hi all

I saw a nice minty Summarit 5cm/1.5 in the shops. The glass is quite mint, so is the body. I've heard the following about this lens:

1.It has a very special signature... ie. it is a very soft lens for portraits.

2. It has very soft coating that is very prone to scratching and rub marks.

3. It has odd filter thread, 41mm

4. Its hood is rare and inconvenient to use.

5. More importantly, it is not usable at f2.8 or less, not to mention at full aperture f1.5

6. When stopped down to f5.6 or more, it is quite usable although still soft.

Any comments or refutes to the above information? I'm eagerly waiting for your response.

The bottom line is: Is it worth paying my hard earned money for this exotic lens?

Thanks in advance.

-- luxman (ericssan@yahoo.com), June 04, 2002

Answers

much has been written here about the summarit. in fact, there was a long thread recently. most of your objective comments are spot on. the thread is 41mm, but an odd pitch. normal 41mm filters usually don't fit. there are special summarit filters from leica. these are of two types, a screw on, and a sort of bayonet. i have a few extra of the latter, and would be happy to basically give you one if you pay the postage. the coatings are soft, in and out. the result is the lenses are often internally fogged and externally scratched. check with a flashlite. as always, some fogging/scratching will not affect image quality much, but despite what people say, every imperfection matters. there is a reason the lenses come from the factry clear. scratches on a flare prone optic (like the summarit) are of more concern. now, as to your subjective remarks. i don't agree that the lens should be used only at 5.6 or smaller. indeed, i would argue that the only reason to get a summarit is to use them at small apertures. it is at 1.5, 2 and 2.8 that the unique soft quality of the lens is apparent. stop down to mid apertures, and the lens looks like any average mid 50s normal (maybe a little less sharp than average). used open, however, you get a really unique look. it helps to use a shade, especially open. however, youare rite, the clip on shade is hard to find, unwieldy ad ugly. it can also be quite expensive. i bought a mint in box example (including the purple tissue) recently at tamarkin for c.$275. it was worth it to me because i use the summarit a lot. it is a great partner for the iiig because the high mag of the iiig allows fairly accurate focusing. i would certainly try the lens. if it is cosmetically excellent, and reasonably clear, you will always be able to resell. classic camera, jessops classics, and andrews usually have them in the UKL175 - 250 range.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 04, 2002.

hi Roger

thanks for your fast reply. I'm actually saving up to get a 50 summilux (version just before current) to mount on my M4P, when I stumbled upon this minty summarit.

This lens is in leica bayonet mount. I thought it only comes in screw mount thread? Any difference in the optical quality? I'm also thinking of getting a IIf.

What are your other thoughts and experiences on this Summarit?

-- luxman (ericssan@yahoo.com), June 04, 2002.

For the unique look of a Summarit wide open look here:

http://www.takanet.com/hobby/camera/Lens/Boke/

If you want that look you can only get it with such an old lens.

-- Bert Keuken (treb@operamail.com), June 04, 2002.

summarit production continued well into the m era -- the last summarits were made in '60 or '61 depending on whom you believe. bayonet versions exists, therefore, although they are less common (but not really collectible as such). the optical formula is the same regardless of mount. a bayonet indicates late production, and so would have the best coating. make sure it is actually a bayonet, and not a screw with an adapter bunged on tite. i think it is a great lens, different than a lux (a lux is sharper), but geared for the same purpose. i would get it, keep saving, then sell it when you need the money for the lux. unles you fall in love with it. i personally would prefer to have a summarit and a cron. the lux is a lot of money for a 1950s design. it really only persists in the leica line for those who HAVE to have th extra stop AND for those who love the old style lenses with their low macrocontrast and high resolution. in a way, it is astounding that leica has not offered a sharp, modern 50 1.4 even as it has upgraded most of its other lenses to apo specification. truly strange.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 04, 2002.

My Summarit is LTM, so perhaps some of my responses (inserted below) won't apply to the BM version.

1.It has a very special signature... ie. it is a very soft lens for portraits.

[It is a soft lens for everything in the image that is not precisely in focus. This makes it fine for portraits where you want th eleading eye to be sharp and everything else a bit soft, though I prefer the 90mm length for portraits.]

2. It has very soft coating that is very prone to scratching and rub marks.

[I've had mine for 35 years -- got it from my father, who was meticulous with his gear -- and it does have a lot of very fine cleaning marks on the front surface. I conclude from this that the lens surface is more prone to scratching than other lenses.]

