What 35mm lens looks like a Summar?

[horacekenneth]

I'm looking for a 35mm lens that acts like my uncoated Leitz 5cm f2 Summar. I'm not so much after the "glow" or the swirly bokeh, I'm more interested in the low contrast, low sharpness painterly rendering.

M-mount or LTM doesn't matter.

I've read about LTM Canons (1.8, 2.0, 2.8), the Jupiter 12, and MS Optics' new 35mm 1.4 Apoqualia sounds interesting and maybe close to what I'm looking for. Most of the threads on these lenses discuss how sharp they are, how close they are to modern lenses, etc. I'm kind of looking for the opposite, any guidance here?

 

[blockend]

Have a look at an Industar, which is a Tessar design. LTM obviously, and available in 2.8 and 3.5 chrome "pancake". The latter could be what you're looking for. Some of the 3.5 Industars are erroneously described at LTM whereas they are M39 SLR lenses, usually Zenit, and they won't focus on a rangefinder.

 

[mannbro]

The most opposite to an old lens that acts like a new would probably be a new lens that acts like an old

Voigtländer actually makes a new 35 in a single-coated version, Voigtländer 35/1.4 Nokton Classic SC. It's also reasonably priced. Might be worth taking a look at.

 

[Ian Grant]

I think the only 35mm camera lens close to a Summar is the Meyer Domiplan and that was only made in M42 and Exacta mount I think.

Next would be an early f3.5 un-coated pre WWII Elmar but that will be a lot sharper. An uncoated Jupiter 8 maybe but they may all have been coated.

Ian

 

[choiliefan]

I have a relatively late Jupiter 12 which is soft but the color rendition is different than my Summar. Not at all satisfactory to my needs but perhaps I got a bad Jupiter 12? It was cheap...
I wonder if an early Summaron would be better?

 

[blockend]

I think the only 35mm camera lens close to a Summar is the Meyer Domiplan and that was only made in M42 and Exacta mount I think.

A Summar would be sharper than any of the Domiplans I've seen. I think the OP is looking for softness and low contrast without the weird side effects of a triplet (and I say that as a fan of 3-element lenses).

 

[MDR]

The 28mm Hektor while not a 35mm has a look that somewhat matches the Summar, a Jupiter 12 in decent condition is not that low contrast and quiet sharp they are also coated. The Summar look is mostly the result of lack of coating a coated Summar has very good sharpness on par with early summicrons. Another option is an old delft 3.5/35mm minor they are less common but have good sharpness and lower contrast come to think of it the old delft should be a very good fit.

 

[gone]

All the qualities you mentioned aren't really how a clean Summar images. These are very old lenses, and often suffer from internal haze and fungus, which has given most people a false impression of what they're capable of (swirley bokeh is from Summitars, not Summars). I had one in that sort of condition that flared like crazy, so it got sent off to John at Focal Point Optics for a CLA. It came back as one of the best lenses I've ever used, with great sharpness and classic Leica IQ.

A clean Summar is a fantastic lens. Just put a hood on it and a yellow filter to bump the contrast up a bit, although if it's clean it will have plenty of that. Here's some shots from mine. I valued it even more than my Summicron DR. The 4th shot of Sissy on the bed was at F2.

 

[ic-racer]

I'm looking for a 35mm lens that acts like my uncoated Leitz 5cm f2 Summar. I'm not so much after the "glow" or the swirly bokeh, I'm more interested in the low contrast, low sharpness painterly rendering.

M-mount or LTM doesn't matter.

I've read about LTM Canons (1.8, 2.0, 2.8), the Jupiter 12, and MS Optics' new 35mm 1.4 Apoqualia sounds interesting and maybe close to what I'm looking for. Most of the threads on these lenses discuss how sharp they are, how close they are to modern lenses, etc. I'm kind of looking for the opposite, any guidance here?

Can you post an example?

 

[ic-racer]

I'm looking for a 35mm lens that acts like my uncoated Leitz 5cm f2 Summar. I'm not so much after the "glow" or the swirly bokeh, I'm more interested in the low contrast, low sharpness painterly rendering.

M-mount or LTM doesn't matter.

