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

kb244 · Jan 1, 2017

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 · Jan 1, 2017

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 · Jan 1, 2017

frank said:
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 · Jan 1, 2017

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 · Jan 1, 2017

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 · Jan 1, 2017

frank said:
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 · Jan 1, 2017

Looks like it's been swimming in cold water.

kb244 · Jan 1, 2017

frank said:
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 · Jan 1, 2017

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

Kodachromeguy · Jan 1, 2017

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 · Jan 1, 2017

Kodachromeguy said:
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 · Jan 1, 2017

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 · Jan 1, 2017

Kodachromeguy said:
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 · Jan 1, 2017

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 · Jan 1, 2017

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 · Jan 1, 2017

Michael W said:
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 · Jan 1, 2017

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 · Jan 1, 2017

Jim Jones said:
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 · Jan 1, 2017

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 · Jan 2, 2017

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 · Jan 2, 2017

kb244 said:
RFF people are a bunch of enablers (but don't tell them I said that)...

Hey, I resemble that remark.

kb244 · Jan 2, 2017

frank said:
Hey, I resemble that remark.

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

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency