Tim Ashley - 35mm FLE review

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tim Ashley Photography has an interesting review of the 35 FLE on the Leica M 240 posted now. He also compares the 35FLE to the Zeiss on the RX1. Tim Ashley Photography | Leica M 240 with 35mm F1.4 FLE - some observations

[IWC Doppel]

Tim Ashley Photography has an interesting review of the 35 FLE on the Leica M 240 posted now. He also compares the 35FLE to the Zeiss on the RX1. Tim Ashley Photography | Leica M 240 with 35mm F1.4 FLE - some observations

 

For those not lucky enough to stumble across an old 35 AA, I find it a delight to nail focus and the bokeh and rendering IMO is second to none, I wonder if they will ever look at an older style compromise ? This lens has better central sharpness (f1.4 and no sharpening in processing) and worse at the edges. For me the edges are just that, edges

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[k-hawinkler]

Tim's post is already being discussed here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2372666-post129.html

[algrove]

My 35 FLE seems better than Tim's, but then again I am an amateur.

[UliWer]

Well, looking at the examples given in Tim's review, I can only say that the lens either isn't o.k. (decentration or something similar) or - it is just bad.

 

The example with the tower in the park cannot be explained by misfocussing. The steps in the front are sharp, the tower in the back is almost sharp, the trees in between aren't sharp at all though I can't see any signs of shaking by wind. I havn't seen something like this before.

[Rick]

I agree with both of you and my first thought before I read his review when I had only looked at the pictures was; Huh? Something isn't right here. His 35FLE looks sick and I'm not just being a fan boy. My RX1 looks great and I've stated on this forum already that it is probably a little better than the M + 35mm Leica lens. But, this is not like the difference I am seeing.

 

I have the RX1 and the 35 FLE... figure if I have time I'll compare them myself. Just so busy right now and have little interest right now.

 

But, I really like Tim's reviews. I just wish that reviewers could use more than one copy the lens being tested.

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those not lucky enough to stumble across an old 35 AA, I find it a delight to nail focus and the bokeh and rendering IMO is second to none, I wonder if they will ever look at an older style compromise ? This lens has better central sharpness (f1.4 and no sharpening in processing) and worse at the edges. For me the edges are just that, edges

 

Nice shot. Amazing focus.

 

If you like to shoot with the point of focus at centre it's all good. If you want to shoot with the point of focus off side then you run into issues with curvy fields given that with a rangefinder you need to focus in the centre patch and then recompose.

 

However. I've not really found the same issues with my FLE. Personally I have found, apart from a bit of chromatic aberration and the diffraction at f16, to be as good a lens as one could ever hope for. Close to perfect even.

[jto555]

I had a issue with a Canon lens where I photographed a group of 12 people. I focused on the centre person and the people on the edges were out however the building across the street was sharp at the edges of the frame!

 

The lens went back to Canon where they found an element was decentered. My guess is that is what is happening with Tim's lens.

 

Anyway the lens should go off on it's holidays to Leica.

[tashley]

One can always be wrong about these things but I have a fairly strong feeling that there is no fault with this lens other than the compromises made in its design. My individual copy I think is pretty standard. Other reviewers, such as Lloyd Chambers, have had very similar results and the behaviours of the lens that my observations demonstrate are entirely consistent with a strong wave-shaped MTF and with a lens known to have strong field curvature - or in this case a wave-shaped field of focus, more evident at closer ranges and wider apertures.

 

Digging back into reviews of other lenses I have done shows that the 'urns and tower' shot, demonstrating a 'cone' or 'runway' shaped field of focus at F5.6, is not at all unusual in wide angled lenses. The Nikkor 28mm F1.8G and the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 ZF.2 both show the same sort of thing and there are examples given of such on the blog.

 

So I don't have a bad copy, I am fairly sure: and decentering nearly always manifests as asymmetry, something I always check for and which I don't see evident with this lens. It is just that the implications of strong field effects are widely overlooked and that, I flatter myself, I have developed shooting scenarios which are quite good at showing them up!

[philipus]

Thanks for an interesting write-up, Tim (and also for pointing to Photovoice, of which I was not aware, but have now begun to support).

 

You wrote that the first image was not focused with the rangefinder. I have a feeling that would have helped a bit.

 

In the Summilux shot the plane of focus appears to be nearer to the camera than in the RX1 shot. For instance, look at the chair - in the Summilux shot the chair and the things on its seat are sharp but the wall is out of focus, whereas in the RX1 shot the situation is the opposite. It seems to be a pretty big difference in focusing distance, actually.

 

As for the red column of labels, on my monitor the Summilux shot is equally blurry, whereas the RX1 shot actually varies with the names at either end of the list being slightly less sharp than those in the middle of the list.

 

Just some uninitiated comments, of course.

 

Fwiw, I like my copy of the Summilux. On film it is totally brilliant.

 

Cheers

Philip

[wattsy]

I have a fairly strong feeling that there is no fault with this lens other than the compromises made in its design.

 

I've owned two examples of this lens and I can happily confirm to those more sceptical that these lenses do seem to 'suffer' from noticeable field curvature in the F1.4–F5.6 range. That said, my first example of this lens was significantly more eccentric and I have examples of straightforward scenic snaps which show a weird sphere of unsharpness in the centre of the frame. These are typically shot at a mid-aperture like F4 and (lazily) focussed out to infinity (or close to). I seem to recall that if I deliberately nudged the focus back, the centre of the frame would sharpen up considerably. Thinking about this, this is probably something like what Tim describes as croissant shaped DOF (though in my case it might be better described as horseshoe shaped:D). I've attached an example snap with 100% crops that might better illustrate this odd behaviour.

 

Thankfully, I haven't noticed this effect at all on my current example of this lens (though I haven't explicitly tested for it) so I do wonder how much sample variation there is, even with a premium priced lens such as this?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[tashley]

There certainly is sample variation in my experience given that the first one couldn't have focussed on the proverbial brick **** house at ten paces other than by luck but the current one focusses extremely accurately and repeatably so wide open in both EVF and RF modes. Badly manufactured lenses either can't be accurately focussed on centre, or have an asymmetry from one edge (horizontal, vertical or diagonal of some angle) to the other, or just can't get sharp anywhere.

 

I honestly think that anyone with a normally good copy of this lens who runs my test on the M240 will get similar results.

 

As per the wings of the chair - that is a very classic manifestation of a lens that has wave shaped field of focus: you can get the centre sharp (as my shot is) by focussing carefully but then other parts of the frame in that plane wander in and out of focus, as do other items in the field of view at different distances, depending on whether they 'catch the wave' or not! This is why the RX-1 lens is so very good: it just gets it right and is my most reliable system at 35mm out of all those I own for getting shots at this focal length which have consistent focus across the frame. Honestly, these two shots were taken and focussed in exactly the same way and the RX-1 absolutely always nails it.

 

This sort of wave effect is a lot more usual than people think! Ian's example is a classic: he has focussed a bit lazily so the true POF for centre is somewhere else, and the rest of the frame wanders in and out as it likes!

 

The problem with shooting M is that one later has only a hazy idea of what F stop was used and in fact it can make a very serious difference to the effect as the shape of the wave changes. When I test for this sort of thing I keep really careful notes because otherwise, it is like trying to diagnose a skin complaint by postcard... the other problem is that you can only focus on centre: for lenses with known curvature on other systems, I focus on the part of the frame where the main subject lies.

 

Philip, I really thank you for supporting Photovoice. They are damned, damned good - and in these days where everyone, even some quite remarkably poor and disadvantaged people, have cameras on their phones, teaching people some proper technique in use and in observation and in the sort of narrative that affects their lives can make a huge difference!