I've read about LTM Canons (1.8, 2.0, 2.8), the Jupiter 12, and MS Optics' new 35mm 1.4 Apoqualia sounds interesting and maybe close to what I'm looking for. Most of the threads on these lenses discuss how sharp they are, how close they are to modern lenses, etc. I'm kind of looking for the opposite, any guidance here?

Can you post an example so we know what you mean?

 

[cliveh]

Then why not use a uncoated Leitz 5cm f2 Summar?

 

[John Koehrer]

Then why not use a uncoated Leitz 5cm f2 Summar?

Ummm, because it's not a 35?

 

[02Pilot]

I've got a few LTM 35s that I can comment on.

The Canon 35/2.8 could be suitable. It shares the basic Double Gauss formula with the Summar, and has a low-to-moderate contrast look with good resolution, similar to a Summar in good condition (I'm assuming yours is; if not, this is going to be an exercise in frustration if not futility). It is coated, but it is still a 1950s lens. Colors tend to be muted. I have not used the 35/3.2, but it has the same optical formula as the 2.8; the 35/3.5 is a Tessar-formula.

I don't think the Jupiter-12 is what you're looking for. While it is remarkably distortion-free, I find the results have more contrast and feel a bit "crunchy" compared to my other 35s. It's a different look to my eye.

I also have the 35/2.8 Sonnar-formula lens from a Nikon L35AF hacked into an LTM mount. It's a nice moderate contrast lens, but the look is softer. The color rendering tends toward pastel. It doesn't really fit your criteria, but then it's not exactly a readily-available option either.

The one I think might be a dark horse contender is the Sankyo Kyoei-made 35/3.5 lenses; mine is marked W.Acall, but there are other labels. It's a simple Tessar-formula optical arrangement, but the look is a very good match for my Summitar, and I think fairly close to the Summar as well. Low-to-moderate contrast, sharp but creamy. My favorite go-to 35 LTM lens.

If none of those work for you, I'd consider the Elmar 35/3.5 the leading prospect.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My Summar was like OP's Summar, until I spend twenty minutes to clean it just a little bit.

And...

So, guidance is simple. Any trashed lens will do, coated, uncoated, doesn't matter. Once lens has non-removable patina inside it acts as OP wants.

Seen it.

Lens should looks like this:

Or you could take suggested Nokton (SC, MC they are no real difference), Skopar 35 2.5 or J-12 and apply Vaseline. Glow, low contrast and no sharpeners will be with you.

BTW, here is rangefinders sub-forum on A.P.U.G.

Cheers, Ko.

Summar on closeup attachment at "glowing" Polypan F film.

On the 8x10 print it looks like regular lens, film.

 

[blockend]

Ummm, because it's not a 35?

A few of us got the wrong end of the stick with 35mm being a film size as well as a focal length. Put "35mm lens" into an ebay search and there'll be an avalanche of non-35mm lenses. I once tried "35mm lens hood" and gave up!

A low contrast 35mm LTM probably means an old German lens.

 

[Xmas]

A J12 is cheap to try but won't fit all LTM cameras eg fouls Canon LTMs with intact baffles.
It is single coated but four group, and can iris image distressingly...

 

[horacekenneth]

Yes, my Summar is an ugly one. Love it though.

So tabling the question of sharpness (since it seems like that's probably more related to the quality of my copy), what about low contrast lenses?

Early elmar 35mm 3.5 uncoated makes sense. Jupiters and canons I'm getting mixed reviews on. What is the contrast like in those?

The Sanko/w.acall is interesting. I saw a photo taken with a 2.8 version that looked about right

Thanks for your suggestions everyone. I'm planning on getting a couple of these suggestions and comparing them.

 

[02Pilot]

The uncoated Elmar 35/3.5 is going to have lower contrast than anything else in comparable condition.

 

[Xmas]

Yes, my Summar is an ugly one. Love it though.

So tabling the question of sharpness (since it seems like that's probably more related to the quality of my copy), what about low contrast lenses?

Early elmar 35mm 3.5 uncoated makes sense. Jupiters and canons I'm getting mixed reviews on. What is the contrast like in those?

The Sanko/w.acall is interesting. I saw a photo taken with a 2.8 version that looked about right

Thanks for your suggestions everyone. I'm planning on getting a couple of these suggestions and comparing them.

The signature can vary lens to lens.
I use /1.8 and /2 Canons 35mm and /2.8 Canon and Helios (FSU) in 28mm for pastel signature.