Isn't it time for a new 1,4 / 75mm lens.

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

P.S.

In any case, I would like a Noctilux 35 first. Pretty please.

[pgk]

The M lens with the shallowest depth of field at 3 metres is the APO 90 Summicron, followed by the 75 Summilux, yet the most problematic lens for focussing, I found, was the Karbe designed 75 Summicron, with its short throw. I've never had a problem with the AA 90, the 75 Summilux or the Noct. 

Just to add another dimension, it may not be quite that simple! DoF is not as precise and simplistic as might be thought. The transition between 'sharp' and 'unsharp' is, I believe, dependant on more than a simple formula might have us believe, and I'm sure that I've read somewhere that aspheric lenses can have a more abrupt shift from acceptability to unacceptability in terms of 'sharpness' which might explain the 75 Summicron's higher problematic focussing (I know what you mean). Why the 90 apo should be easier I do not know - differing design parameters again?I think there is some info on this in the Zeiss publication which mentions bokeh - all lenses are perhaps not equal.

[Advertisement]

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

[duckrider]

....there aren't mountains of nice lenses slowly soaking into the groundwater!

 

I don't want to go too far offtopic, but this has to be noticed:

The rason, why radiactive trash is melted into glass is for holding this ultra enviroment dangerous stuff to keep insolvable for the rest of mankind's lasting.

 

But that's not for what I'm here posting:

There was a time, when Leitz was proud to have their own Glass-Lab, a special edition paper was availiable in late 70's, I read fascinated as a young man:

http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=16841

In the local Leicashop here in Wiesbaden at that time (80's) there was a broken glass pice, proudly presented as a high price gem.

 

Today most lensmanufacturers take from a limited number of glassmanufacturers "standard glass", extrem exotic (vulgo heavy matl containing?) glass is not made anymore. Is the "enviroment" argument not an excuse for economic reason?

 

Who cares, You might argue, top of range lenses are possible without too.

But for an optics-afficinado a part of culture is lost...

 

 

Another questsion:

Mr. Karbe is a young man, doing a topjob, if You look at lenses mades actually at Wetzlar.

 

But his predessors were legends:

Dr Berek at Leitz, Mr. Mandler with his own charme in lens imaging, Mr. Glatzel from Zeiss with unusal desings (3 lens Holgon I only say, even this lens was made in later times as 5-lenser only for economic reason, because they were not able to set their lenses fitting together, e.g.:

http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/de/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2011/12/de_CLB_41_Nasse_Objektivnamen_Distagon.pdf  look at page 13 )

 

Are those times, when legends were build gone - thanks to computerised teamwork, preproduced lenses from delivereres, no more glass development creativity anymore?

 

A new Summilux 75 will be clinical in it's picture illustration, no space for legends.

Frontlens delivered by Hoya?

Thomas

[jaapv]

I thought the exotic glass removal was to stop arsenic and lead and the like escaping into the air during grinding/polishing etc. For employees and the environments sake. While Leica or Zeiss camera divisions might not produce much, that's a tiny part of the lens industry.

I hope that there aren't mountains of nice lenses slowly soaking into the groundwater!

 

Back on topic (sort of), Karbe seems to have his own style which doesn't quite seem to match the 75 lux, but that doesn't mean he couldn't produce his own version, like a lengthened noctilix so to speak.

His lenses aren't my favourite, I find them too clinical. I'm glad he's making them, it would be boring if they all looked the same generation after generation.

 

Cheers,

Michael

I don't think it is very difficult to implement production processes that are environmentally safe. In fact, I would be highly surprised if these were not in place.

[CheshireCat]

A new Summilux 75 will be clinical in it's picture illustration, no space for legends.

Frontlens delivered by Hoya?

 

 

You seem to like legends more than photographs

Modern glass is "more special" than legendary glass, and there is no need to spend a lot of money on a DIY glass lab.

 

The legendary Noctilux glass did not contain arsenic nor lead. Production stopped because the 50/1 was replaced by Karbe's 50/0.95 in 2008.

And it was replaced because customers ask for performance rather than character.

 

Want a Mandler style character lens ? There is plenty of legendary lenses in the used market. Help yourself

[michaelwj]

And it was replaced because customers ask for performance rather than character.

 

Want a Mandler style character lens ? There is plenty of legendary lenses in the used market. Help yourself

Exactly why Karbe lenses are needed (even though I prefer character lenses), we now have the choice of a set of Karbe and/or Mandler lenses, rather than just more of the same. With that reasoning a Karbe 1.4/75 would be most welcome. It's unfortunate that Mandler did not produce a 2/75...

 

I think the purely mechanical lenses without any electronics allows older lenses to be used for their character, whereas using previous era lenses on a CaNikon you loose a whole lot of functionality.

 

This is a huge plus for me, knowing that my lenses will not be superseded, but rather a different lens with different character will be introduced.

 

Cheers,

Michael

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's unfortunate that Mandler did not produce a 2/75...

I just bought a used Summicron-M 90, a nice Mandler's design. Seems as close as it goes to the lens you wish. Just 15mm longer and quite smaller than the 75/1.4.

Will try it this week and compare with the 75/2.

What I would really like is a new edition of old Mandler lenses with great color rendering. Karbe's 75/2 renders amazing colors.

[CheshireCat]

BTW, this thread should be merged with:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/244040-please-correct-me-if-im-wrong-about-75mm-apo-summilux-m-asph-f14/

[Peter Branch]

......... Production stopped because the 50/1 was replaced by Karbe's 50/0.95 in 2008.......

 

One of the reasons the 50mm, /f1 was discontinued was because Leica wanted to bring the manufacture back "In House".

 

The Canadian based manufacturer, they were not made by Leitz Canada by this time, was, to quote a senior Leica executive, "Proving to be difficult to deal with." 

 

No doubt this sentiment was reciprocated.

[CheshireCat]

One of the reasons the 50mm, /f1 was discontinued was because Leica wanted to bring the manufacture back "In House".

 

 

Definitely not the main reason, as Leica did bring the 75/1.4 "in house", so they could have done the same with the 50/1.

It is much more expensive to create a new lens model than to simply move manufacture to Germany.

[pgk]

One of the reasons the 50mm, /f1 was discontinued was because Leica wanted to bring the manufacture back "In House".

 

The Canadian based manufacturer, they were not made by Leitz Canada by this time, was, to quote a senior Leica executive, "Proving to be difficult to deal with." 

 

No doubt this sentiment was reciprocated.

 

By this time Elcan was probably making a lot of money from military contracts. Producing the Noctilux was probably a sideshow and not a very lucrative one at that, so I imagine the demise of the Noctilux was financially driven as much as anything. Also having an ex-subsidiary producing stuff is probably fraught with numerous other difficulties depending on why it was sold and the reasons for the new owner's purchasing it. Continuation of a line might well have been useful to Leica but just a contractual obligation to Elcan and a less than profitable one which utilised highly skilled production capacity required elsewhere.

[Peter Branch]

The history of the companies to which Leitz Canada outsourced manufacturing is complex as Raytheon ELCAN acquired the optical business units of Texas Instruments and Hughes Aircraft Co. to become ELCAN Optical Technologies.

 

It was the optical division of Hughes Aircraft Co., a defence contractor, which was responsible for manufacturing the 50mm f/1 Noctilux - and a number of other Leica products - at that time.

 

The information I was given at the time suggested that Hughes wanted to make large batches of the lens to keep costs down but, given the specialist nature of the Noctilux, demand was relatively low and somewhat unpredictable. 

Leica effectively lost control of the production planning of this lens with all that that implies in the way of lead times, stock levels. etc.

 

I have never claimed that this was the sole, or even the main, reason for bringing production back In-House but it was certainly a significant factor.

[CheshireCat]

I have never claimed that this was the sole, or even the main, reason for bringing production back In-House but it was certainly a significant factor.

 

This makes sense as far as bringing production back in-house, but we were talking about the Noctilux f/1 being discontinued, which is a totally different story.

