Does Leica Lens Sample Variation Exist?

[leica_mage]

Guys, quick question; please answer if you've personal experience of this:

Supposedly sample variation in optical performance between new Leica lenses does not exist, which is one of the most important reasons for paying a premium. In other words, no lemons - or so Leica would have it.

However, there is one particular lens of which I so often hear vastly conflicting reports with respect to flare and veiling glare resistance: the 35mm Summilux ASPH.

Runners-up to this lens in terms of frequency of reports are the 28/2 (image quality with respect to shadow detail) and the 35/2 ASPH (flare and veiling glare).

Anybody here actually experienced sample variation in any of these three lenses, especially the 35s (in terms of optical performance, not mechanical issues like smoothness of focusing, etc.)?

Thank you very much for your time.

[jimmy pro]

Originally Posted by leica_mage

Supposedly sample variation in optical performance between new Leica lenses does not exist, which is one of the most important reasons for paying a premium. In other words, no lemons - or so Leica would have it.

Maybe this will give you a answer to your question. If you still believe the above tho, I've got a like-new bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you for a very reasonable price

[leica_mage]

Originally Posted by jimmy pro

Maybe this will give you a answer to your question. If you still believe the above tho, I've got a like-new bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you for a very reasonable price

Thanks Jimmy, but it is not what I asked for and I had seen the thread anyway in the search I conducted to avoid starting a thread on a topic that may have been covered in the past.

My question is specific to especially two lenses, the 35/1.4 ASPH and 35/2 ASPH, with regard to flare and veiling glare resistance, and supplementarily to a third, the 28/2, with regard to image quality (muddy shadow detail in some samples).

I am not interested in other issues, such as the one you point to or, for example, the famous 50/1.4 ASPH back-focusing problem. Or, for that matter, stiff focusing rings, rattling aperture rings, dust in the viewfinder of early MPs, etc., etc.

[lct]

Originally Posted by leica_mage

...the 28/2, with regard to image quality (muddy shadow detail in some samples)...

Never heard of this so far. Any link?

[leica_mage]

Originally Posted by lct

Never heard of this so far. Any link?

Quite a few. Give me 24 hrs. to dig them up.

But my interest lies chiefly in the 35s and their unequal flare/veiling glare reports.

[kenneth]

I don't know what you mean. I have a 35mm Summicron asph which seems fine. I have never been a fan of lenses faster as they often seem prone to problems and quite frankly unnecessary. This problem is a lens wide problem and not a Leitz only one. I know of someone who reported problems with a Nikon lens some years ago

[jimmy pro]

Originally Posted by leica_mage

I am not interested in other issues, such as the one you point to or, for example, the famous 50/1.4 ASPH back-focusing problem. Or, for that matter, stiff focusing rings, rattling aperture rings, dust in the viewfinder of early MPs, etc., etc.

OK but the sample variations that you are interested in must be the result of lapses in quality control (or else all the lenses would be the same)...and, those lapses in quality control that your not interested in go to show evidence that Leica does make lemons. So I guess I don't understand what your going for...reassurance that sample variations don't exist?

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by leica_mage

Guys, quick question; please answer if you've personal experience of this:

Supposedly sample variation in optical performance between new Leica lenses does not exist, which is one of the most important reasons for paying a premium. In other words, no lemons - or so Leica would have it.

However, there is one particular lens of which I so often hear vastly conflicting reports with respect to flare and veiling glare resistance: the 35mm Summilux ASPH.

Runners-up to this lens in terms of frequency of reports are the 28/2 (image quality with respect to shadow detail) and the 35/2 ASPH (flare and veiling glare).

Anybody here actually experienced sample variation in any of these three lenses, especially the 35s (in terms of optical performance, not mechanical issues like smoothness of focusing, etc.)?

Thank you very much for your time.

I can firmly say that since I had two 35 cron ASPH (one black and one silver) and two 35lux ASPH (one black and one silver) too, the sample variation is not just an abstract concept (in my experience).
Matter of fact I always thought that my first 35lux ASPH was perfect until I bought my second one (the silver), that was less flare pronounced and a bit sharper to my eyes.
I think that lens copy differences may be not so easy to discover (because of the tolerances in the quality check), but if you want to see it in another way, sometimes there are better better copies.

[gwelland]

Folks,

All manufactured goods, including lenses are built, adjusted and tested to within certain tolerances. Getting two lenses that are absolutely identical is a pipe dream.

I've had two 35 Cron ASPH's - one silver non-coded and the other a 2008 black one from new stock. My older silver 'cron was significantly sharper than my new version. If I hadn't had the older lens to compare to though I would have been 100% happy with it; I ended up sending back my new coded lens for refund.

I've had extensive Nikon lenses and even between copies of up to $5000 lenses my friends and I have noticed sample variations. Some significant with pro lenses.

For Leica money there definitely should NEVER be lemons released out of QA. Sample variations should similarly be very minor at these prices. If my new out of box Noctilux was anything to go by before being adjusted by DAG (best $100 upgrade I've ever had), Leica QA definitely took a dive last year at least.

