Infos from the forum-meeting 2008

[Riccis]

Originally Posted by sdai

The 0.95 Noctilux alone will steal the show for Leica ... why would people pay 10k USD or Euro on the existing Noctilux now? second best is not good.

ahem, faster, ahem...

[marknorton]

Originally Posted by sdai

The 0.95 Noctilux alone will steal the show for Leica ... why would people pay 10k USD or Euro on the existing Noctilux now? second best is not good.

By all accounts, the cigar boxes are all gone, so they've neatly drawn a line under the Midland design, though personally, I think they should have come in a Hermes bag...

[lll]

Mark,

would You really call a Summicron a superfast lens?

Friedhelm

[Ivar B]

Originally Posted by lll

Mark,

would You really call a Summicron a superfast lens?

Friedhelm

Based on the rumours flying around at the dinnertables in the Hessenpark, the 24mm might indeed be a Summilux - no doubt superfast for this focal length.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by Ivar B

Based on the rumours flying around at the dinnertables in the Hessenpark, the 24mm might indeed be a Summilux - no doubt superfast for this focal length.

Given the size of the current f2.8 lens - or more to the point, how much it intrudes into the viewfinder - I wonder how much of the viewfinder that lens would cover. Unless of couse it was specifically made for the cropped sensor M8. Then again I'd be surprised if Leica went down that route.

Interesting times.

[lll]

When Leica calls a lens an M-lens I cannot imagine it could only fit at the interim solution of a crop camera. - While having FF analog cameras still in their portfolio.

Opinion, not information!

Friedhelm

[marknorton]

Originally Posted by lll

Mark,

would You really call a Summicron a superfast lens?

Friedhelm

It would certainly be interesting if there was a 24mm Summilux which would leave two holes - 24mm Summicron and 28mm Summilux - left unfilled which Leica has not traditionally done.

Given the cost of the 24mm Elmarit now, I do wonder how much 2 extra stops would cost aince elsewhere in the lens range, just one extra stop nearly doubles the price.

As with Steve, I wonder how much of the viewfinder will be obscurred by such a monster by the time you put a lens hood on it.

The other conclusion is that such a lens might be a signal that FF is really a long way off...

which

[thrid]

Let's hope that the new production methods introduced with the Summarit line keep the prices for the new glass at a sane, if not reasonable level.

[sdai]

Originally Posted by marknorton

As with Steve, I wonder how much of the viewfinder will be obscurred by such a monster by the time you put a lens hood on it.

Perhaps they'll build a shoe mount finder for the 24 lux ... this would greatly satisfy the obsession of collectors. LOL

[Ivar B]

Originally Posted by thrid

Let's hope that the new production methods introduced with the Summarit line keep the prices for the new glass at a sane, if not reasonable level.

I am not so sure I want this to happen, at least not all the way. I tried the Summarit lenses for the first time or rather held them in my hands during the Forum Meeting, and I was not impressed at all. This was the reaction of other Forum members also. The Leica "feel" was absent. Optically I am sure the lenses are excellent, but many Leica users will be prepared to pay a premium and get a "real" Leica lens. I am not saying that I do not want competitive prices and if production costs and market prices come down due to more efficient production methods, so much the better. However, examining the Summarits, one is reminded of the supreme craftmanship and quality of the Summicrons, Elmarits etc, so maybe Leica has gone to far looking for ways to reduce costs here. No wonder sales of the Summarits are lagging behind expectations.

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by lll

The problem with the old Tri Elmar was that Hoya seized delivering the pressed aspherical lens element and a substitute from Kyocera did not match the Leica quality requirements. There is no other company worldwide capable of making this special piece of glass, they told us.

Friedhelm--
When the 28-35-50 was first discontinued, Leica US said (private response to my e-mailed question) it was due to unavailability of a mechanical part from a subcontractor. (I think someone on the forum also reported getting the same information from Solms, and I know the fellow I corresponded with in the US says only what he is officially told by Germany.)

Even then, rumors held that it was due to discontinuance of a type of glass.

Your explanation sounds very detailed and believable, but I wonder why Leica might at first have put out inaccurate information.

Could you list a source for your information?

Thanks.

[Ivar B]

Originally Posted by ho_co

Friedhelm--
When the 28-35-50 was first discontinued, Leica US said (private response to my e-mailed question) it was due to unavailability of a mechanical part from a subcontractor. (I think someone on the forum also reported getting the same information from Solms, and I know the fellow I corresponded with in the US says only what he is officially told by Germany.)

Even then, rumors held that it was due to discontinuance of a type of glass.

Your explanation sounds very detailed and believable, but I wonder why Leica might at first have put out inaccurate information.

Could you list a source for your information?

Thanks.

Howard,

I did not post the message, but this was the exact explanation given by the Leica M manager Stefan Daniel in public at the Forum Meeting. He also confirmed it in a private conversation afterwards.

Regards,

Ivar

[lll]

Hi Howard,

may be it was not so easy for Leica to confess, that optical key technologies of their lenses don´t come from their own. For a company which tries to communicate the image of being the leader of photographic quality optics worldwide. In the past they always said "WE found a way for presssing aspheres up to 20mm in diameter in optical quality"...

Regards
Friedhelm

[rosuna]

The key is the design... ask Panasonic.

[andybarton]

Originally Posted by lll

Hi Howard,

may be it was not so easy for Leica to confess, that optical key technologies of their lenses don´t come from their own. For a company which tries to communicate the image of being the leader of photographic quality optics worldwide. In the past they always said "WE found a way for presssing aspheres up to 20mm in diameter in optical quality"...

Regards
Friedhelm

We learned last week that Leica take lens blanks to their specification from several glass manufacturers, including Hoya and Schott, and then they make them into their own lens elements.

It's interesting to note that these 3rd party glass makers deliberately manufacture glass to Leica's specification. Leica is too small a company to have their own glass manufacturing plant these days.

[SJP]

Originally Posted by sdai

a no-step zoomer to replace the current tri-elmar would be very interesting..

Even more interesting is how you would propose dealing with the framelines.........

[ho_co]

Andy, Friedhelm, Ivar--
As I said above, I don't question your explanation of the discontinuation of the Tri-Elmar; but again, thanks for the re-iteration.

I worked for Leica at a time when they still had their glass lab; they were always glad when another manufacturer offered a glass that matched their specification, because that meant Leica could use their very small production facilities for glasses that weren't commercially available. They've always bought from other companies, and their designs require Leica-specified formulas. Purchasing from the world's biggest glass manufacturer doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is that a specific person speaking for Leica wrote me something like: "The Tri-Elmar is one of the most mechanically complex lenses ever made. As a small company, Leica has to subcontract certain parts of some products. And unfortunately, a Leica subcontractor has quit supplying a critical part of the Tri-Elmar." Etc. I thought that was as reasonable an explanation as "Hoya quit supplying an aspherical element we needed."

Specifically: Someone speaking officially for Leica told me something that someone else also speaking officially for Leica has later contradicted.

It doesn't matter that one has more credibility than the other; I'm bothered by the fact that the story changed. So when should I trust the "official explanation" and when not?

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by lll

Mark,

would You really call a Summicron a superfast lens?

Friedhelm

Hey, guys--
According to the new web site, f/4 is super-fast:

[marknorton]

Interesting that they include the Noctilux and the 35mm Summilux in that sample of 4 lenses. Ssssshhhh! Don't mention focus shift...

[lll]

Hi Andy,

I think You mix something up. In case of the Tri-Elmar Leica used a blank pressed asphere (NOT a lens blank, as "blank" in german means "polished" lenses, in this case with a ready-to-use surface right after pressing the raw glass into a mould and let it cool down very slow and controlled not to get tensions or aberrations in form during this process). These aspherical lenses were completely manufactured by Hoya, later Kyocera, only to get centered and mount into the barrel.

They didn´t get only the raw glass as in every other case as they dont have their own glass lab any longer. All aspheric lenses with a diameter extending 20mm are grinded in a very difficult NC process at Solms.


Hi Howard,

I can understand Your irritation, but I cant tell You anything else...

Regards
Friedhelm