfind.net: http://www.filterfind.net/Leica.html
Good luck with your decision.

 

[kb244]

My dad bought the Summitar I now use in 1949 at a PX in Guam. My example has aberrations at f/2, (let's call it character), but by f/4, it performs amazingly well on contemporary standards. Here are some examples of this lens used on a Fuji X-E1 digital camera in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (look at the b&w pictures, the color are scans of Kodachrome from an OM1): https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2014/02/historic-sweet-olive-cemetery-baton.html
As for filters for to fit the unusual 36mm recessed thread, check filterfind.net: http://www.filterfind.net/Leica.html
Good luck with your decision.

I wonder if they make anything in the way of a step-up ring to a 37mm (which would be a little more common).

 

[Michael W]

I have a Summitar, think it's the newer design, will have to check, but after years of not being able to get filters, I discovered the ebay seller heavystar was making step-up rings that let me use 39mm filters on it. They also make a lens hood, or at least they did a few years ago when I got these, haven't checked since. These items were pretty cheap.
- just checked, mine is the 6 blade one and the step-up ring takes 39mm filters and the hood screws into that. Only slight downside is that the original lens cap will no longer fit. Of course you can probably get a new cap to fit the 39mm dimension.

 

[Paul Howell]

When working as a PJ in the 70s and early 80s I had the Canon 1.4 on a 7S, very good performer wide open, once at F4 really good until F11 then a drop off at 16. my go to lens and camera when I needed a camera to shoot inside in low light, much more quite than the F, F2 or F3 which was my prime camera. Also had the Canon 1.8 or was it a 1.9 collapsible, another great lens.

 

[kb244]

I have a Summitar, think it's the newer design, will have to check, but after years of not being able to get filters, I discovered the ebay seller heavystar was making step-up rings that let me use 39mm filters on it. They also make a lens hood, or at least they did a few years ago when I got these, haven't checked since. These items were pretty cheap.
- just checked, mine is the 6 blade one and the step-up ring takes 39mm filters and the hood screws into that. Only slight downside is that the original lens cap will no longer fit. Of course you can probably get a new cap to fit the 39mm dimension.

That's what I ended up doing for the Jupiter-11 when I did a stepdown ring from 40.5 to 37mm on it, and getting a 37mm cap [got two since another one of my lens had a busted cap]. The push cap it had before wasn't very firm to begin with, and I mainly use the J-11 adapted (focus is quite a bit off on my Canon 7, seemed more like it was made possibly for a FSU SLR, or just simply put together different when it was cleaned up, but works great on my digital sharp as a tack even at f/4).

 

[Jim Jones]

The Canon 7S I bought used in 1968 came with a Canon 50mm f/1.4. For years I used it when such a fast lens was needed for low light. Then Kodak produced T-Max 3200, and a Summicron wide open gave better results than the Canon could on Tri-X. The 7S was a decent camera, but lacked the beautiful worksmanship of a Leica.

 

[kb244]

The Canon 7S I bought used in 1968 came with a Canon 50mm f/1.4. For years I used it when such a fast lens was needed for low light. Then Kodak produced T-Max 3200, and a Summicron wide open gave better results than the Canon could on Tri-X. The 7S was a decent camera, but lacked the beautiful worksmanship of a Leica.

I actually have a brick of Tmax P3200 (20 rolls) (apparently they discontinued it in 2012, saying that Tmax 400 would be sufficient for the latitude)

 

[mdarnton]

I've had two Summitars and never managed to like either, but I have always liked every Canon Rf lens I've had, plus, the extra stop, so I'd get the 50/1.4, myself, which is what I actually did do.

 

[kb244]

RFF people are a bunch of enablers (but don't tell them I said that)...

Grabbed a Canon 50mm f/1.8 (Type 6, 8 aperture blades, basically Serenar optics, but the lighter alloy body used in the 50/1.4) mainly because it was under my maximum threshold and was the cleanest copy I could find from a US-based seller. Plus I'm curious to see how the bokeh of the not-flat-edged octagon looks at about f/2~2.8.

Since I once had a 50/1.8 Serenar with my Canon P almost 10 years ago, I have a general ideal of what to expect optically. (only this time around I'll also be able to use it on my digital if I so wish).

 

[frank]

RFF people are a bunch of enablers (but don't tell them I said that)...

Hey, I resemble that remark.

 

[kb244]

Hey, I resemble that remark.

Now the only thing on my watch list is a 52 page reprint of the Canon 7 service manual.