Why do I want it so bad?

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 14, 2010

Sanders,

Are the Summitars available with a bayonet mount? Or are there adapters?
I'm pretty happy with the Summicron that's on it now.

Thanks!

- Thomas

jmcd · Apr 14, 2010

The Summitar is screw mount and uses an adapter to fit the M-mount, which it works fine.

Q.G. · Apr 14, 2010

Don't fall for this! You've not even bought the camera, and already Leicists are trying their best to make you buy every possible lens!

Rol_Lei Nut · Apr 14, 2010

In my experience, Summitars are great if you want to re-create a 1930's available light-low contrast-soft edged-very flared and bloomed captured photo look...
(But then you don't need a Leica lens for that)

In other words, I hated mine!

Shadowtracker · Apr 14, 2010

Eh, if you want it, buy it, but the machine won't see the image, it is only the mechanical aspect of what you see. True, lenses can change perspective sometimes but still, it's you that sees the image. In 35mm, I have one lens and made it work for everything I did - and is was a prime lens at that. With another 35mm, I have 2 lenses and since the once covers prime, I don't use the prime much any more. $ is important, so if it straps me financially, I usually find another way. With Medium Format, I have 2 lenses and an extension tube and those cover most of what I like to do except macro. Getting into LF now, two lenses on the way and from there I will see... Maybe I'm a minimalist, or maybe too frugal, or maybe just not into sales-people. I dunno, but I like the stuff I get and I do appreciate good tools and workmanship.

Rolleiflexible · Apr 14, 2010

As I said, Summitars are much underappreciated.

Here's a link to an image I shot with mine -- it pleased
me quite a bit. My sense is that the user overwhelms
the glass, and that the differences from one lens to the
next are not so great as we like to think. I suggested
the Summitar because it is a good workhorse and they
are easy to find pristine for very little money. And I
like the form -- the size suits the M bodies, and the
build quality is great of course. It lacks the biting
clarity of modern lenses but I find the modern lenses
a bit clinical and I find the Summitar plenty sharp for
my purposes.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2812323205/

mablo · Apr 14, 2010

Hah! I came in with my lovely M4-P in my hands and saw this thread.

mablo · Apr 14, 2010

Yes, Summitar is a great lens, I had one but sold it for some reason. Stupid me. Never sell a Leica lens.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 14, 2010

Thanks for the advice.

The thing that I have liked with uncoated and older lenses in the past is the lack of contrast. With proper shading, they feature beautiful open shadows and gorgeous highlights.

I wish lenses like that were made in the modern age. I'll try a Summitar with an adapter when the finances allow.

Is there a 90mm lens with similar qualities out there?

- Thomas

Q.G. · Apr 14, 2010

You see?

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 14, 2010

Can't say you didn't warn me.

I will have two lenses eventually. Just figuring out which two, is all. It took me a while to settle on the Pentax lenses I like to use. I presume the same will be true for figuring out what works for me with the Leica.

Frankly, though, I'm happy to continue with the Summicron. I don't have a lens fetish, looking for the perfect bokeh or falloff. Don't believe in it. But I am interested in finding a reasonable deal. I think I can get more for the Summicron by selling it than the Summitar will cost. And that's a deal!

Q.G. said:
You see?

Rolleiflexible · Apr 14, 2010

Tom, one of the things you will come to see in
Leica lenses is that Leitz did not worship at the
Altar of Contrast. Their lenses tend to render
scenes with lower contrast than, say, the classic
Nikkor Sonnar lenses made with Leica mounts. I
have a Nikkor 50/1.4 that I shot alongside a
Summitar and a Summar (another classic LTM 50
speed lens that has an undeserved bad rap) and
the Nikkor was a much contrastier lens. When you
compared a small swath from each negative, the
Nikkor sample looked far superior to the Leica lens
samples. And yet, when you looked at the entire
negative, the Leica lenses had created images that
seemed to hold their shadows and highlights better,
across the frame, than had the Nikkor's. At least
that was my sense of things.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 14, 2010

That's good to hear, Sanders.

I'm going to shoot some side by side comparisons eventually. Just for the fun of it. Better data in resolution and contrast doesn't mean better pictures. It's about flavor and what we like.

For my 5x7 camera I have an old uncoated 210mm lens that I use for all of my shooting with it, and I can't imagine using a more modern and higher contrast lens.

Thanks again.

- Thomas

Black Dog · Apr 14, 2010

Interesting points-I've heard this about Leica lenses before.

Colin Corneau · Apr 14, 2010

Thomas it seems we're in similar boats. I'll be comparing results from my new rangefinder to my very trusted old Nikon...can't wait to see and learn.

nolanr66 · Apr 14, 2010

Great story! I released my cows 10+ years ago when I became vegetarian...back to our regularly scheduled cameras.

Don't forget that film is not vegan and does not respect life. But I have learned stuff today and if I ever get a cow I am going to run that bugger off.

PVia · Apr 15, 2010

Rolleiflexible said:
Tom, one of the things you will come to see in
Leica lenses is that Leitz did not worship at the
Altar of Contrast. Their lenses tend to render
scenes with lower contrast than, say, the classic
Nikkor Sonnar lenses made with Leica mounts.

Sanders...

I think you're referring to older Leica lenses here, right? This is typically seen in those older lenses still in use now, for various reasons.

The new Zeiss ZM lenses are some beautiful pieces of glass. I have the 50/2 Planar and it is a beauty, wonderful contrast, not prone to flare even w/o a hood, sharp (if you're into that sort of thing ;-))...

Tony Egan · Apr 15, 2010

A musician at a concert once said - I'm pretty sure it was Richard Thompson - that every new guitar he bought had one great song in it. That's my excuse. The problem is knowing when you've got that one great shot so you can gratefully give it up again.

Farkle-Mpls · Apr 15, 2010

One more guy from the Minnesota contingent weighing in ... buy it. If you don't, let me buy it. I've had my eye open for a good M4-P for quite some time now.

(Hi Tom and Andy ...)

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 16, 2010

Tony, I love Richard Thompson. If he says so, there must be something to it, because that boy can write, play, and sing!

Farkle... I'll keep you posted, but I'm pretty sure I'm adding this beauty to my camera line-up. Sending to DAG for a clean-up soon. Then exploring a Summitar and a 90mm lens.

This should be fun. The owner has allowed me to bring the Leica on a pending trip to England. Trying to solidify my love for the camera, I'm sure.

Andrew Moxom · Apr 16, 2010

Buy it Thomas..... and Hi Carl (Farkle)... That names rings a bell from Merrill for some reason?

Rolleiflexible · Apr 16, 2010

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I think I can get more for the Summicron by selling
it than the Summitar will cost. And that's a deal!

Tom, I like the Summitars a lot. But the Summicrons
are exquisite lenses too. If you already have a nice
Cron, I'm not sure you'd be well-advised to sell it. If
it's working for you, don't mess with success.

fdisk · May 28, 2010

whatever

just buy it already. its just a camera, and yes it will help your art, to a point.

if gear didn't matter then you would see all these guys running around with 4x5 field cameras taking street shots, nowadays. but with 35mm gear, a couple of lens on an old m3 and you can get all the shots you want. 28mm, 50mm and a 80mm or 120mm and your fine. I shot for years with less. I just dont like the loading system in leica.

(ya ya I know weegee did it with his graflex)

Steve Mack · May 31, 2010

Because.

With best regards.

Stephen

Thomas Bertilsson · Jun 1, 2010

I have actually decided to wait a while. After the romance wore of, and I was able to analyze the results more substantially, I have decided to keep plugging away with the Pentax.
I literally can't tell a difference in the results, scanned or printed; the differences are, as far as I can judge:
1. The Leica handles better for every day shooting.
2. The Leica is wonderfully compact.
3. The frame spacing is more precise (I have to grin at that one)
4. The camera definitely works better at slower shutter speeds.
Other than that, I just cannot justify buying this camera. It just goes to prove how good the Pentax lenses are! But, somehow, I know I will anyway some day. It's just such a sweet camera!

- Thomas

Why do I want it so bad?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency