pico Posted February 23, 2012 Share #1 Posted February 23, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm writing this after reading the How we decide between this and that? thread. Mentions of lens signatures reminds me of how one might describe the flavor of a wine - arcane, insider jargon that actually seems to work. We have no such vocabulary. And a few of us have dull taste buds (myself, for example). Perhaps some of us have rather undiscriminating vision or visual sophistication, or lack of experience. May I start with an extreme - has Leica ever made a bad lens? If so, which one(s) and how would you describe it? We are concerned here with 'as new' condition. (Aside - I broke my V2 Summilux 35mm in the accident and replaced it with a used one and it hasn't the same look as my old one. I fear I'm going on a spending marathon to find a replacement, or spend a few days in Chicago trying some at dealers - if they have any.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Hi pico, Take a look here Has Leica ever make a bad lens?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
johnloumiles Posted February 23, 2012 Share #2 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) While not a bad lens by any stretch I was not a fan of the 50mm v.3 Summicron. Not a modern look, yet not vintage either it fell in this crack of 'eh. Edited February 23, 2012 by johnloumiles Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 23, 2012 Share #3 Posted February 23, 2012 The R 21/4 is not great to be honest. Neither is the R 24/2.8 or the R 35-70/3.5 (Minolta). But "bad" Ms are rather rare. The Summar 50/2 perhaps? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted February 23, 2012 Share #4 Posted February 23, 2012 Perhaps it's difficult to find a bad lens from Leica, but I think Leitz had some: The 3.5/3.5cm Elmar may be nice to look at and deliver acceptable results in the center, but if you look at the corners.... The 4.5/13.5 Elmar was something they found in the cellar and adapted it for the new film Leica. But they were happy to replace it with the Hektor after some years. The 2.0/5.0 cm Summar was an interesting design, which could give excellent results with a 3D-effect - but.... they messed it up using bad materials for glueing elements together. Shortly after the war they informed dealers, that it was false rumor that all Summars were swapped to Summitars, but they offered to repair the Summars suffering from this production fault. The first version of the 2.8/5.0cm Elmar was a deterioration of the original 3.5-Elmar. They just followed the popular demand for f:2.8-lenses and forgot about contrast and resolution. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulrik Posted February 23, 2012 Share #5 Posted February 23, 2012 A non-coated Summitar 2/50 will ruin your pictures with its tendency to flare more often then you would like. Ulrik Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toyfel Posted February 23, 2012 Share #6 Posted February 23, 2012 I was thoroughly unimpressed by the mechanical qualities of the 35/2 IV. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 23, 2012 Share #7 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Erwin Puts: overall the Elmar [3.5/50] is a fine perfomer..... The laSt version, the Elmar M 2.8 50 is one of the better Leica 50 lenses. Erwin Puts : amazingly good. Edited February 23, 2012 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 23, 2012 Share #8 Posted February 23, 2012 I disagree about the 3.5 5cm Elmar, check the photo of the door in my gallery. Also the Summar, search and you will find images I've posted with it. In fact I would argue that there's no such thing as a 'bad' lens, even the humble pinhole can be used to stunning effect. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandro Posted February 23, 2012 Share #9 Posted February 23, 2012 I find this interesting, even though the main thing we will find out is how different our tastes are, and how Leica apparently can serve us all. I am using Leica M cameras with film, I don't have a digital camera. For the appreciation of the 'look' of a lenses results this may be important. Of the lenses mentioned I diagree with some opinions. I am very happy with my Summicron 50mm version 3. Very good allrounder and capable of fine detail as well. My Elmar 2.8 50mm surprised me several times in a very positive way. Great contrast and beautifully sharp. The mechanical qualities of my Summilux 50mm version 2 are disappointing: it feels and clicks like a cheap lens, but the quality of the lens itself is great. A loaner Summicron 90 mm disappointed me so I stuck to the old Elmarit 90mm. Lex Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christoph_d Posted February 23, 2012 Share #10 Posted February 23, 2012 In my view there are two different ways or views how this question could be answered: In terms of optical and / or pictorial quality. Some candidates for the "worst" lens have been given above. My personal un-favourite would be the Elmar 1:4/90mm, though it may have been ok in its day... The other view would be that of the investor / collector. The lenses that fetch the lowest prices loose. I believe the Elmar 1:4/90mm turns up again as a prime candidate , though some 135mm lenses are close... Rgds C. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted February 23, 2012 Share #11 Posted February 23, 2012 ..... But "bad" Ms are rather rare. The Summar 50/2 perhaps? The Summar is hardly an M lens. In its day it was a very good practical workhorse for professionals such as J Allan Cash. Like any lens of its era (1930s) it is quite remarkable that any are even used today. Yet someone will extol its virtues on an M9, I'm sure. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 23, 2012 Share #12 Posted February 23, 2012 May I start with an extreme - has Leica ever made a bad lens? If so, which one(s) and how would you describe it? We are concerned here with 'as new' condition. If you compare like with like - that is to say, Leica lenses with their current alternative at the time that they were originally on sale, I think that you would find that Leica lenses have always been well regarded and there has not been one that could really be regarded as bad - or at least not as being significantly inferior to any other manufacturer's offering. If you compare older Leica lenses with the current range of lenses then few will compare in terms of optical correction. The latest lenses are far more highly corrected than their predecessors. Whether the lack of optical correction is actually 'bad' is another discussion. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted February 23, 2012 Share #13 Posted February 23, 2012 Isn't that part of the attraction of using a Leica? You can use virtually any lens they have ever made, for their rangefinders, on any M camera. 1930s lens on a 2012 M9? No problem. 12 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted February 23, 2012 Share #14 Posted February 23, 2012 I just have one Leica lens (the current Elmarit 28), but I've become allergic to all older lenses. I have a forty year old non-Leica three lens kit and it's really bad: On a cloudy low-contrast day almost all colors are gone and only some of the color spectrum pass through the old glass. The film is ruined and the same when I use these lenses on my M9 On a contrasty indoor scene the old glass reproduce what I see much better though. Looking at the 50mm comparison in LFI June 2011 I see the same tendency for older Leica lenses too.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjames9142 Posted February 23, 2012 Share #15 Posted February 23, 2012 I was thoroughly unimpressed by the mechanical qualities of the 35/2 IV. What is that bothers you ? I find it a sweet lens optically, and ergonomically the focusing works well. No problems at all, although the lens that lives on the camera is the V4 28 elmarit, which is optically good and silky smooth mechanically. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted February 23, 2012 Share #16 Posted February 23, 2012 Don't have one myself & probably never will. But I had a strong apprehension against the Hector 135/4.5 and I find from this site that some pictures taken with this lens are really great. I do have the TE(Fat) 90/2.8 and that really improved dramatically after a cleaning session at Wil van Maanen. So ..... I tend to say no, Leica has never made a bad lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted February 23, 2012 Share #17 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Erwin Puts: overall the Elmar [3.5/50] is a fine perfomer.....The laSt version, the Elmar M 2.8 50 is one of the better Leica 50 lenses. Erwin Puts : amazingly good. I agree with both statements. Therefore I talked about the first version of the 2.8/5cm Elmar in the context of this thread. Puts says: "At full aperture the lens has a low overall contrast, lower than that of the Summicron and the Elmar 3,5 version. Coarse detail is reproduced with soft edges and finer detail is blurred in the outer zones (beyond image heigth of 8mm). The aperture of 1:2.8 does overstretch the design and spherical aberration and flare (due to coma) do lower the contrast". I can only agree to all what Mr. Puts says. In my simpleton words: a bad lens. A severe setback from the classical 3.5-version and no comparison to the 2.8/50mm Elmar-M (last version). Edited February 23, 2012 by UliWer Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted February 23, 2012 Share #18 Posted February 23, 2012 The Summar is hardly an M lens. In its day it was a very good practical workhorse for professionals such as J Allan Cash. Like any lens of its era (1930s) it is quite remarkable that any are even used today. Yet someone will extol its virtues on an M9, I'm sure. I agree, though only if you find one which is not spoiled by deterioration of the material to glue the cemented elements ("Linsenkitt") - you have to search long or be very happy to find one which does not suffer severely from this problem. The Summar is the only Leitz lens which shows this malady, so I am sure it was a production fault. Bad lens not because of bad optical design but because of bad materials used for production. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 23, 2012 Share #19 Posted February 23, 2012 I agree, though only if you find one which is not spoiled by deterioration of the material to glue the cemented elements ("Linsenkitt") - you have to search long or be very happy to find one which does not suffer severely from this problem. The Summar is the only Leitz lens which shows this malady, so I am sure it was a production fault. Bad lens not because of bad optical design but because of bad materials used for production. I have 2 perfect Summar's, and one which I guess has the problem you mention, but still produces nice images as a 'soft focus' lens. The clean ones are excellent performers, really not what their reputation would suggest. Of course the Summar also had soft glass, which was easily scratched and I reckon there's a lot of misunderstanding when the Summar is described as a soft lens. Soft images due to poor examples with marked soft glass, as well as haze/dust/linsenkitt! I still kick myself every time I think of the mint/boxed example I could have bought but didn't - OUCH!! See, done it again. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted February 23, 2012 Share #20 Posted February 23, 2012 If the MTF-graphs in the Leica Pocket book by Laney/Puts tell the truth the Summar was at equals - at the lenses center - with the present version of the Summicron, at f:2 as well at f:5.6. In the corners it was very soft to say the least, though in my opinion the weakness in the outer parts gave rather pleasant results, not ugly ones as you can find on pictures taken with the 3.5/3.5cm Elmar for instance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.