Leica 28mm Summicron ASPH 2016 #11672-- Owners Thread

[Mute-on]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just have the old crappy original

 

White Rim Road by unoh7, on Flickr

 

 

Yes, I can see how you might be disappointed with that

 

Still looks pretty ok 

[Rick]

Received the new 28 Summicron.  image quality is impressively improved across the frame and especially in mid frame and edges and corners.  Much greater contrast and color fidelity on the M240.

 

I was surprised that the lens rear is not truncated as shown in Leica literature and in Sean Reid's review.  His just copied the Leica Photoshopped pictures I guess.  Contrarily, the lens does extend into the camera body exactly like the old model.

 

Here is just a quick corner comparison at infinity.  This is the old version

 

 

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!

 

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by Rick

[Advertisement]

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

[Rick]

Here is the new version of the 28 Summicron.  I guess Tim Ashley was right after all.  The old 28 cron was getting a little boring and needed an update.  He said it back in 2013.  http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/5/leica-m240-with-28mm-summicron---some-observations

 

I did agree with him... see comments in his blog, but I have given him a bad time here for calling it boring.  My apologies.  He was right.  I'm learning.

 

Now for the new 28 Summicron edge comparison.

 

 

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!

 

 

[Kwesi]

Here is the new version of the 28 Summicron.  I guess Tim Ashley was right after all.  The old 28 cron was getting a little boring and needed an update.  He said it back in 2013.  http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/5/leica-m240-with-28mm-summicron---some-observations

 

I did agree with him... see comments in his blog, but I have given him a bad time here for calling it boring.  My apologies.  He was right.  I'm learning.

 

Now for the new 28 Summicron edge comparison.

 

 

28 Summicron.jpg

 

 

28 Summicron new ver.jpg

Thanks for the comparisons. It looks like both the 2.8 and 2.0 have been significantly improved for use on the 240 and SL sensors. This makes it a lot easier to decide which versions to buy for long term digital use. 

Tim Ashley also showed in 2013 that the then current 28 had red edges wide open on the M240. Is this still true? Have subsequent firmware updates corrected for this?

Edited May 4, 2016 by Kwesi

[lct]

"Boring"... What a pity to use words like that about this superb lens... Nothing personal folks... The Summicron 28/2 has always been my favorite 28 and i do hope the new version has not lost the unique qualities of the former. I've ordered the new lens to get some improvements in the corners at wide apertures but i keep the former as a precaution for now. To each his own as usual...

[MarkP]

"Boring"... What a pity to use words like that about this superb lens... Nothing personal folks... The Summicron 28/2 has always been my favorite 28 and i do hope the new version has not lost the unique qualities of the former. I've ordered the new lens to get some improvements in the corners at wide apertures but i keep the former as a precaution for now. To each his own as usual...

 

 

Exactly my thoughts about the 28 Summicron but for the I've he'd off ordering one....for now

[rscheffler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Rick and others,

 

I just picked up a new version of the 28 Cron and am not able to reproduce this kind of corner and edge performance for far distance scenes. Rick, given the coma in the specular highlights, I assume the comparison photos were done at or near wide open?

 

The 28 Cron I received shows very strong field curvature towards the camera at the edges and corners. This seems contrary to Leica's statements about the new lens having a flatter plane of focus.

 

This is also the second copy I received from the dealer. The first was DOA with massive focus mis-calibration. Correct infinity focus was well short of the infinity hard stop, but was not initially evident when focusing by RF. This ruined the initial photos I did with it, after which I ceased testing and packed it up for return. But re-examining those massively back focused photos also showed signs of strong forward field curvature.

 

I contacted the dealer about returning this one but since it's not DOA, they want a restocking charge, though I'm not convinced it's working as it should. The other option would be to send to Leica for service, but I'm wary about whether anything will change. Hence the reason I'm asking because if there are good examples of flat field of focus on distant objects, then maybe it's a fixable problem.

 

Lastly, I'm curious about the date on the box's sticker that lists the model and serial number. Is this the manufacture date? My copy is Sept. 2015, which seems really old for a lens that was only recently announced/released. Perhaps with the immediate availability of the lens, Leica had been stocking up, having started production some time earlier? I had hoped waiting a bit would get me a later lens and possibly avoid early production problems, but it might not be the case... Anyone care to share the date on your box's sticker?

 

Would much appreciate any insight others can offer.

 

I would also really, really like to see full/high resolution landscape (natural or urban) type photos of medium to far distance planar subject matter that goes fully across the frame, with a level foreground that could show field curvature. Something like a street with storefronts or houses on the other side, or a field with a row of trees, etc. The scaffolding photo by Daniel earlier in this thread would be a good example. It also doesn't need to be wide open. 2-3 stops down would also be good to compare against my old and new Cron test images for evidence of field curvature and compare edge sharpness. 

 

 

Here is the new version of the 28 Summicron.  I guess Tim Ashley was right after all.  The old 28 cron was getting a little boring and needed an update.  He said it back in 2013.  http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/5/leica-m240-with-28mm-summicron---some-observations

 

I did agree with him... see comments in his blog, but I have given him a bad time here for calling it boring.  My apologies.  He was right.  I'm learning.

 

Now for the new 28 Summicron edge comparison.

 

 

28 Summicron.jpg

 

 

28 Summicron new ver.jpg

[rscheffler]

So others can see what I'm getting with my copy of the lens and also with my old version 28 Cron, here's a link to a Google Photos gallery, where you can download high-res files, if desired:

 

https://goo.gl/photos/5s7VWD2n5SZW8V1g7

 

Please excuse the rather mundane subject matter, but it's what's at hand a short walk from home.

 

Note differences in sharpness of the trees along the edges between the two lenses as they're stopped down (also looks like there might be a slight lens mount vs. sensor alignment issue because the left side is slightly less sharp than the right). Also note the bottom corners of images with the new version - how well the grass in the foreground is focused vs. the bottom center of the frame. IMO, this is very strong field curvature. Does anyone else see similar with their new Cron??

[lct]

Interesting thanks but i can't seem to see anything as is. Would it be possible to get the raw files or full size jpegs?

[rscheffler]

Did you try downloading the images from the gallery? They're at roughly 16MP resolution, converted from DNG. 16MP is the max size allowed in the 'free storage' option of Google Photos... hence the reason they're sized down from 24MP. Should still be large enough to see differences (I can see it).

 

I should clarify that the best way to view the images is to download them, then use an app that lets you view them at full size and flip between them. I've found it most helpful to compare two images shot at the same aperture, rather than going through the full aperture series of one lens before reaching the other lens.

Edited June 5, 2016 by rscheffler

[lct]

I just did not see how to download the pics. I'm now watching the f/2 ones. Where did you focus?

[rscheffler]

Sorry, you're right that's not immediately obvious. To download the entire gallery, click the arrow at the top right of the page. To download individual images, click on a thumbnail and then on the three dots at the top right of the preview image's page to access the download option.

 

Both lenses were focused on the tree line in the distance.

[lct]

OK thanks. So you focussed on the tree line in front of you, not on the left or right of it, right? If so the bottom left corner should not be sharp at f/2 i'm afraid. The softness of the old lens is normal there given the short DoF.

[rscheffler]

Focus was in the center. RF and EVF agreed with each other. Besides, it's not possible to focus off-center with either. 

 

Going through some of the 28mm threads here, I recall you were going to order one of these, then decided not to. Did you ever end up getting the new one? I agree that the bottom corners being in focus is not normal and hoping others with the new lens can confirm whether or not this is abnormal behaviour. 

[lct]

I did order one copy but i asked my dealer to reject lenses affected by focus shift or abnormal field curvature. I know he's rejected a couple of copies already but he did not elaborate on the actual reasons. Not sure when/if he finds a good copy but i'll keep you informed when i receive mine, if any...

[rscheffler]

I added more new Cron and old Cron side by side comparison photos to the Google Photos gallery: https://goo.gl/photos/5s7VWD2n5SZW8V1g7

 

To download the entire gallery, click the arrow at the top right of the page. To download individual images, click on a thumbnail and then on the three dots at the top right of the preview image's page to access the download option. It is possible to zoom in on individual images, but it will be faster to compare images on your computer rather than online.

 

The new photos are again out on the field with the tree line in the background. This time there is a white soccer/football goal positioned such that it is closer to the camera than the trees (but not a lot closer), that the left side of the goal is at the center of the frame and that the right side of the goal is near the right edge of the frame.

 

For each lens, I made two aperture series from wide open to f/8 with one set focused on the left side of the goal frame at the center of the frame and a second set focused on the trees in the center behind the goal.

 

Some observations:

 

With the new version of the lens, when focused on the goal frame at the center of the frame, the goal frame is sharp and the right side of the goal at the right edge of the frame is OK for wide open but is not critically sharp (maybe expecting too much wide open) and the grass in front of the right side of the goal, it is sharp. 

 

When the new version of the lens is focused instead on the trees in the background at the center of the frame, you can see, unexpectedly, that the right side of the goal is sharply focused, but the left side (in the center of the frame) is not, as one would expected.

 

With the old version of the lens focused on the goal, the right side of the goal also isn't tack sharp, but in this case, it looks like focus falls a bit away, towards infinity. When this lens is focused on the trees instead, the entire width of the goal is out of focus, as one would expect.

 

With the new version of the lens, focused on the goal, as it is stopped down, depth of field increases behind to bring the trees in the center of the frame in focus, however, the right side of the image at the right goal post never sharpens up to match the center. The grass in the foreground edges gets progressively sharper, but not as much in the bottom center of the frame.

 

This last point is the main problem I have with my copy of the new lens. The edges about a quarter into the frame never come close to central sharpness, but this isn't a problem with the old version of the 28 Cron by f/5.6. As the lens is stopped down, what appears to be field curvature towards the camera becomes stronger.

 

With the new version of the lens focused on the trees, at f/5.6 it is still evident that depth of field has not come forward enough to bring the left side of the goal into sharp focus, yet the right side is sharp, due to field curvature towards the camera. Meanwhile the trees at the edge of the frame behind the right side of the goal are not as sharp as the trees along the same plane in the center of the frame.

 

Am I expecting too much from the new lens? I wonder. In everyday use, the results could be passable. But being able to compare the new lens against the old, it was immediately obvious to me that the new lens did not hold the same level of sharpness across a reasonably flat plane of focus as the old lens, once stopped down to f/5.6.

 

In any case, I don't believe the results I'm getting are indicative of Leica's statement about the new lens:

 

"At its maximum aperture, the Summicron-M 28 mm f/2 ASPH. already delivers impressively rich contrast, differentiated reproduction of even the finest structures, a soft and smooth bokeh and extremely high resolution. This is due to its recalculated optical design, which almost completely eliminates the astigmatic differences in the image field caused by the cover glass of the sensor to ensure excellent image quality from corner to corner in every picture. "

 

I've used the previous version 28 Cron as one of my main lenses for over four years. I've made probably 10s of thousands of photos with it on the M9 and now M240. I'm very used to the results it produces. Within 10-20 photos with the new lens during a walk-around immediately after taking it from the store, I started to have doubts just from what I saw on the camera's screen. The more stringent side by side testing presented here, even if very mundane, indicates a significant difference in optical performance between the two versions, with the new one not necessarily an improvement. At least not for my preferences. In fact, for many of my urban and natural landscape uses, it is worse than the previous version.

 

Bottom line is I'm not happy with my copy of the lens.

 

It appears some may have received lenses that perform more consistently across the frame with sharp edges/corners. I'm also realistic about how sharp edges and corners need to be. For some types of images it's irrelevant. But for some of my images, I would like comparable sharpness to the center of the frame at f/5.6 or f/8. I'm not seeing it with the new one.

 

I would appreciate more feedback. I've also added a diagonally slanted infinity test with each lens focused at the infinity hard stop at the trees on the other side of a large body of water. Again, fairly mundane but the only such far distance scene I had access to foot on the day I did the testing. Bottom line there is the old 28 Cron has more consistent corner to corner performance by f/5.6 which my copy of the new Cron does not match....

 

The decision I have to make is whether to send it back to the store (who have informed me there will be a restocking fee because they consider it technically a used lens and can no longer sell it as new - and I can appreciate their point though wish they would reconsider), or send it to Leica for what would likely be a frustrating, drawn-out repair process that may not result in any improvement...

Edited June 5, 2016 by rscheffler

[rscheffler]

I've added a final, more 'proper' infinity test with two sets of comparison images to the Google Photos gallery (link in post above).

 

These scenes include more distant areas that should be true infinity. The characteristics I don't like about the new 28 Cron persist in these images. If you specifically view the top right quarter of the frame, you can see that as the lenses are stopped down, the new Cron's initial advantage is soon lost to the old Cron, which actually has better far distance sharpness near the edges.

 

An interesting observation is that from wide open more centrally in the frame, the new Cron is better than the old one at true infinity. My old Cron, at the infinity hard stop, seems to focus on the nearer parts of the scene about several hundred metres away. In contrast, the new Cron's infinity focus is on the buildings farther in the central distance. And it maintains superior sharpness in this central area over the old Cron.

 

But again, we come back to the edges. And not just the thinnest sliver of the edges. Rather, a fairly wide area where to my eyes, the old Cron noticeably overtakes the new one (at least my copy) at f/4 and holds the advantage past f/8. This is very evident in the antenna on top of the building at top right in the first infinity scene, and also in the ship docked in the farther distance just to the right of that building. These details remain sharp as the old lens is stopped down.

 

Please note that in the second infinity scene, the order of the lenses is reversed. The second scene is possibly somewhat better for comparing central sharpness. Here you can again see that the new Cron is better centrally. It might be the old Cron not quite hitting proper infinity focus, or it could be its outward field curvature causing some problems towards the edges. In any case, my copy of the new Cron is better centrally at what is more like true infinity distances. But again, refer to the left and right edges where it's weaker.

 

I haven't put the new lens through exhaustive tests and therefore haven't developed a complete understanding of how it performs. But from these infinity tests, it has won back some respect for central performance. And I think if you don't care much about edges relative to the center when the lens is stopped down and focused at farther distances, you can be very, very happy with the new Cron. Its forward field curvature in some images looks more natural and for near distance work at wide apertures will result in more and smoother background blur. I also really like the physical redesign, particularly the new hood. Less wide open veiling flare and somewhat higher contrast is also nice. After a few days of consideration and the ability to view samples from other copies, my opinion is my copy is likely fairly representative and that Leica intentionally changed performance priorities and characteristics.

 

As always with all lenses, it will come down to the features and performance you value most. 

 

For me, at near distances, I'm fine with the old Cron's rendering and outward field curvature. I've learned how to compensate for it when shooting at wider apertures. For landscape type work, I usually work stopped down to f/5.6 or more anyway. Thus the new Cron's worse stopped down edge performance (at least based on my copy) is, in my opinion, a major compromise. But again, it might not be relevant to your work.

 

Lastly, you may notice poorer left edge wider aperture performance in the infinity images. Since it's in images from both lenses, I suspect there might be a slight lens mount or sensor alignment problem. But by f/5.6 with the old Cron, both sides seem similarly sharp.

 

Primarily due to the soft edges that never reach central sharpness, I have decided to return the new version and keep the old one, for now.

[pechelman]

The more stringent side by side testing presented here, even if very mundane, indicates a significant difference in optical performance between the two versions, with the new one not necessarily an improvement. At least not for my preferences. In fact, for many of my urban and natural landscape uses, it is worse than the previous version.

 

Bottom line is I'm not happy with my copy of the lens.

 

It appears some may have received lenses that perform more consistently across the frame with sharp edges/corners. I'm also realistic about how sharp edges and corners need to be. For some types of images it's irrelevant. But for some of my images, I would like comparable sharpness to the center of the frame at f/5.6 or f/8. I'm not seeing it with the new one.

 

I would appreciate more feedback.

 

 

First off, Ron, thanks for all of your hard work to create this comparison, a comparison, which, I might add, I've been waiting for one of the "real reviewers" out there to do for quite some time. I've been frustrated with all of the corner crop reviews of the old and new versions. Having said that, I'm not sure I would characterize your V2 as a bad copy or as a copy that is behaving differently that what I've seen in the other comparisons. The corners are definitely sharper in your images just like they are on the others that I've seen. What you have shown, however, is that isnt the whole story. You have a very keen eye, because I feel I'd probably would have just noticed the sharper corners and not noticed the difference in field curvature just like everyone else.

 

Overall, I feel like the overall feel of the image is sharper with the V2 because the eye inevitably wanders to the edges and corners (especially when they are sharp(er)), and is led back into the frame by good composition. The eye will always see them and notice a drop in sharpness if one exists. If you're after a landscape lens, even with the difference in curvature, I'm wondering why you wouldnt prefer the V2 update. As an across the frame average, I think it might be more even or dare I say, more modern and more digital. 

 

Either way, overall, I prefer the images from the V1. Absolute corner sharpness means very little to me, especially when I find the V1 perfectly acceptable. I like the slightly gentler rendering. Gentler in this case having to do with color, contrast, distribution of sharpness, and the field curvature. To me it's a little more Mandler classic and I feel I see a bit of 35mm summaron in the V1, but maybe that's just me. Furthermore, it's as you say, when you stop the lens down, you want it to act predictably. Certainly I think you could deal with the V2 update after lots of use, but why bother with the original V1 already does what you want quite well?

 

After your comparison, which I personally believe to be representative of the V2 update, I am very happy I have a V1 and have no desire, whatsoever, to upgrade to the V2 update.

Edited June 7, 2016 by pechelman

[rscheffler]

I would have kept the v2 if the edges of the frame were reasonably close to central sharpness when stopped down. They're not, at least not with the copy I tried. Maybe it's just me, but the softer edges immediately jumped out at me while initially shooting the lens and also during the comparisons against the v1 Cron.

 

Viewed on its own, I could almost convince myself edge sharpness was acceptable. But as soon as I compared directly against the v1, the difference was obvious.

 

What I want is a reasonably flat field lens. Something like the 21 SEM. Instead 28 Cron v2 seems to morph from one that promises something along those lines wide open, to a lens with significant field curvature stopped down.

 

Indeed there are a number of aspects, including image quality, where v2 is arguably better. But the edges...!                                                                                  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

It is not Boricron vs Shiftocron but vs Lemoncron here. I am interested in the new lens to get sharper corners, not to get sharpness on the left and softness on the right of the other way around. At f/2 DoF can explain things like that eventually but not at f/5.6 with a 28mm lens... Unless you've got a faulty body, this lens should not have passed Leica's QC tests if you ask me.