[Jared]

I never ever understood this argument, first heard in connex with the 38mm Hassi-Biogon.

Driving or walking around I never saw trashmountains with Biogons or other poisonable lenses. Who in the world throws bis lenses into the bin?

How many tons oft these poisonable glasstypes were melted a year??

Did the glasslabs let the rests oft melting floß into canalisation?

Hell me to understand that "we do no further exotic glass for enviromental

reason" arguentation.

In the meantime I go out collecting plastic bags, thrown by idots onto pedestrian way.

Thomas

Actually, the issue is related to the waste products produced in the glass manufacturing itself, primarily arsenic and heavy metals I believe. It has nothing to do with pollution caused by the finished glass not being recycled. At least that is my understanding.

 

There are equally good substitutes for most of the glass types that have been discontinued by Schott, Hoya, and Ohara over the past twenty years, but they often require different mating elements and a change to the optical and mechanical design of the lens. If demand is thought to be insufficient, the lens is discontinued instead. I have no Leica sp civic knowledge on this issue, and their situation may actually be a touch worse than some since many of their glasses were sold off to Schott when the glass lab was closed, but Leica retained exclusive rights to the production. If some of those glasses with anomalous partial dispersion characteristics were no longer made because of environmental legislation, there would be less motivation for Schott to develop a substitute since only one small customer would be relying on the glass.

 

- Jared

[michaelwj]

This makes sense as far as bringing production back in-house, but we were talking about the Noctilux f/1 being discontinued, which is a totally different story.

 

 

 

I wonder where all the mystery surrounding the 1/50 nocitlux being discontinued comes from? Is it to drive up prices? 

 

The f/1 noctilux was discontinued in 2008, the same year the f/0.95 was introduced. What could be more simple?

 

Where is the conspiracy of the discontinued 50 (or 35) mm summicron v1, v2, v3, v4?

 

There is no conspiracy, they just got replaced with the newer model - which in each case confirmed more to the Leica aesthetic at the time.

 

Now, the discontinued 1.4/75 summilux... that's a conspiracy! 

 

Cheers,

Michael

[Peter Branch]

........The f/1 noctilux was discontinued in 2008, the same year the f/0.95 was introduced. What could be more simple?.........

 

 

 

The issue as I see it is whether or not Leica could have economically transferred the production of the 50mm f/1 Noctilux. 

 

I have no idea what provisions were in the contract with Hughes, nor the degree to which production depended on access to specialist production equipment owned and operated by Hughes.

It was my impression talking to Leica staff at the time that relationships between Leica and Hughes were "difficult".  Leica unquestionably wanted to regain control over the production planning.

 

The cost to Leica of transferring production of the 50mm f/1 back In-House could have been substantial - and for what? - to produce an obsolescent lens.  Better to start again with a new design.

[CheshireCat]

The f/1 noctilux was discontinued in 2008, the same year the f/0.95 was introduced. What could be more simple?

 

 

That's what I said, but people love romance and conspiracy theories.

[jaapv]

Peter Branch, on 12 Feb 2016 - 15:55, said:

The issue as I see it is whether or not Leica could have economically transferred the production of the 50mm f/1 Noctilux. 

 

I have no idea what provisions were in the contract with Hughes, nor the degree to which production depended on access to specialist production equipment owned and operated by Hughes.

It was my impression talking to Leica staff at the time that relationships between Leica and Hughes were "difficult".  Leica unquestionably wanted to regain control over the production planning.

 

The cost to Leica of transferring production of the 50mm f/1 back In-House could have been substantial - and for what? - to produce an obsolescent lens.  Better to start again with a new design.

In general there are two reasons for Leica to suspend production on a lens:

 

1. There is a new and probably better design (like for instance the Noctilux, or many other lenses over the years)

2. The glass needed has become unavailable with Leica's glass suppliers (Hoya, Pilkington, Corning, Schott, etc.) example: the WATE.

 

An interesting article here:

 

http://gmpphoto.blogspot.nl/2015/02/the-leitz-glass-research-laboratory.html