Has Leica ever make a bad lens?

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Everybody,

 

I've heard rumors that the 50mm, F2.5 Hektor was not Leitz's best lens. First fitted to non-interchangable lens Leicas in 1930. Then to non-standardized models. Then to interchangable lens cameras. Finally ended production in 1948.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[kokoshawnuff]

a strong apprehension against the Hector 135/4.5

 

This was my first 135mm, purchased to see if I liked a focal length disregarded by many rangefinder users. At $60 it was good enough to see the wonders of the focal length. I've since purchased a Tele-Elmar and put my name on the wait list for a new Telyt. The Hektor might be the cheapest Leica lens one can buy in good condition, and most claim its a pretty bad performer but I always had good results at f/5.6-f/16

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[UliWer]

Hello Everybody,

 

I've heard rumors that the 50mm, F2.5 Hektor was not Leitz's best lens. First fitted to non-interchangable lens Leicas in 1930. Then to non-standardized models. Then to interchangable lens cameras. Finally ended production in 1948.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

I could not use my Hektor as I'd like to do for it has the old infinity stop at 11 o'clock which does not work well with the common screw mount adapters.Though what I have seen yet I wouldn't say that it's worse than the 5cm Elmar. With f:2.5 and more elements it would perhaps profit more from coating than an Elmar does. It was an intermediary lens, designed before Leitz ventured f:2, so common opinion prefers the good old Elmar or the newer designs with wider opening. Though I don't see a reason to call the Hektor bad.

[johnloumiles]

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.

 

I agree the 50 Summicron v.3 is a more then capable lens but for my taste (and we are all talking about our personal taste) the lens did not vibe with my aesthetic. I sold it I bought the 2.8 Elmar and couldn't be happier with that lens. I know the 90 Elmar was mentioned on here as well and while I agree it's not the cream of the crop I was still able to capture one of my favorite images with it (below). I think every Leica lens can capture something beautiful as long as we put it in the position to do so.

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!

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello UliWer,

 

Have you ever tried your lens w/ film?

 

I think Leitz shifted the infinity lock of the 50mm Hektor F2.5 from 11 o'clock to 7 o'clock about 1932 or 1933.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited February 23, 2012 by Michael Geschlecht

[gvaliquette]

... not ugly ones as you can find on pictures taken with the 3.5/3.5cm Elmar for instance.

 

You are coming down hard on the 3.5cm f3.5 Elmar. While it is very soft in the outer zones, one can still use it to get good photographs. See:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/222689-elmar-3-5-cm-1-3-a.html

 

Guy

Edited February 23, 2012 by gvaliquette
typo!

[fWord]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Relative to the more modern lenses, there would be a number of 'dogs' in Leica's lineup. One of their older lenses I've used a fair bit would be the Telyt 400/5 for Visoflex. It's a telephoto lens from the 60s. It is VERY low contrast (not necessarily a bad thing in digital), has quite a bit of CA and is extremely heavy.

 

But this is remembering that the lens is almost 50 years old. Having said that, I've enjoyed the apparent sharpness of this lens and suspect the resolution is actually good, with very even performance across the whole frame of a full-frame camera. But it is no ASPH!

[NZDavid]

...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...

 

Lens sampling terminology

 

(I added a few extras)

 

Resolution: biting, crisp, tack sharp, sparkling, spritzy, three-dimensional, or fuzzy, blurry, muddy.

 

Contrast: high, low, acidic, earthy, off-dry.

 

Bokeh: smooth, creamy, or harsh, clinical

 

Handling: smooth, well-damped, precise, or sloppy, ill-defined, plasticky.

 

 

Leitz Summar 1:2/5cm, Vintage 1935

 

You may find a sample of this great old Leitz standard lens tucked away in the recesses of your camera bag or in a specialty camera store. It's quite different from more modern optics but still well worth trying. This charmingly nostalgic lens conjures up a mood of golden summer evenings, romantic dinners al fresco, and fragrant gardens. Hold it up to the light and you will be surprised the color of the glass is very subdued with no coating or multi-coating visible. A tactile, extendable lens, remember to mount a hood to minimize flare. Bokeh is creamy and smooth but contrast can be extreme with sudden progression to deep black shadows. A softer lens best suited for portraits or floral arrangements. Over the years decementing elements or fogging may have occurred as a natural part of the aging process; always store lenses in a proper humidity-controlled environment. A novel lens for a special occasion rather than the all-purpose lens it was intended to be.

 

Leitz Hektor 1:4,5/13,5cm 1960, NV.

 

Lenses go in and out of fashion and this variety of long lens has not always had the recognition it deserves -- perhaps because many examples are now in poor condition and have fallen prey to clouding or even fungus. Hence this lens, secondhand, is one of the most affordable of the early Leitzes. Old-style hand production methods were used to assemble this optic. A simple long lens barrel construction belies crisp detail and pleasing contrast -- although obviously not in the same league as the superb 1:3,4/135 APO-Telyt. If you just want to sample a long lens style, perhaps alongside some downhill skiing, tennis, or boating, give the Hektor a try.

 

Leitz Summilux 1:1,4/35 V1, 1960, NV.

 

Dimly lit theatres, street scenes, and low-light portraits are all subjects well-suited to a high speed semi-wide angle, but this early version sometimes disappoints. It is undeniably soft wide open and flare can be a problem, yet open it up a few stops -- allow it to breathe -- and all the famous Leica flavors of sparkling contrast and high resolution become apparent. While not as crisp and clear and lacking the biting sharpness of the latest aspherical offerings, this optic can still refresh and satisfy.

Edited February 24, 2012 by NZDavid

[Ecar]

IMHO there's no such a thing as a "bad" lens, unless this is related to specific criteria - or, rather, to the specific result you are after for a particular picture.

 

I took some of my favourite pictures with Russian lenses (or the Summar, for that matter), which are "very bad" if you only consider sharpness, vignetting, ergonomics, etc.

 

We should indeed be glad that the Leica M-mount enables us to still use 80 years old glass - and benefit from such diversity.

[luigi bertolotti]

The first Super Angulon 21 f4 was not so a good WA (expecially in comparision with the direct competitor Zeiss Biogon) : but, to be honest, was a Schneider design...

 

My Elmar 10,5 cm f 6,3 has a very low contrast... but for lenses of the '30s is difficult to say how much the age has taken its toll...

[giordano]

People seem to be agreeing that Leitz never designed bad lenses (I say "designed" because a few badly manufactured examples no doubt escaped the factory over the years). So maybe the next question is, which Leitz lenses were inferior to their contemporary competition? I've asked that in the Historica forum.

Edited February 24, 2012 by giordano
Add hyperlink.

[pgk]

IMHO there's no such a thing as a "bad" lens, unless this is related to specific criteria

I'd tend to agree - there are lenses still in current production from some manufacturers which are quite simply not up to the standards demanded of them by digital sensors. Whilst they might have been good on film, their characteristics are 'bad' on digital and they should have been redesigned by now but are still available new - it is only now that some are being replaced. Leica seem to have realised that their wide-angles would need redesigning for digital sensors and their latest offerings really do make some equivalent lenses look 'bad'.

[UliWer]

The first Super Angulon 21 f4 was not so a good WA (expecially in comparision with the direct competitor Zeiss Biogon) : but, to be honest, was a Schneider design...

 

My Elmar 10,5 cm f 6,3 has a very low contrast... but for lenses of the '30s is difficult to say how much the age has taken its toll...

 

My Berg-Elmar was described in ebay as "an unknown Leitz lens - probably for film" so it was rather cheap and very mint. All examples with M9 and "wide open":rolleyes:

 

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!

 

 

 

So I am still hopeful that I once find a 4/21 Super-Angulan with screw-mount....

[earleygallery]

No bad lens, plenty bad photographer!

 

Old Chinese proverb.

[Jeff S]

Erwin Puts stated (paraphrased) in one of his recent lens reviews that testing modern Leica lenses has become a somewhat boring task, as all these lenses test the limits of any competent photographer and that differences between them are not great; more academic nuances than practical differences considering less than perfect user execution in normal shooting circumstances, and the capacity to see those small differences in print.

 

But what would forum members have to debate if we echoed these sentiments in every lens thread?

 

As for older lenses, as some have already commented, it's the 'flaws' in the lenses that some embrace.

 

All are tools to be used as the user determines. I've made some bad pictures over the years, but that was never because a Leica lens was bad. Even such tendencies as flare, or focus shift, should be well understood by the user after experience and avoided or compensated accordingly.

 

Jeff

[earleygallery]

The most oft quoted term is sharpness, but they persist in handholding their cameras and introduce an unlimited and unknown level of blur in every shot.

[algrove]

To answer your question, not that I know of.

[SJP]

My Berg-Elmar was described in ebay as "an unknown Leitz lens - probably for film"<snip>

Presumably all Leitz/Leica lenses are probably for film - while also being suitable for digital, but only under duress:D

 

Anyway, these picture show exactly how good their understanding of optics was/and still is. I would expect that there are very few modern cameras & lenses that surpass this in real terms of usability, sharpness, distortion, color rendering etc. The current (ASPH) line up no doubt is better technically, but in 99% of use I expect no-one will notice except for f/1 - f/2 speed.

 

Moreover, even if they are "not quite perfect" these old lenses still paint a very attractive picture. Some might claim "nicer" than the current tack sharp versions.

 

My (still highly) acclaimed Olympus XA & Nikon Coolpix 4500 (one of the first semi-serious digital cameras) are totally blown away by old & decrepit Leica glass. They are not even close to being in the same league. This is not criticism in any way, they are also in a totally different price range, so such comparisons are not really fair to make.

[Ellie]

I think the Berg-Elmar images above looks better than thought for an old lens.

---

Here's one to illustrate the bad non-Leica lenses in my post #14, perhaps a "low water mark" for the competition 1968-1972 (10MP scan from negative, no post processing)

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[TomB_tx]

Ken Rockwell has a nice shot taken on M9 with a 1934 Elmar 50 3.5:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/50mm-f35/sample-images/L1012285.jpg

It's hard to call that a bad lens - when used to best advantage.