3. It has odd filter thread, 41mm

[I've used -- but do not own -- the bayonet-style filters for the lens, so I can't speak to this.]

4. Its hood is rare and inconvenient to use.

[Rare, yes, but NOT inconvenient. The hood is rectangular and has a cut-out area to allow the VF to be unobstructed (mostly). One learns quickly to mount it in the proper upright position to gain the advantage of the cut-out.]

5. More importantly, it is not usable at f2.8 or less, not to mention at full aperture f1.5

[Not true, though see the limits implied in (1) above. I agree with the comment that one doesn't buy this lens to use it only at smaller apertures.]

6. When stopped down to f5.6 or more, it is quite usable although still soft.

[See (1) and (5) above. There is a certain "look" that is unique to this lens. Try to get a Summicron look from it -- at any aperture -- and you'll be disappointed.]

-- Dick Baznik (reb10@po.cwru.edu), June 04, 2002.

hi Bert

thanks for your link. I've also found the following link that shows me the artistic signature of this lens:

-- luxman (ericssan@yahoo.com), June 04, 2002.

sorry can't insert the link properly ...

http://www.takanet.com/hobby/photo/S-D/

-- luxman (ericssan@yahoo.com), June 04, 2002.

Very nice set of examples of its signature. Too bad I'm out of funds at the moment... I want one!

-- Bert Keuken (treb@operamail.com), June 04, 2002.

Roger, I've never heard of a mint in the box, perfect glass 50/1.5 Summarit. But I know that Tamarkin (the Stan Tamarkin I know, whose prices are not low) would never ever sell such an item for $ 275 (except perhaps many many years ago). Truly mint in box perfect glass Summarit would be quite a bit more than that!

Lux. The Summarit was made in SM and M mount, in Wetzlar (common) and Canada (rare). The lenshood is beautifully made, completely functionall, and expensive. The Summarit lens is a beautifully crafted item, but not terribly good optically. Very soft wide open, with tendency to flare. Improves on stopping down, but still no match for either version of the 50/1.4 Summilux, which followed.

The chrome Summilux (version 1 or version 2 (after SN 1844xxx) is also a beautifully made lens, more expensive than the Summarit, and significantly better, especially wide open and in the edges and corners. The Summarit is still a relatively popular lens, at least in part because it is inexpensive and not rare (60,000 or so were made).

But nearly all of the Summarits I have seen have some problems, including coating marks, the ubiquitous internal fog, or more likely, both. My experience has been that whatever the seller says about the lens, there is always some problem with the optics. I think the best you can do is to find an example with minimal problems that won't much affect the images.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), June 04, 2002.

eliot -- re-read my post. i was talking about buying the SHADE for $275, not the lens. however, i did purchase my superclean summarit about two years ago on ebay for $375. but you are rite, stanley would not let one go that cheaply.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 04, 2002.

I just got a Summarit at a camera show last weekend, $230 with a LTM to M adapter. Cleaning marks? Looks like it was cleaned with steel wool at some point. Just adds character... At the same time, a friend lucked into a very nice IIIa and a 50mm 1.4 Nikkor in LTM for a very good price. Afterwards it was time for a lens comparison: My current Elmar-M, the Summarit, and the Nikkor. (sorry, no photos posted yet, gotta have some free time to figure it out, and also time between computer crashes(OT $2k gets you a computer that's unreliable after 2 1/2 years or an M that lasts...))

No surprise. The Elmar is sharper, but the Summarit, even with truly ugly cleaning marks, makes photos with a beautiful look. Lotsa flare, I think, but it's all across the field of view and gives a low- contrast glow. At 1.5 to 2.8, it's classic, much nicer IMHO than the Nikkor, which is pretty much like the 50 1.4 I use on my Fs. There is an intersting circular look to the out-of-focus area, maybe due to the scratches. Looks like a Van Gogh. No obvious fungus, surprisingly.

So...get a cheap one, use it as wide open as possble, don't worry about shades and filters (this puppy looks like it spent time in a sandstorm, I can't possibly do as much damage). From 5.6 on it's not too different from the Elmar, but softer with less contrast.

Oh yeah, the IIIa is sweet. I've got to get one, or a II or IIIc and maybe Elmar 3.5 collapsable. Great take everywhere pocket camera.

Carey

-- Carey Russ (careyruss@earthlink.net), June 04, 2002.

For that extra soft close-up, add a Walz close-up filter:

Tulips

Walz also makes a shade, which sometimes turns up on ebay.