[peter_n]

I have one 35/1.4 ASPH that I'm very happy with so I can't comment there about any comparison. Am on my second try at 35/2 ASPH, the first one seemed to suffer from flare but the second does not. The second one is a black paint version, I don't know if that would make any difference though. Barrel/rings being made of brass shouldn't count.

[leica_mage]

Originally Posted by jimmy pro

... So I guess I don't understand what your going for...reassurance that sample variations don't exist?

No, I'm not looking for reassurance; I am looking for the kind of input available in posts ## 8, 9 and 10. Input from those who felt different copies of their 35 ASPHs performed discernibly differently!

[adan]

Variation within tolerances can become quickly noticeable with 90 f/2 lenses. I just snapped up one (pre-APO) because it focuses far more reliably on MY body than the other recent examples I'd tried (and I also recently tried a rep's 75 f/2 that also performed much better (in focusing - no difference in resolution as such) than the other 75s I'd tried recently.

Focus variations are the issue with longer glass - overall resolution issues are likely more common to 35 and wider since the lenses are smaller and thus a small variation will have a bigger percentage effect.

Variation within tolerances is normal. Sometimes the variation can exceed tolerance and still slip through. Sometimes two variations that would normally cancel out (in lens cam and camera adjustment, e.g.) end up reinforcing each other to put the TOTAL variation outside the tolerance even though both of the pieces are within their specced tolerances.

[maddoc2003jp]

I have heard (read somewhere in another forum) of so-called "blue-copy" lenses from Leica. Lenses completely assembled by hand and carefully checked and calibrated to achieve the maximum possible image quality. According to what I remember having read, these lenses were delivered on request (and for a premium) to special customers.

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

I dont have a box load of summilux to try so its a bit hard to comment on sample variation.
Ive found the 35summilux can be a difficult lens to tame depending on the lighting situation and so I suspect criticism of the lens arises as much from users not really understanding how to use it.

This was not so kind to affirm. Thaks anyway for the precious words.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by maddoc2003jp

I have heard (read somewhere in another forum) of so-called "blue-copy" lenses from Leica. Lenses completely assembled by hand and carefully checked and calibrated to achieve the maximum possible image quality. According to what I remember having read, these lenses were delivered on request (and for a premium) to special customers.

Seems to be a bit of a myth, imo. All lenses by Leica are checked manually against a reference lens. Sample variation does exist, but should be within such small margins that it is irrelevant and certainly not visible in crude methods like "test shots" I would say the sample variation between Leica users is far larger and certainly more noticable..

[rob_x2004]

Gee you must have got in early. How olds your cache?
Regardless it was a fair coment, I also think its unlikely anyone would have enough lensese to make a comment on sample variation.
If someone actually gets a bad lens then it can only be a lemon that got thro...leicas QC.

[leica_mage]

This:

Originally Posted by Mauribix

I can firmly say that since I had two 35 cron ASPH (one black and one silver) and two 35lux ASPH (one black and one silver) too, the sample variation is not just an abstract concept (in my experience).
Matter of fact I always thought that my first 35lux ASPH was perfect until I bought my second one (the silver), that was less flare pronounced and a bit sharper to my eyes.

This:

Originally Posted by gwelland

I've had two 35 Cron ASPH's - one silver non-coded and the other a 2008 black one from new stock. My older silver 'cron was significantly sharper than my new version. If I hadn't had the older lens to compare to though I would have been 100% happy with it; I ended up sending back my new coded lens for refund.

And this:

Originally Posted by peter_n

Am on my second try at 35/2 ASPH, the first one seemed to suffer from flare but the second does not.

lead us in the right direction, I feel.

There is something in these accounts that indicates more than sample variation in Leica users.

[jimmy pro]

Originally Posted by leica_mage

No, I'm not looking for reassurance; I am looking for the kind of input available in posts ## 8, 9 and 10. Input from those who felt different copies of their 35 ASPHs performed discernibly differently!

Ok fine so now that you've got what your after what does it mean? Your not gonna buy one? If you do, how will you know even if it's not obviously a lemon that you still didn't get jipped...that there isn't some out there in better shape still.

[leica_mage]

Originally Posted by jimmy pro

Ok fine so now that you've got what your after what does it mean? Your not gonna buy one? If you do, how will you know even if it's not obviously a lemon that you still didn't get jipped...that there isn't some out there in better shape still.

Listen mate, get off my back. You didn't have a concrete answer for me, based on personal experience; that's fine, I didn't hassle you for it. Now shove off. I see from your other posts that this is the way you move here. Well I'm not interested in that kind of exchange, so just drop it.

I'm looking forward to hearing from anyone else with personal experience.

[adan]

Look at it this way - Leica specifically engraves 2 small digits on the focusing ring of all their M telephotos (maybe not the Summarits - I don't know) and 50mm lenses. The digits specify the EXACT focal length of that EXACT lens - e.g. "05" on a 90mm lenses means actualy focal length 90.5mm. "12" on a 50mm means 51.2mm actual focal length.

If there was not a variation, they wouldn't need the numbers.