[IkarusJohn]

An interesting test would be one of those magazine racks, holding an array of test charts, withe the camera set on a tripod, so you get a focus scale across the entire image - 9 would be good, set at 45 degrees to the sensor plane.

 

A bookcase might suffice. But each sheet would need to be set up exactly. You could the measure very clearly how the focal plane wanders as Tim describes.

[mirekti]

Very nice for $5k lens ;-)

 

I have this lens on order and now thinking of what to do.

I'd really like someone tested it like mentioned above.

[k-hawinkler]

Very nice for $5k lens ;-)

 

I have this lens on order and now thinking of what to do.

I'd really like someone tested it like mentioned above.

 

 

I am afraid you have to test your lens once you have it.

[jaroopaitummai]

For those who might be interested...

 

Here is a quote from one of Lloyd Chambers' articles. "The 35/1.4 Summilux-R is designed as a 'street shooting' lens, and so this MTF behavior is acceptable for the '3D' images it was designed for, but it won't serve you well for shooting a group of people, or landscapes, or any subject where one expects items at the same distance to be equally sharp."

 

diglloyd - Understanding optics - Understanding Modulation Transfer Function (MTF)

[tashley]

I have run a very extensive re-shoot test of the big white wall chart that has created so much comment. This time I filled the frame with the chart rather than including it as part of a slightly wider scene. It is very very slightly bowed in places but tight to the wall in enough comparable places and I wouldn't regard this as a very significant factor. I took a very great deal of care to get as accurately lined up to the subject as possible, using the Horizon feature and very many repositionings of the tripod and head until I got it square - not an easy task since the Live View gives a slightly different FOV to the recorded file.

 

I then shot many series of F1.4 thru 16 and it will take quite a while to analyse the results so for now I have looked at the F4 results, since those are the ones that have sparked the controversy.

 

I shot these series:

1. Focussed through EVF wide open and not refocussed as I stopped down
   
2. Focussed through RF and that focus kept for all shots
   
3. Focussed through EVF and refocussed between aperture changes
   
4. Ditto for a second run
   
5. Focussed through EVF and refocussed between aperture changes (focus 'coming from NEAR to 'first shimmer')
   
6. Focussed through EVF and refocussed between aperture changes (focus 'coming from FAR to 'first shimmer')
   
7. A series only at F4 where I tweaked focus minutely across many frames from near to far
   

 

Series 3) above replicates the focus method used in the original review. I quote myself from that piece:

 

"Note that this was focussed with the EVF as described [focus stopped down to F4, shot at F4] and was taken reasonably early in my career with the M240, before I realised that the RF is often a better way of focussing - I will come back to that point. I don't have a RF focussed shot of this scene, and I think that it is most likely possible to focus the lens so as to give a better overall balance of focus across the image but what the above examples do show is that the EVF isn't a universal panacea to focus issues and that the lens has an unusual field shape. "

 

What I found today was that this is pretty much exactly true. But there were other useful lessons: (all regarding the F4 only shots so far pending review of all 60 frames)

 

1. Focussing wide open with the RF or EVF gives much better results across the frame. Pretty much all of the frame is between very acceptable and excellent, especially viewed at print resolution or 50% view
   
2. Refocussing at F4 with the EVF gives, if anything, sharper results on centre but a repeat of the 'wandering in and out of focus across the rest of the frame' seen in my original shot
   
3. Reaching stopped-down EVF focus from 'far to first shimmer' gives equally good results to the RF focussed shot across the frame
   
4. Reaching stopped-down EVF focus from 'near to first shimmer' gives equally good results to the RF focussed shot on centre but very poor results across large parts of the frame
   

 

From this I conclude provisionally that my fist instincts were right: there is an uneven field of focus, probably wave shaped, and that when stopped down to F4 it is of a shape such that the EVF provides too much ambiguity to focus stopped down, because the POF needs to be focussed towards the back of the DOF in order to get as much of the planar target as possible within the field of focus.

