A stiff arerture ring on a Summitar suggests that it needs a service: however, because there are no click-stops a (very) small amount of tightness is needed. If the lens is even slightly hazy the loss of contrast at f2-5.6 will be fairly pronounced: again, cleaning will help.
1930s-40s films were indeed very slow by modern standards - down to about 12ASA/ISO for colour films, with 25-40 being a fairly common 'everyday' speed. Also, as the emulsions and developers were different in many respects to today's formulations the image rendition was quite different too. This can be seen in sharpness and tonal range, and in halation (essentially film plane flare), which all added to vintage effect.
Retrophotographic.co.uk lists several 'traditional' B+W film types, including a 'Classic' film, which emulate some of those effects. Adox films are particularly good examples of silver-rich films, and are available at 25, 50 and 100 ISO. All are worth a trial, although a compromise is to use a pretty standard (and flexible) film, like FP4, and to rate it as you prefer (depends on the developer you use): I'm quite happy with it pushed to 200 ISO, for example. Many differences between films can be lost - or hidden - in the scanning process.
The Summitar (esp. uncoated) is very prone to flare, and a hood is almost obligatory: the best hood is the monster 'barn-door' SOOFM version. Late Summitar versions with a hexagonal iris will (securely) accept a Summicron 12558 metal hood, but the similarly proportioned plastic version is too loose to fit securely. I don't know if the early versions of the lens will accept the 12558 securely.
You may find the Summitar is a bit quirky. If so, I'd suggest that you also consider a later coated 5cm f3.5 Elmar (link) - this is an excellent everyday lens, with some interesting characteristics that give a different rendition to the Summitar, and without that lens' bad habits.
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: Leica IIIb
Edit
Reply
Quote