-- Bill Macintire (wlmacintire@msn.com), June 04, 2002.

everybody gets that linking wrong the first time, not sure why, I copied someone else's code except for the link:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=799024&size=lg

Apologies for not getting it clickable

-- Bill Macintire (wlmacintire@msn.com), June 04, 2002.

Tulips One more try, I see I was missing a space. I give up if this doesn't work.

-- Bill Macintire (wlmacintire@msn.com), June 04, 2002.

Hello Luxman,

just try!

It will most likely be the cheapest f1.5/ 50 mm lens you can get for your LEICA. Photos taken at f 5.6 or 8 are (almost) not to distinguish from those taken with an older SUMMICRON from the 70ies, IMO.

The SUMMARIT will be a bit softer than an newer 50 mm lens, but take your chance, you might like it: Soft is in right now.

Best regards

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), June 04, 2002.

I think they vary in basic optical quality. I have an LTM Summarit, very pretty, very clean, optically flarey at larger apertures & usable but so so closed down. My wife had a bayonet version which was and is quite a lot better, even though she had scratched the **** out of the front element with a pocket handkerchief before I met her. Her Kodachrome 25's with this lens were inspirational; sharp and clear and with excellent colour rendition. Lots of folks, like her father, bought the Summarit as their only standard, and were happy.

-- James Elwing (elgur@acay.com.au), June 04, 2002.

as i said, the late coatings were better. simple as that.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 04, 2002.

I also have a LSM summarit in optically perfect condition. My take on it is that it is a low contrast lens, which in general, I prefer to use with colour rather than b/w. Rather soft, esp used at wider apertures but it can be very nice when used with the right subject. Use it as a specialist alternative to you other standards and you should not be disappointed as long as you don't expect it to be as sharp or contrasty as the latest 'lux or 'cron. By the way,I experimented with 40.5 filters and found some old zeiss ikon ones which worked fine - a little loose until screwed up fully, then great. You might be lucky with various filters of this thread, so give it a try as 40.5 is much more common than 41mm. Is it worthwhile- depends. If you like to experiment with your rendition based on different lenses, then its worth it. If you are a sharpness freak, forget it. The build quality, like most older leica lenses is stunning so you might just like to buy it to play with in front of the fire.

-- Peter (peterm1@ozemail.com.au), June 05, 2002.

Roger. Sorry, I misread your post - thought you were referring to a MIB lens. $ 275 for MIB Summarit hood sounds about typical for Tamarkin. BTW, if you think $ 200 is a lot for a Summarit hood, this price is for the more common clamp screw variety.

There is an early 50/1.5 Summarit hood that bayonets onto the lens that will set you back considerably more than that. I have seen a handful of them offered for sale over the years. For what it's worth, the regular clamp screw Summarit hood can also be used on the Summarit's predecessor, the 50/1.5 Xenon lens. The regular Xenon hood is a barndoor type folding hood which is extremely rare, much more so than the Summarit hood.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), June 05, 2002.

An interesting feature of the Summarit historically is that two thin lenses were used in place of the thicker one-piece rear element that would otherwise be used, and is more usual. This same feature was carried over into the first version Summilux.

What makes that interesting is that Walter Mandler resurrected that configuration when he designed the f/1 Noctilux, the present version, to replace the f/1.2 aspherical Noctilux. So what was considered old- fashioned for a Summilux (the divided rear element is replaced by a cemented two-element group in the present Summilux), became state-of- the-art in the Noctilux!

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 05, 2002.

Bob. What was SOTA about the 50/1.0 Nocti was not the optical configuration per se, but the use of extremely high refraction index glasses (> 1.9) in several of the elements. This was new for Leica and the Noctilux.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), June 05, 2002.

thanks for all the interesting replies. I enjoy myself thoroughly while reading through all of them. I've found two mint summarits, complete with unique 'summarit' filter and ugly hood. The problem is that one is bayonet mount and the other is screwmount.

The coating on bayonet mount is better and I found a big thumbprint on the front glass on the screwmount version. The shopowner uses a special cloth to wipe it away and I discovered two faint long lines of cleaning marks... I wonder if he has wipe the dedicate soft coating ... my heart sank.

I'm so tied up in a dilemma because I very much wanted to use Summarit on my trusty IIf too.

OTOH, i spotted a slight haze at the rear element.. of the bayonet version, wonder if it will affect the image quality.

any comments?

-- luxman (ericssan@yahoo.com), June 06, 2002.