 

This will be somewhat counter-intuitive to some users who, assuming that because the lens has a slight tendency to shift focus further away as one stops down, will feel that the safest way to focus is 'stopped down EVF'. In fact, because the actual point of focus remains (laudably) within the DOF as you stop down, despite this focus shift, one needs to be more concerned about focussing according to the 'shape' of the field of focus and this requires one to bias focus towards the rear of the field.

 

When you focus with the very accurate RF, or with the EVF wide open, this process then happens naturally: you stop down without changing focus and the lens's inherent focus shift moves so as to bias the POF rearwards within the field, thus compensating really nicely for the shape of the field.

 

But when you focus with the EVF stopped down, it is a crapshoot biased toward failure: coming at focus from FAR to 'first shimmer' gives a very good result but from NEAR to first shimmer, gives a good centre and a very poor average across the frame.

 

So: using the RF, the EVF wide open or the EVF stopped down but with a far bias are the best ways to get good results across the frame.

 

Phew.

 

Images, just two for now. Both at F4. The first is focussed EVF wide open and the second is one of two series I shot with the EVF stopped down but is typical of both those series.

 

EVF focus wide open shot at F4

EVF focus at F4 shot at F4

 

This is 'angels on pinheads' territory for many users and I do think that individual pairings of particular cameras and lenses will vary, but I think many users will get similar results and I do think that knowing this stuff, if it does hold true in a more general sense than my particular use-case, will help those who seek the best sharpness across the frame to achieve it.

 

One final note: the frame that was very sharpest on centre (by a tiny margin) did not have the best average performance across the frame. There is, as far as I can see, no possible focus setting that would achieve that, which is exactly what I would expect and is just not going to matter in practice!

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Tim,

 

Many thanks for your efforts.

 

So, let's label your two images as follows:

 

1.4 = EVF focus at F1.4 shot at F4

4.0 = EVF focus at F4.0 shot at F4

 

I then divided your images into 3x3 zones, labeled as follows:

 

ul=upper left, uc=upper center, ur=upper right

cl=center left, cc=center center, cr=center right

ll=lower left, lc=lower center, lr=lower right

 

I then compared the 9 zones of one image with their counter parts of the other image.

To a first approximation I then determined whether a zone was pretty much in focus or not.

Of course, there are differences to the degree of in focus and out of focus.

But I am afraid my eyes are not good enough to give an accurate reliable answer.

So, I have to trust your better eyes and judgement for that.

 

Here is what I found - again to first approximation:

 

ul: 1.4: in focus, 4.0: out of focus

cl: 1.4: in focus, 4.0: out of focus

ll: 1.4: in focus, 4.0: out of focus

ll: 1.4: cobweb in focus, 4.0: cobweb out of focus

 

uc: 1.4: in focus, 4.0: out of focus

cc: 1.4: in focus, 4.0: in focus

cc: 1.4: cobweb in focus, 4.0: cobweb out of focus

lc: 1.4: in focus, 4.0: out of focus

 

ur: 1.4: in focus, 4.0: out of focus

cr: 1.4: in focus, 4.0: out of focus

lr: 1.4: in focus, 4.0: out of focus

lr: 1.4: cobweb in focus, 4.0: cobweb out of focus

 

One question: What was approximately the distance between the camera and the board?

 

Constructive comments please. Thanks.

[MarkP]

About a year and a half ago I realised to my shock and horror that under certain circumstances, especially at moderate distance and aperture, my $700 35mm Perar was sharper than my $5000 1.4/35mm Summilux ASPH (FLE)

 

I sent the Summilux back to Solms via Camera Clinic (in Melbourne) and the lens is now fine. As usual there was no report with the lens when returned via Camera Clinic. I assumed a decentred lens element .

 

Regardless, the lens is now performing perfectly

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Never got DoF problems with my sample (# 41931**) on the M8.2.